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

151–160 of 181 posts

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

#151

Post by acdha »

josefresco wrote: post #96

Too bad the existing systems suck: https://www.thedrive.com/news/most-small-suvs-are-bad-at-aut... "The SUVs that participated in the test were the Subaru Forester, Honda CR-V, Toyota RAV4, Ford Escape, Mazda CX-5, Hyundai Tucson, Jeep Compass, Mitsubishi Outlander, Chevy Equinox, and the Volkswagen Taos. Of those ten SUVs only one (!) received the IIHS' "Good" rating—the Subaru Forester. After that, only two were ra…

It sounds like they made the test harder because the market has matured:

> The old test was done at 12 and 25 mph. Now that automakers' tech has improved dramatically since the first test was designed, the IIHS bumped the speeds up to 31, 37, and 43 mph.

> The vast majority of new vehicles now come with automatic emergency braking, and our research shows the technology prevents as many as half of all front-to-rear crashes. This new, tougher evaluation targets some of the most dangerous front-to-rear crashes that are still happening," said IIHS President David Harkey.

Making this a required feature seems like a great way to get manufacturers not to skimp on development.

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

#152

Post by acdha »

bsza wrote: post #142
foxyv wrote: post #88

There 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?

Edge cases like medical emergencies, natural disasters, terrorist attacks etc., where speeding can actually save lives. You can’t account for all of those in an automated system.

Those are movie plots. We know what happens in things like natural disasters: epic traffic jams because the roads have limited capacity and once people start thinking they can violate the laws they crash and make it even worse.

Medical emergencies are more plausible but it’s a collection of edge cases: you have to be somewhere a long way from the hospital, without an ambulance, no traffic, and safe road conditions for much higher speeds. If all of those aren’t true, you’re either making a bad situation much worse with a crash or running off the road (the most realistic places for this situation are rural areas where it’s often not safe to go even the posted limit around every curve) or you’re not really saving enough time to be meaningful. Even the ambulances rarely drive like that in those regions despite being much better trained, equipped, and experienced with the area.

Now, contrast those extremely low probability events with the tens of thousands of people killed by drivers every year and the hundreds of thousands who have life-altering injuries. How many people are we willing to write off so a bunch of people can fantasize about having the chance to play ambulance driver some day?

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

#153

Post by lamontcg »

spankalee wrote: post #87
pjc50 wrote: post #12

All 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.

The flip side is that its a tax on poorer people who need a vehicle to work.

If we had walkable cities with good public transportation and people had actual options it'd be different.

There's an intersection of anti-car and social justice concerns where you have to ask where the financial burden is hitting.

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

#154

Post by tommiegannert »

tommiegannert wrote: post #82
WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Having driven a vehicle with automatic braking, I find myself experiencing no positive feelings about this proposal. This post seems useful. As in - there are really important experiences behind it that we should know about. Or better yet, experiences that lawmakers should know about. Or worse yet, experiences do know about and disregard because it's an election year.

Don't know about GP, but the Mercedes A Class I drove a week ago had the fun idea that on narrow roads with oncoming traffic, it decided to break really hard and sway slightly onto the shoulder. Luckily it realized there was no shoulder, but a steel railing, before it hit it. One time, I was taken over by a car, and the car suddenly hits the breaks. Same thing there: it breaks harder on the right side, so it feels li…

(Ugh, FTR, I just realized it was a GLA, not A Class.)

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

#155

Post by pjc50 »

nomel wrote: post #149
spankalee wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We should also build more housing!

That's another significant problem. Any dense housing built near the city is, necessarily, corporate built, due to initial costs. The ability to own these units is disappearing [1], with much more profit being found by renting. This means that moving near a city is, almost always, a 100% loss, where you burn your housing cost every month, rather than building equity with something you can own some commute away. This…

> where you burn your housing cost every month

As opposed to travel cost?

(yes, it's a really stupid situation that renting a house is far more expensive than renting some money for thirty years)

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

#156

Post by bsza »

acdha wrote: post #152
bsza wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Edge cases like medical emergencies, natural disasters, terrorist attacks etc., where speeding can actually save lives. You can’t account for all of those in an automated system.

Those are movie plots. We know what happens in things like natural disasters: epic traffic jams because the roads have limited capacity and once people start thinking they can violate the laws they crash and make it even worse. Medical emergencies are more plausible but it’s a collection of edge cases: you have to be somewhere a long way from the hospital, without an ambulance, no traffic, and safe road conditions fo…

True, but on the other hand, it would only take one headline about people losing their lives while trying to drive off a bridge about to collapse at 20 kph to spark public outrage. We tend to be less sensitive to tragedies that occur due to an individual’s own bad decisions.

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

#157

Post by alphabettsy »

rascul wrote: post #70
alphabettsy wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This hasn’t been my experience. And like anything else, turn it off if you don’t like it and don’t buy the vehicle with poorly implemented technology.

In the truck we had with it, it couldn't be disabled. We tried pulling the fuse but then the truck wouldn't start.

What truck?

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

#158

Post by DontchaKnowit »

Retric wrote: post #86
DontchaKnowit wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are also atill going to crash if you break automatically in that scenario... i dont get your point

Not all collisions are equivalent. Suppose you and the car in front of you collided a fraction of a second later when both are doing 10MPH less, that alone removes a great deal of energy and thus risk. You may avoid whatever the first person was trying to avoid hitting or spinning into the next lain etc.

Okay fine, but youve now introduced a whole class of accidents (false positive caused wrecks) that didnt exist before.

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

#159

Post by Retric »

DontchaKnowit wrote: post #158
Retric wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not all collisions are equivalent. Suppose you and the car in front of you collided a fraction of a second later when both are doing 10MPH less, that alone removes a great deal of energy and thus risk. You may avoid whatever the first person was trying to avoid hitting or spinning into the next lain etc.

Okay fine, but youve now introduced a whole class of accidents (false positive caused wrecks) that didnt exist before.

You also eliminate an accidents where the system prevents a collision. Insurance companies pay attention to the total risk and it’s a clear benefit.

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

#160

Post by foxyv »

bsza wrote: post #142
foxyv wrote: post #88

There 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?

Edge cases like medical emergencies, natural disasters, terrorist attacks etc., where speeding can actually save lives. You can’t account for all of those in an automated system.

There is a reason that, during an emergency, people are urged to walk and not run. People panicking and running like a herd of gazelle results in accidents. Accidents clog exits and roads preventing escape.
Post reply on HN