Earlier quoted context omitted.
The first thing I hear people argue against is their "freedom" to drive their car without the government telling them what they can and cannot do. But you already don't have the freedom to drive as fast as you want, and the current enforcement system is to come face-to-face with a cop. I, personally, would prefer a system where my car physically will not allow me to drive over the speed limit. The problem though is t…
More speed can also be safer in some scenarios
U.S. to require automatic emergency braking on new vehicles in 5 years
121–130 of 181 posts
Re: U.S. to require automatic emergency braking on new vehicles in 5 years
#122Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because it would make roads less safe. It's very common to need to *accelerate* in emergency situations. Something like smart cruise control which drives the speed limit would be appreciated. A hard cap would not.
Like when
You're passing a broken-down vehicle, a deer that hoped into the road, a toddler, or otherwise go into the opposite lane. There is an incoming car, and you need to merge back before a head-on collision, without hitting whatever you're passing.
Floor it and merge.
I can name many other scenarios, but generally, emergency maneuvers are helped by good control over the car, including braking, turning, and acceleration.
There are nice charts showing accidents per million miles driven by car, and the best ones I've seen are anyone, but not testosterone-promoting agile. Crash ratings are misleading since many of the safest cars in a crash also crash a lot more often and have higher fatalities overall since bigger cars are less likely to be able to avoid an accident.
Re: U.S. to require automatic emergency braking on new vehicles in 5 years
#123All this technology has the effect of pushing up the cost of vehicles, often for questionable minor safety improvements. Is there a good analysis of why the road safety trend has gone the wrong way in the US lately?
Pushing up the cost of cars is good. They're damaging to the environment, people, and our infrastructure. The minimum we can be doing right now is to lower the safety risk and emissions of them.
Where I am, my car commute is 30 minutes. If I moved closer, shaving it to 10 minutes, my housing costs double. If I get down to 5, housing costs are about 4x.
If I use public transport now, the travel time is 2 hours. To keep my public transport to 30 minutes, I have to ~2x my housing costs.
I think, realistically, people will just end up commuting further, to offset the cost, since that is the best financial, and time, choice.
Re: U.S. to require automatic emergency braking on new vehicles in 5 years
#124There is one safety feature that would universally make cars safer and not require radar or computers. Just simple speed governors based on geo-fencing and radio speed limit signs. It would be trivially easy to install on existing vehicles and much less expensive on new vehicles. In addition it would increase pedestrian safety by leaps and bounds. We do it for electric bicycles and scooters. Why not cars?
Probably because public backlash would be insane. There is very little political or economic incentive to push something like that. It's kind of like banning alcohol. Yeah, it's bad for us (individually and collectively) but most of the population does it anyways and we're used to it. Taking that away would cause massive outrage.
I think the far more politically dangerous proposition is fighting with the automotive lobby.
https://www.treehugger.com/big-surprise-car-industry-doesnt-...
Re: U.S. to require automatic emergency braking on new vehicles in 5 years
#125Earlier quoted context omitted.
More speed can also be safer in some scenarios
Like when
Like when everyone else is speeding.
If everyone is going 80 mph, then being the one driver actually obeying the 65 mph speed limit puts you and everyone around you in MORE danger.
Would it be safer for everyone to be going 65 mph? Absolutely. I'm definitely not disputing that.
But speed differential is more dangerous than speed itself.
EDIT: To be more accurate, speed differential makes crashes more likely, but speed overall obviously makes the crashes more likely to be fatal. Whether it's safer to go 80 when everyone is going 80 to reduce the likelyhood of a crash, or if it's safer to go 65 mph to reduce the severity of a crash if it happens is very debatable, and I'm not sure there are good enough statistics to back up either claim.
Re: U.S. to require automatic emergency braking on new vehicles in 5 years
#126Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because it would make roads less safe. It's very common to need to *accelerate* in emergency situations. Something like smart cruise control which drives the speed limit would be appreciated. A hard cap would not.
> Because It would make roads less safe. Speeding makes roads less safe too. Wouldn’t you agree that there would be a net reduction in serious injury and death from enforcing the speed limit? > It’s very common to need to accelerate in emergency situations Very common to accelerate past the speed limit when you’re already at/above it? Acceleration is usually useful as a safety tool when you’re at a stop and want to c…
I think there are soft mechanisms which could enforce speed limits which would need both needs.
Even an obnoxious beeper like for seatbelts.
I prefer the seatbelt beeper to having seatbelts which won't unfasten until the car has come to a complete stop, or cars which don't start without seatbelts. Not everything needs to be enforced with force.
Re: U.S. to require automatic emergency braking on new vehicles in 5 years
#127There is one safety feature that would universally make cars safer and not require radar or computers. Just simple speed governors based on geo-fencing and radio speed limit signs. It would be trivially easy to install on existing vehicles and much less expensive on new vehicles. In addition it would increase pedestrian safety by leaps and bounds. We do it for electric bicycles and scooters. Why not cars?
I'd be happy with a top speed cap of 85 mph to start.
This alone would be a great start. Lately I've had at least three instances of people doing over 100mph barely avoid hitting me in the far right lane as they zig zag across the freeway. It's gotten to the point that driving after 1 AM is like being on the runway of an international airport.
Re: U.S. to require automatic emergency braking on new vehicles in 5 years
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because it would make roads less safe. It's very common to need to *accelerate* in emergency situations. Something like smart cruise control which drives the speed limit would be appreciated. A hard cap would not.
Fatality rates drop dramatically with lowered speed. I have yet to see an emergency situation where acceleration makes any difference. Brakes are often an order of magnitude more powerful than the car's engine.
Never been in the path of a speeding police car or ambulance rushing to an emergency from behind you and wanted to get out of the way at the next intersection, just 100m ahead?
Statistics didn't support you. Look at deaths per mile for vehicles. The worst ones are lumbering hulks which can't do avoidance maneuvers.
Re: U.S. to require automatic emergency braking on new vehicles in 5 years
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
More speed can also be safer in some scenarios
Like when
I've found that many drivers feel uncomfortable being passed by other drivers. They translate that discomfort to being "Less Safe." Despite the fact that they are objectively much safer traveling at slower speeds. Not many people appreciate the difference in fatality rates between 65 and 85 mph. Fatality rates go from 20% to 70%. In addition, your ability to control your car in a minor collision at high speeds is heavily compromised.
https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speedmgt/ref_mats/fhwasa1304/Res...
Edit: It appears the source above is for pedestrian collisions in kph. However speeding is a factor in 1/3 of traffic fatalities.
https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/speed-campaign-speeding...
Re: U.S. to require automatic emergency braking on new vehicles in 5 years
#130Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fatality rates drop dramatically with lowered speed. I have yet to see an emergency situation where acceleration makes any difference. Brakes are often an order of magnitude more powerful than the car's engine.
Never been in the path of a speeding police car or ambulance rushing to an emergency from behind you and wanted to get out of the way at the next intersection, just 100m ahead? Statistics didn't support you. Look at deaths per mile for vehicles. The worst ones are lumbering hulks which can't do avoidance maneuvers.
If you are in the path of a police car or ambulance, you are required to slow down and pull over to the right. Death rates per mile have a loose correlation to vehicle size. However, engine size has a high correlation to deaths per mile. Sports cars love to kill their drivers.
https://www.iihs.org/ratings/driver-death-rates-by-make-and-...