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

491–500 of 512 posts

Re: Automatic emergency braking should become mandatory, feds say

#491

Post by jjav »

globular-toast wrote: post #370
jjav wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the emergency braking system kicked in, braking much harder than I would have been able to So this is completely not true. You can brake as hard as any system can, there's no magic to it. Just press on the brake pedal hard, in any ABS car. Surprisingly, this is something people often don't do. I am an instructor at car control clinics, one of the exercises is panic braking. All you need to do it press on the brake…

In the UK the driving test includes an emergency stop which means everyone has to learn to do one. It definitely is surprising the first time you do one. It's worrying that there are drivers out there who haven't done one and don't even think they are capable of doing it when necessary.

Yes, unfortunately in the US getting a driving license does not include any car control training. It is really criminal negligence by the part of the government/DMV.

Re: Automatic emergency braking should become mandatory, feds say

#492

Post by mhb »

williamcotton wrote: post #485
mhb wrote: post #484

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's your point? On Wednesday, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a notice of proposed rulemaking that would see automatic emergency braking become a standard feature on all new light passenger vehicles.

mhb said: And the actual numbers should include the opportunity cost (in lives saved or QALYs, if you like) of the increased price of vehicles with these systems. Could that money have been spent on smoke detectors or healthier food or ? In response I said: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Then mhb said: What's your point? Can you explain what my point was to mhb? ChatGPT: It seems like you're suggestin…

Yeah. Duh. If you had included, in your prompt, the NHTSA quote that I quoted, ChatGPT might have been more helpful to you. Viz: On Wednesday, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a notice of proposed rulemaking that would see automatic emergency braking become a standard feature on all new light passenger vehicles.

That point being: maybe NHTSA's advocacy of a requirement for all new vehicles is beyond the scope of its mission and it should confine itself to providing information to the policy makers who might possibly understand the tradeoffs.

Re: Automatic emergency braking should become mandatory, feds say

#493

Post by boringuser2 »

HPsquared wrote: post #378
boringuser2 wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a solved engineering problem domain: use redundancy. There's a reason air travel is safe despite using many intricate safety technologies.

Redundancy doesn't work for design errors. You would need two diverse systems that have to agree before applying the brakes. This would also increase the "false negative" rate. It's a balance.

Why do you think these are design errors?

Re: Automatic emergency braking should become mandatory, feds say

#494

Post by taeric »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #488
taeric wrote: post #486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is how many FUD tactics are done. It is a rhetorical trick to try and maintain an exit...

Yes, but sharing a characteristic with FUD is not enough to make something FUD. It's a realistic concern. Someone else mentioned airbags. Airbags are great overall but increase danger for some people, and that's without obvious signs of anything being wrong. With AEB we know it makes dangerous mistakes in significant amounts. So we very much should analyze different implementations under different kinds of weather, r…

We don't know it makes dangerous mistakes. Randos on the internet assert that. The data shows fairly convincing evidence is reduces wrecks.

Is it a new behavior and jarring when engaged? Certainly. Should we keep watching the data for problems? Certainly. Should folks report all problems so that they are tracked? Certainly.

Do most people actually have trouble driving safely? Despite their insistent view of how great they are at driving? ...

Re: Automatic emergency braking should become mandatory, feds say

#495

Post by Dylan16807 »

taeric wrote: post #494
Dylan16807 wrote: post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but sharing a characteristic with FUD is not enough to make something FUD. It's a realistic concern. Someone else mentioned airbags. Airbags are great overall but increase danger for some people, and that's without obvious signs of anything being wrong. With AEB we know it makes dangerous mistakes in significant amounts. So we very much should analyze different implementations under different kinds of weather, r…

We don't know it makes dangerous mistakes. Randos on the internet assert that. The data shows fairly convincing evidence is reduces wrecks. Is it a new behavior and jarring when engaged? Certainly. Should we keep watching the data for problems? Certainly. Should folks report all problems so that they are tracked? Certainly. Do most people actually have trouble driving safely? Despite their insistent view of how great…

Do I need to go find dashcams? We know it makes dangerous mistakes. Come on.

