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

251–260 of 512 posts

Re: Automatic emergency braking should become mandatory, feds say

#251

Post by ramblenode »

notatoad wrote: post #111
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…

this seems like the sort of thing that would be better measured with actual numbers, not just anecdotes from people on the internet. the NHTSA is a pretty cautious organization, and they like numbers. if they've studied it and found that automatic braking will prevent 24000 crashes and 360 deaths per year, i'd be inclined to believe them. having the car brake for me when i'm not expecting it sounds kind of scary to m…

> the NHTSA is a pretty cautious organization, and they like numbers.

They may be cautious but they're not necessarily smart. Their vehicle safety ratings only measure the safety of occupants in that vehicle. Result? An arms race where cars keep getting bigger, heavier, and taller to do better in crash tests against bigger, heavier, and taller cars. These "safer" vehicles are now more deadly to everyone else, especially pedestrians and bicyclists.

McNamara fallacy in action.

Re: Automatic emergency braking should become mandatory, feds say

#252

Post by CWuestefeld »

taeric wrote: post #140
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…

No, that isn't a problem with numbers. That is a problem with letting your imagination run things. The scenarios and questions you ask are easy to explore in the data. If the number of crashes goes down, contrived scenarios don't really impact things. If they stay flat or go up, then you have to answer why. To emphasize, for your imagination here to be relevant, the number has to do one of those. If the number goes d…

I disagree. I've been a licensed driver for over 40 years. I had one minor fender-bender at 16 years old, learned my lesson, and haven't had another accident since. I'm an exceptionally good driver as evidenced by this, plus the fact that I've taken performance driving classes, simulators, and so forth.

I, personally, am a much lower risk than the typical driver. Putting a drivers' aid device in my car may well increase the danger to me and those around me, even while having it in other cars decreases danger.

BTW - my car's traction control is evil. It's a rear wheel drive car, without limited slip. So when I pull out onto the road from a driveway, if there's the slightest bit of sand on the road, I get enough spin to engage the traction control. The car deals with this by vastly cutting engine power. In Texas, where the regular surface road I'm pulling out to is commonly 60mph, and often faster, I need to accelerate quickly to avoid the guy approaching - yet the traction control has just left me wallowing, dead in the water, unable to accelerate strongly. Except in wet conditions, disabling the traction control is always the first thing I do when I sit in the car.

Re: Automatic emergency braking should become mandatory, feds say

#253

Post by steve_adams_86 »

m463 wrote: post #92
steve_adams_86 wrote: post #11

The only time my vehicle ever used its emergency braking was when my wife’s mom was driving, and my entire family was in the car. I was so grateful for it. The scariest part was that she accelerated toward a truck that was travelling very slowly in front of us, the car braked so hard we were all pressed into our seatbelts and the car was audibly vibrating as it lurched from the anti lock brakes. We were literally inc…

I think this is human nature at play. She knew what happened. It's just that people don't confront huge mistakes like this head-on. I don't know how many people have pulled out in front of me, almost killing me and they seem to just wave. Although once an amazing thing happened. I had gotten up early at o-dark-thirty and was driving through the suburbs and this guy came barelling out of a sidestreet. I hit the brakes…

> I think this is human nature at play

Without a doubt it played a roll in suppressing what had happened. There is a weird dynamic where my wife won’t say things to upset her mom in particular ways, and this was one of those cases. They kind of mutually pretended the near-catastrophe away by behaving as though it was no different from a speed bump.

This is why I’m pretty sure we’re really not much different from a gorilla or something. We’ve got some sophisticated brain circuits but I have a deep seated sense that most of our brains are still the same old meatballs the other apes are packing around.

Re: Automatic emergency braking should become mandatory, feds say

#254

Post by Dylan16807 »

taeric wrote: post #140
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…

No, that isn't a problem with numbers. That is a problem with letting your imagination run things. The scenarios and questions you ask are easy to explore in the data. If the number of crashes goes down, contrived scenarios don't really impact things. If they stay flat or go up, then you have to answer why. To emphasize, for your imagination here to be relevant, the number has to do one of those. If the number goes d…

> If the number of crashes goes down, contrived scenarios don't really impact things.

