Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Automatic emergency braking should become mandatory, feds say

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 512 posts

Re: Automatic emergency braking should become mandatory, feds say

#241

Post by pbazarnik »

SkyPuncher wrote: post #202
dabluecaboose wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not exclusively a "gearhead" opinion to not want a system in your car that can violently take control away from you unexpectedly Statistics are meaningless to the individual. Sure, emergency braking might be safer across the board, but that means little compared to an individual who already drives safely without it.

I have two vehicles with this system and they have never “violently taken control”. In most situations, the system gives an audible alert while pretension the brakes. If you react within the alert window you retain full control with the benefit of firm brakes (y’all ever remember getting soft brakes?). I don’t even want to know what situations I’d need to be in for my vehicle to actually emergency brake, but I don’t…

Same here: Honda CR-V 2020. It uses single lens (so not a stereoscopic vision) and radar. Never did it brake hard, only warning and few times brake pretension. It will occasionally give false positives on a street curving left with cars parked on the right side. Once it did warn on a highway most likely due to metal comb joint of the elevated road section. (I specifically looked at what could be the cause) The driver reaction within a time window is likely important factor in preventing the system to elevate. I have good reflexes and will put my feet slightly on the brake in such situations.

Honda had a recall for an older AEB system 2017-2019 Accord and CRV:

https://www.consumerreports.org/cars/car-recalls-defects/nht...

Re: Automatic emergency braking should become mandatory, feds say

#242

Post by xormapmap »

Most of the comments in favour of this technology seem to be "It saved me from rear-ending someone because I wasn't concentrating". On the other hand comments against this technology are essentially "It had a false positive and almost killed me". As I'm capable of maintaining good following distance, riding to the conditions, braking correctly, and being aware of the traffic around me; I'll choose not to use this technology, thanks.

Re: Automatic emergency braking should become mandatory, feds say

#243

Post by frankchn »

randomfinn wrote: post #78
mkmk wrote: post #19

This feature once saved me from what would have otherwise been a very nasty crash, many years ago. I was driving too fast in a borrowed car over a small hill and hadn't realized that traffic had stopped just out of my sight until too late. I heard a beep and saw flashing on my dash and I started braking but a moment later the emergency braking system kicked in, braking much harder than I would have been able to. The…

> braking much harder than I would have been able to Any idea why you weren't able to apply full brakes? I remember reading that most people don't in an emergency and that's why the emergency brake boost was created, but haven't seen the reason for it.

To add on, most people have never experienced what “full braking” is in any car since it is so uncommon to even use half of the ultimate braking power a car can deliver in a non-track day or non-emergency situation. Even a modern Toyota Camry can sustain on average >1 g of deceleration force from 70 mph to 0.

Thus, people think they have applied full brakes but in reality they are only 60-70% of the way there.

Re: Automatic emergency braking should become mandatory, feds say

#244

Post by [deleted] »

ceejayoz wrote: post #95
dabluecaboose wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not exclusively a "gearhead" opinion to not want a system in your car that can violently take control away from you unexpectedly Statistics are meaningless to the individual. Sure, emergency braking might be safer across the board, but that means little compared to an individual who already drives safely without it.

> Statistics are meaningless to the individual. This is just blatantly untrue. > means little compared to an individual who already drives safely without it Until emergency breaking stops a bad driver from T-boning you in an intersection as they run a red light. “I’ll just drive safely” was the argument against seatbelts, airbags, and antilock brakes. Motorcycle helmets, too.

[deleted]

Re: Automatic emergency braking should become mandatory, feds say

#245

Post by amanaplanacanal »

bentcorner wrote: post #149
r00t4ccess wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not the poster Vw golf r 2016 the sensor was low to the ground and it would randomly brake for stuff it thought was a threat like a cardboard box. Subaru crosstrek 2018 - would brake for no reason, cars turning up ahead of me, etc. VW atlas 2019 - brake for no reason would also scream at me and show a red symbol on the hud when nothing was in the road in front of me. Subaru impreza 2023 - brakes for turning vehicles…

> Subaru crosstrek 2018 - would brake for no reason, cars turning up ahead of me, etc. Another anecdote - I have the exact same car and haven't had it do anything unexpected. It would really help if Subaru et. al. had ways to offer feedback back to them, because experiences like yours should be shared with them so they can understand what kind of corner cases some drivers are getting into. > I also had the lane assis…

I have the same car and my experience matches yours. Lane assist is just a tiny nudge, and I've never had the emergency braking kick in. I wonder what causes the different behavior?

