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

U.S. to require automatic emergency braking on new vehicles in 5 years

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 181 posts

Re: U.S. to require automatic emergency braking on new vehicles in 5 years

#131

Post by foxyv »

grobbyy wrote: post #122
jncfhnb wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. T…

In all of the instances you mention, it is recommended that you use your brakes. NOT go faster. Who sees a toddler in the road and floors it? Are you avoiding rocket children?

Re: U.S. to require automatic emergency braking on new vehicles in 5 years

#132

Post by hroa »

We have a 2017 Highlander, and the automatic emergency breaking has avoided accidents at least 3 times. One time, my wife was at an intersection turning right. She was looking left for an opening, and a teenager saw the same opening and tried to run across the street as she accelerated into the right turn. The automatic breaking saved him and my wife from a sad situation.

Re: U.S. to require automatic emergency braking on new vehicles in 5 years

#134

Post by tristor »

This system was the first thing I turned off in my new (2024) car because it was triggered by road debris and almost got me rear-ended on the Interstate by a semi doing 75mph.

This technology is too error prone to be mandatory. All I want are less huge vehicles on the road and a return to normal cars and all the improvements in handling and dynamic performance we have gained over the decades.

As long as I can see far ahead and my view isn’t blocked by some blocky shitbox SUV, and my vehicle handles well, I can avoid nearly any possible collision.

Re: U.S. to require automatic emergency braking on new vehicles in 5 years

#135

Post by grobbyy »

foxyv wrote: post #131
grobbyy wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. T…

In all of the instances you mention, it is recommended that you use your brakes. NOT go faster. Who sees a toddler in the road and floors it? Are you avoiding rocket children?

In the situation described, I already charged lanes to avoid the toddler / deer / stopped car.

The question is what I do about the incoming car I didn't notice.

A) change back and hit the toddler

B) do nothing, and have a fatal head-on collision

C) hit the brakes, and have a non-fatal head-on collision

D) speed up a little bit, so I can get back into my lane before the other car gets here

Re: U.S. to require automatic emergency braking on new vehicles in 5 years

#136

Post by tristor »

drawkward wrote: post #44
jajko wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah this technology ain't mature in any way, 99% or 99,9% is simply not good enough to deploy anywhere en masse. Lane assists, braking, collision recognition - I've seen false positives, I've seen no reaction where there should be one. By far the safest driving for me is simply having experience and no assistants enabled, ever. I know this begs question how to get to that level, these flawed helpers can maybe statis…

Yet, those 1% or 0.1% false positives, even if they kill the car's occupants, may still reduce the aggregate number of deaths. I expect government to make choices that are best for society at large, rather than for any individual.

> I expect government to make choices that are best for society at large, rather than for any individual.

I expect the government to ensure the market contains accurate information and leave me alone to make choices for myself, not kill me to save 20 other people without my input or consent.

Re: U.S. to require automatic emergency braking on new vehicles in 5 years

#138

Post by Sohcahtoa82 »

foxyv wrote: post #129
flerchin wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 hea…

I've read both of your links, and both fail to address one scenario and a question regarding it:

If EVERYONE is driving 80 mph, is it more dangerous to be the one person deciding to drive 65 mph?

Most studies and statistics either focus on speed alone OR being the ONE person driving 80 while everyone else is driving 65.

Speed differential increases the frequency of crashes, and overall speed makes crashes worse. I posit that the best crash is the one that doesn't happen, so reducing the frequency of a crash by going with the flow of traffic is the safer option.

Re: U.S. to require automatic emergency braking on new vehicles in 5 years

#139

Post by grobbyy »

foxyv wrote: post #130
grobbyy wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-...

I would encourage you to look more closely. Safest mainstream car is Chevy Bolt which (1) isn't bought by douchebags to show off (2) does 0-60 on 6.6 seconds, on par with muscle cars, exactly as I described.

Re: U.S. to require automatic emergency braking on new vehicles in 5 years

#140

Post by jncfhnb »

grobbyy wrote: post #135
foxyv wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In all of the instances you mention, it is recommended that you use your brakes. NOT go faster. Who sees a toddler in the road and floors it? Are you avoiding rocket children?

In the situation described, I already charged lanes to avoid the toddler / deer / stopped car. The question is what I do about the incoming car I didn't notice. A) change back and hit the toddler B) do nothing, and have a fatal head-on collision C) hit the brakes, and have a non-fatal head-on collision D) speed up a little bit, so I can get back into my lane before the other car gets here

If swerving into another lane to avoid a toddler rather than stopping is a “common” scenario, you already sound like a psychopathically reckless driver. In none of those situations should you be swerving into the wrong side of traffic. You should be stopping. And then, if necessary, carefully going into the other lane.

Your examples are comically dangerous

Edit: in fact, specifically you remind me of Richard Horne in twin peaks season 3:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=V62BJFn-BTQ

Post reply on HN