Yes they do impact things.

Consider a pill that, given to a wide population of test subjects, reduces heart attacks by 20%. That's great! But when you look at the data more closely, it strongly reduces the risk for people older than 40, and it increases the risk for people under 40. Should you prescribe that pill to everyone at risk of heart attack? Of course not.

Does AEB have a pattern like this? Who knows! Someone should test or cite a good test!

Re: Automatic emergency braking should become mandatory, feds say

#255

Post by pdonis »

ceejayoz wrote: post #161
pdonis wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What percentage of Americans who did not wear seat belts suffered or caused harm because of it?

Enough? Consensus appears to be 300-400k people saved since 1975. Charting motor vehicle deaths against miles driven reveals a stark improvement in mortality as vehicle safety improved. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_safety_in_the_U...

> Consensus appears to be 300-400k people saved since 1975.

I don't see where that number is given in the article you referenced.

In any case, I didn't ask for a number, I asked for a percentage of people who didn't wear seat belts who suffered or caused harm because of it.

Re: Automatic emergency braking should become mandatory, feds say

#256

Post by tacticalturtle »

nradov wrote: post #35
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…

There appear to be major variations between manufacturers. I've driven many miles on a wide variety of roads in a Subaru and haven't experienced any false positive automatic braking incidents. However, the system does automatically disable itself (and warns the driver accordingly) in heavy precipitation so there is still significant room for improvement.

Anecdotally, I’ve been driving a 2019 Forester for the past few years, and every year or so - I’ve had an experience where taking an exit off the highway, it detects an object that isn’t there, and starts beeping and throwing up red warnings.

From what I can recall, it’s never gotten to the point of engaging the brake, but it’s super unsettling every time it happens.

Re: Automatic emergency braking should become mandatory, feds say

#257

Post by ke88y »

xormapmap wrote: post #242

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 tec…

> I'll choose not to use this technology, thanks.

Roads are public.

I have been rear-ended by another driver in a completely unavoidable situation (for me -- the other driver should've been paying attention; I saw the collision coming and honked but had nowhere to go).

I've also been in an accident as a passenger in a Uber. My Uber driver rear ended someone. I screamed at him twice but by the time he reacted it was too late.

I have never activated the emergency braking on my vehicle.

Re: Automatic emergency braking should become mandatory, feds say

#259

Post by dabluecaboose »

ceejayoz wrote: post #194
dabluecaboose wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Statistics are meaningless to the individual. >This is just blatantly untrue. I mean, it's not. Statistics describe how society on average acts, not how you personally act. Someone telling you "Statistically you're more likely to drown if you own a pool" doesn't mean as much if you bought a pool and then became a paraplegic, for example. Saying "emergency braking will bring down average car deaths" is probably tru…

Joebob’s car insurance premiums and taxes cover others’ car crashes. He is statistically impacted even if he’s a recluse without a car at all. (He might even be statistically more likely to run into the car he’s not used to seeing on the usually empty road via the stop sign he usually blows right through. Who knows?)

> (He might even be statistically more likely to run into the car he’s not used to seeing on the usually empty road via the stop sign he usually blows right through. Who knows?)

That's not how statistics work. Again, statistics mean little to the individual.

Re: Automatic emergency braking should become mandatory, feds say

#260

Post by ceejayoz »

pdonis wrote: post #255
ceejayoz wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Enough? Consensus appears to be 300-400k people saved since 1975. Charting motor vehicle deaths against miles driven reveals a stark improvement in mortality as vehicle safety improved. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_safety_in_the_U...

> Consensus appears to be 300-400k people saved since 1975. I don't see where that number is given in the article you referenced. In any case, I didn't ask for a number, I asked for a percentage of people who didn't wear seat belts who suffered or caused harm because of it.

> I don't see where that number is given in the article you referenced.

It's not hard to find. https://www.bankrate.com/insurance/car/seat-belt-statistics/ is an example claiming 329,715.

> In any case, I didn't ask for a number, I asked for a percentage of people who didn't wear seat belts who suffered or caused harm because of it.

Yes, I did notice that, and the not so subtle sleight of hand involved in it.

Post reply on HN