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

501–510 of 512 posts

Re: Automatic emergency braking should become mandatory, feds say

#501

Post by uoaei »

Olreich wrote: post #389
thomastjeffery wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that there are more than two drivers involved: There is you, and the slow driver blocking traffic in the passing lane next to you. Then there are the 8 cars behind you, and at least one of those drivers is making everyone unsafe out of frustration. You can't do anything to change that driver's behavior. The situation persists until the system is altered.

Unfortunately, unless the frustrated driver is allowed to drive unimpeded at 100mph+, they will continue to be unsafe and make others unsafe. If there is enough traffic for you to be the slow car on the road, then that unsafe driver will be causing safety problems for all of you. Bottling them up in a line of cars going the same speed may be the safest course of action you can take for everyone.

Traffic engineers the world over would disagree that decreasing space between cars makes anyone safer.

What makes more sense is leaning on the raison d'etre of multi-lane highways: slower traffic keep right. Designed systems work best when used as designed.

Re: Automatic emergency braking should become mandatory, feds say

#502

Post by matheusmoreira »

Timon3 wrote: post #462
o_1 wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It should be optional period. You want to save lives how about disable stolen cars, so joy ride Kias dont kill pregnant mothers. Imagine emergency braking a F-350 with a gooseneck and two tractors on it. Does not end well.

What if it being optional increases death statistics massively? Should we really be ideologically driven instead of relying on data and measurable effects?

What if free will leads to wars, crimes, deaths? Surely the world would be safer if we sacrificed our humanity for security!

Re: Automatic emergency braking should become mandatory, feds say

#503

Post by matheusmoreira »

i_am_jl wrote: post #454
matheusmoreira wrote: post #440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you elaborate on that? Everything I've read about the ABS technology suggests it always improves steering and almost always reduces braking distance. Exceptions include surfaces like snow and gravel where it actually increases braking distances. If there's more to it than this, I could change my opinion on the matter: might be wise to have the option to disable in some situations.

> might be wise to have the option to disable in some situations Snow and gravel are the only valid situations where ABS can increase braking distance. However, disabling ABS is still a really poor idea. ABS increases braking distance in the snow because it allows the wheels to rotate so they can grip the road. ABS allowing your front wheels to rotate is why you have any marginal ability to steer and brake simultaneo…

I agree with you. I can't think of any situation I'd want to disable those systems either.

Re: Automatic emergency braking should become mandatory, feds say

#504

Post by matheusmoreira »

xnx wrote: post #461
matheusmoreira wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wanting to have control over the vehicle is not some "gearhead forum" thing at all. I barely care about cars and I still care about this. I'm the driver, I should be in control and there's literally no need to justify it any further. Anything that forcibly takes away control is automatically wrong from a basic human dignity perspective. I couldn't care less what governments or insurers think, I'm the goddamn human an…

This is a fine attitude for a closed course racetrack, but not appropriate on public roads given natural and universal fallibility.

Fallibility is not a valid reason to remove control from humans. A human should always have command over the vehicle, no matter what. You could argue that some humans shouldn't be driving cars at all and I'd agree.

Re: Automatic emergency braking should become mandatory, feds say

#505

Post by ChatGTP »

peteradio wrote: post #482
ceejayoz wrote: post #449

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. What we know, though, is "stop doing that" doesn't work. That's why aviation, highway safety, healthcare, tech postmortems, etc. have discovered that "please ask the human to stop doing human things" isn't the approach to take. Instead, we try to engineer away the opportunities for human error to kill people. (Quite successfully, in a lot of cases; as an example, aviation safety in the developed world is overal…

> That's a fact we have to accept. You can go ahead and do that but I think people are justifiably pissed that we require invasive technology to coddle the idiots who can't be bothered.

I don't like the whole, "we'll protect you from yourself attitude".

Re: Automatic emergency braking should become mandatory, feds say

#506

Post by Timon3 »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #502
Timon3 wrote: post #462

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if it being optional increases death statistics massively? Should we really be ideologically driven instead of relying on data and measurable effects?

What if free will leads to wars, crimes, deaths? Surely the world would be safer if we sacrificed our humanity for security!

We can easily pass a law requiring AEB in new cars. Can you explain the mechanism that would allow legislating free will? Or were you just looking for any counter example, no matter if it makes the least bit sense?

Re: Automatic emergency braking should become mandatory, feds say

#507

Post by kubanczyk »

tialaramex wrote: post #470
darkerside wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would love to know more

So for example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmGDpUnlMas is people learning to drive an ambulance in an urban environment, so, they're under blue lights with a siren, they're authorised (while learning and after completing training) to exceed speed limits, and break various other rules, but they're being trained to do this safely (or at least, more safely than most people probably drive normally) https://www.youtub…

I like the second one better. It's priceless to hear how slightly he accents unFORtunately he hasn't seen me after some driver blocks him for about 28 seconds despite blaring sirens.

Re: Automatic emergency braking should become mandatory, feds say

#508

Post by drewmol »

Vecr wrote: post #364
drewmol wrote: post #98

An eye tracking feature would be nice if incorporated into the AEB where it could be set to only activate if I’m not looking at the road in front of me. This plus have a disabling trigger on the steering wheel and auto disabled if you punch the gas from a stop. Uhhg… just imagine someone pointing a gun at you from the front of your car to carjack you, you duck while stepping on the gas - only for your tires to squeal…

From random evasive/tactical driving videos I've seen, you also need to be able to ram attackers, as well as the front wheel of a blocking car with your frame rail. This system would prevent you from using your car as a weapon in lawful self defense.

That’s what a disabling trigger on the steering wheel would be for, one of the reasons at least. There may be situations where I want to ensure it is off, such as in an environment where it has often detected false positives in the past.

Re: Automatic emergency braking should become mandatory, feds say

#509

Post by darkerside »

taeric wrote: post #444
darkerside wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Respectfully, you're taking an extremely naive stance to a topic where others are trying to bring nuance. I think if you listen carefully, you'd learn something that will help you not just on this topic but in your life. Logical fallacies like the base rate fallacy are real, and they fool all of us frequently, myself included. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy

Bringing nuance is fine, but it is also an easy stalling tactic in progress. Clear improvements in safety are shown in the studies linked here. From an organization that has shown remarkable progress in safety over the years. And has been beset with such "nuance" since the beginning. Literally the same arguments were and are made against seat belts. Often. And is why I am not too willing to give way here. Now, if you…

I think it is probably overall a safety improvement, and I think many of the arguments about losing control of your car are a bit overblown. But, there's something to them, and it rubs me the wrong way to ignore and dismiss those you disagree with. It's too easy to characterize a position you don't agree with as one that is operating in bad faith or ignorance.

Re: Automatic emergency braking should become mandatory, feds say

#510

Post by bzzzt »

tssva wrote: post #393
erhaetherth wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> somehow universally implemented across manufacturers... maybe. They'd need to be implemented and then turned off for 15 years until 99% of the old cars are off the road and then flipped on simultaneously for every car. If a car suddenly breaks then the car behind it better be able to suddenly break too.

The need to suddenly brake is not a new phenomenon. Cars without AEB can achieve it the old fashioned way. The driver applying the brake.

The AEB in my 2015 Volvo applies some extra force to the brakes which exceeds just pushing the brake pedal all the way down. Also, according to Volvo statistics it seems that half of all drivers who hit another vehicle from behind do not brake at all prior to the collision. So no, they won't achieve it the old fashioned way all the time.
Post reply on HN