Re: Automatic emergency braking should become mandatory, feds say

#496

Post by ramblenode »

taeric wrote: post #446
aposticknit wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think they have a great point though, accurate measurement of the types of incidents is just as important if not more than the total.

This conjures the fear that the agency in question is bad at this. Do you have evidence that they are? Can it happen? Yes. We could also have it so that no wrecks from minorities are counted, such that we are blind to how they are impacted. Would be terrible. No evidence that that has happened.

> This conjures the fear that the agency in question is bad at this. Do you have evidence that they are?

Yes. This was my movivation for questioning the "data says" logic. The NHTSA has made decisions based on data that were poor decisions because they misunderstood the problem domain and became overly reliant on specific metrics. Here is a copy-paste of an earlier comment in this thread:

--

> 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

#497

Post by taeric »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #495
taeric wrote: post #494

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don't know it makes dangerous mistakes. Randos on the internet assert that. The data shows fairly convincing evidence is reduces wrecks. Is it a new behavior and jarring when engaged? Certainly. Should we keep watching the data for problems? Certainly. Should folks report all problems so that they are tracked? Certainly. Do most people actually have trouble driving safely? Despite their insistent view of how great…

Do I need to go find dashcams? We know it makes dangerous mistakes. Come on.

This is not one I will cede without evidence, so yeah. With the amusing extra burden that I have yet to know a safe driver that used a dash camera.

I have been in a car where the alert went off that it was engaging aeb. The driver was far too close to the car in front of us...

Re: Automatic emergency braking should become mandatory, feds say

#498

Post by taeric »

ramblenode wrote: post #496
taeric wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This conjures the fear that the agency in question is bad at this. Do you have evidence that they are? Can it happen? Yes. We could also have it so that no wrecks from minorities are counted, such that we are blind to how they are impacted. Would be terrible. No evidence that that has happened.

> This conjures the fear that the agency in question is bad at this. Do you have evidence that they are? Yes. This was my movivation for questioning the "data says" logic. The NHTSA has made decisions based on data that were poor decisions because they misunderstood the problem domain and became overly reliant on specific metrics. Here is a copy-paste of an earlier comment in this thread: -- > the NHTSA is a pretty c…

I'm at against bigger cars as you can be. Literally biking to places when I can. I am not clear that this is the nhtsa's fault.

That said, I could cede this point if you can show evidence of it in these studies. The org is a bunch of people, so I grant they could make mistakes. Without specific concerns, this is the definition of fud. You aren't giving criticism of these studies and actions, but seeding doubt on their data.

Re: Automatic emergency braking should become mandatory, feds say

#499

Post by mikrotikker »

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…

The number of crashes will go up because of this "safety" feature. And then we'll be stuck with this "safety" feature for decades till the govt gets their act together to undo what they did.

I'll keep my 30yo car with no computers as long as I can thank you very much.

Re: Automatic emergency braking should become mandatory, feds say

#500

Post by Dylan16807 »

taeric wrote: post #497
Dylan16807 wrote: post #495

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do I need to go find dashcams? We know it makes dangerous mistakes. Come on.

This is not one I will cede without evidence, so yeah. With the amusing extra burden that I have yet to know a safe driver that used a dash camera. I have been in a car where the alert went off that it was engaging aeb. The driver was far too close to the car in front of us...

Let's see, what can I find on youtube in a couple minutes of searching. In increasing order of wrongness:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLRRBHNjCn4 There's a car that it's reasonable to worry about, but it was clearly braking and almost stopped by the time AEB kicked in, and AEB kept going as that car went to zero.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TO6tJnM_HSs Adaptive cruise was already in control and working fine.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCk6yrN453c Absolutely nothing in front.

And whatever happened here probably counts: https://theintercept.com/2023/01/10/tesla-crash-footage-auto...

Post reply on HN