Re: Automatic emergency braking should become mandatory, feds say

#246

Post by 2h »

jacquesm wrote: post #6

This almost got me into a serious accident, twice. Definitely would not recommend and I switched cars because of it. The last thing I need is buggy software with the capability of instantly changing the trajectory of my vehicle (slippery surfaces, cornering). A brand car as well (MB) so really, really disappointed, what should have been a safety feature actually was the opposite. Dealer said everything was fine so th…

> MB

https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercedes-Benz

Re: Automatic emergency braking should become mandatory, feds say

#247

Post by eep_social »

asoneth wrote: post #26
version_five wrote: post #2

Regulatory capture marches forward. In an environment where small, cheap, runabout electric vehicles could become very popular, I expect lots of "for your safety" reasons why cars have to be complicated and expensive.

Multi-ton vehicles capable of moving at highway speeds are dangerous and kill roughly a hundred people a day in the US[1]. So whether these changes are driven by regulatory capture or not it makes perfect sense to tightly regulate automobiles. Personally I think consumers should be free to decide things like seatbelt and airbag use but if they drive on public roadways they should not be allowed to make cost/benefit t…

> make cost/benefit tradeoffs that decrease the safety of those around them

And yet we see that truck and suv purchases are through the roof with buyers regularly expressing the sentiment that they would rather be in a large vehicle to keep themselves and the other occupants safe. Generally the other side, which is fuck the pedestrians, cyclists, or other drivers who cannot afford to drive a full sized truck to starbucks, is left unsaid.

Re: Automatic emergency braking should become mandatory, feds say

#248

Post by akira2501 »

drivebycomment wrote: post #219
akira2501 wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The majority of people killed in crashes are impaired by alcohol or drugs or both. 1/6 of all fatalities are pedestrians, and another 1/6 are motorcycles, despite only being 1/10 of all registered vehicles. There are tons of modes in this data. Assessing all crash fatalities as some sort of "general" problem you can target misses this fact. The single greatest thing you could do to reduce fatalities is to eliminate d…

This comment is irrelevant to the discussion of the AEB, since, AEB doesn't prevent anyone else from working on eliminating drunk and impaired driving. If anything, AEB would help mitigate some of the impact from the drunk and impaired driving.

> This comment is irrelevant to the discussion of the AEB,

This discussion is about _mandating_ AEB, not it's mere existence or implementation, and of the overall value of that proposition; which, I am suggesting is low relative to all other problems and efforts spent mandating this would be better spent elsewhere.

> If anything, AEB would help mitigate some of the impact from the drunk and impaired driving.

Are these systems tested for this use case? I'd like to see that. Otherwise, this is a guess, and a bad one.

Re: Automatic emergency braking should become mandatory, feds say

#249

Post by Dylan16807 »

tqi wrote: post #139
LeifCarrotson wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with numbers is that they don't tell the whole story. I can easily imagine a scenario where it might prevent 25000 crashes a year that are caused because 5% of drivers are staring at their phones, have a high chance of rear-ending someone, and this software makes that far less likely. While also containing bugs causing 1000 crashes a year for the larger number of non-distracted drivers, resulting in a net…

That's true of basically any change isn't it? Even seat belts conceivably could result in some very small increase in the chance of death as a result of it being harder to escape a vehicle. Obviously the benefits far outweigh the risk, but then we are just arguing over where to draw the line.

I think you missed their point. It's not that most situations are improved and some get worse, it's that those situations might be unevenly distributed among drivers.

A seat belt is basically the same for everyone. It makes things safer when you look at all drivers, and it makes things safer for just about any subgroup of drivers.

But a buggy AEB might not fit that pattern. Imagine a system that reduces crashes by half, but then adds an extra X crashes per million miles. If someone's unassisted crash rate is 5X, then this system reduces it to 3.5X and is a great help. If someone's unassisted crash rate is .5X, then this system increases their crash rate to 1.25X and is a terrible trade.

Re: Automatic emergency braking should become mandatory, feds say

#250

Post by midoridensha »

ISL wrote: post #234
midoridensha wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lane-keeping should only be active with cruise control active. You shouldn't be using it in city traffic, ever.

Automatic lane-keeping assist is generally turned on at all times with modern cars.

Interesting; when did this happen? From my experience, ~2017-era cars had it only as part of cruise control.

Keeping it on at all times sounds like a terrible idea for cars used in the US, because it's a developing nation with extremely poor road quality. In developed nations, it's probably OK because you can count on the road markings being good almost everywhere, but not in the US.

Post reply on HN