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

271–280 of 512 posts

Re: Automatic emergency braking should become mandatory, feds say

#271

Post by taeric »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #254
taeric wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> If the number of crashes goes down, contrived scenarios don't really impact things. Yes they do impact things. Consider a pill that, given to a wide population of test subjects, reduces heart attacks by 20%. That's great! But when you look at the data more closely, it strongly reduces the risk for people older than 40, and it increases the risk for people under 40. Should you prescribe that pill to everyone at risk…

TFA links a meta analysis. With a 38% impact, that is going to be tough to argue against. So... Consider it cited, but you aren't looking?

Re: Automatic emergency braking should become mandatory, feds say

#272

Post by trgn »

getmeinrn wrote: post #138

I've always wondered why brakes don't have a variable brightness based on how hard the driver is braking. If you've ever been behind someone who has braked hard, part of the danger is not realizing just how fast they're stopping.

New cars they flicker rapidly I thought

Re: Automatic emergency braking should become mandatory, feds say

#273

Post by im3w1l »

Drunk_Engineer wrote: post #183

Risk Compensation theory predicts this technology will increase risky behavior by drivers. It has been well established that people adjust their behavior in response to perceived risk -- and if the car is going to handle the emergency braking it will cause more dangerous speeds and tailgating. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation

Well first, people respond to perceived risk rather than actual risk, so those paradoxical instances where accidents increase comes when something seems safe - but isn't.

Secondly, consider you have to consider what compensation buys you. People bringing up risk compensation often forget that. Doing a task faster and with less concentration, these are real benefits that makes peoples lives better.

Third, people don't fully compensate for risk. Often a safety technology will both reduce accidents and let you get the job done faster.

Re: Automatic emergency braking should become mandatory, feds say

#274

Post by taeric »

omginternets wrote: post #211
taeric wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 question is whether anyone is actually interrogating the data in that way, not whether it can be interrogated. Large data-driven institutions are notorious for taking a narrow view of things. The problem is precisely a lack of imagination, or perhaps more accurately, critical thought. The parent is precisely engaged in the kind of interrogation that is necessary. If you are aware or an analysis that bears on his…

This feels like sophistry to hinder progress. The OP is literally about studies done. Did you find problems with them? Or are you only imagining problems there could be?

Re: Automatic emergency braking should become mandatory, feds say

#275

Post by marklubi »

ddalcino wrote: post #20
jacquesm wrote: post #6

This almost got me into a serious accident, twice. Definitely would not recommend and I switched cars because of it. The last thing I need is buggy software with the capability of instantly changing the trajectory of my vehicle (slippery surfaces, cornering). A brand car as well (MB) so really, really disappointed, what should have been a safety feature actually was the opposite. Dealer said everything was fine so th…

Would you care to elaborate on what went wrong? The other comments here make ‘automatic emergency braking’ sound like a really good idea, and it’s hard for me to imagine that this particular feature would be so problematic. If you’re talking about other automatic steering features, that’s very different, and your comment makes more sense to me.

Anecdotal, but I was riding with my friend on the highway (~70 mph) with absolutely nobody in front of us, and the automatic braking kicked in out of nowhere. Thankfully the one other person on the road that was a bit behind us swerved and avoided rear ending us.

After that experience, I don't want a vehicle with that functionality in it, and don't want other cars on the road having it. It's half-baked at best.

It had happened enough times to him, and he complained to the dealership enough, that they bought the vehicle back from him. Who knows if these incidents were ever reported to the NHTSA since no physical collisions with other cars occurred.

Re: Automatic emergency braking should become mandatory, feds say

#276

Post by Dylan16807 »

tqi wrote: post #264
Dylan16807 wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you missed their point. It's not that most situations are improved and some get worse, it's that those situations might be unevenly distributed among drivers. A seat belt is basically the same for everyone. It makes things safer when you look at all drivers, and it makes things safer for just about any subgroup of drivers. But a buggy AEB might not fit that pattern. Imagine a system that reduces crashes by ha…

> it's that those situations might be unevenly distributed among drivers. I think that may be true in all cases - for example seat belts and airbags requirements may affect people differently depending on height and weight?

Well specifically the idea is that it's so uneven it might increase the danger for certain groups, and seatbelts are pretty good overall. But bringing up airbags is a great example. If you're short enough (or possibly if you're tall enough), a standard airbag is more dangerous than nothing at all.

Re: Automatic emergency braking should become mandatory, feds say

#277

Post by Dylan16807 »

taeric wrote: post #271
Dylan16807 wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If the number of crashes goes down, contrived scenarios don't really impact things. Yes they do impact things. Consider a pill that, given to a wide population of test subjects, reduces heart attacks by 20%. That's great! But when you look at the data more closely, it strongly reduces the risk for people older than 40, and it increases the risk for people under 40. Should you prescribe that pill to everyone at risk…

TFA links a meta analysis. With a 38% impact, that is going to be tough to argue against. So... Consider it cited, but you aren't looking?

You're not listening. The 38% number can be true and there can be particular groups that are hurt more than helped. Nobody is trying to "argue against" the 38% number.

Re: Automatic emergency braking should become mandatory, feds say

#278

Post by taeric »

ramblenode wrote: post #268
taeric wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 scenarios and questions you ask are easy to explore in the data. This sounds like the beginnings of the McNamara fallacy: that there is some abstract "data" where all the relevant variables can be explored to decide the best course of action. The reason it's a fallacy is that data is itself only a reflection of conscientious decisions about what to measure and how to measure, and these are invariably limited to…

Again, you are contriving bullshit to scare folks. And you didn't look at the studies. 38% decrease in accidents along with decrease in fatalities. In the data. For the worries you are sprouting, the data would have to look very different.

Re: Automatic emergency braking should become mandatory, feds say

#279

Post by taeric »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #277
taeric wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TFA links a meta analysis. With a 38% impact, that is going to be tough to argue against. So... Consider it cited, but you aren't looking?

You're not listening. The 38% number can be true and there can be particular groups that are hurt more than helped. Nobody is trying to "argue against" the 38% number.

In a cost benefit, if the number drops 38%, you are going to have to work to show it isn't worth it. What would the number have to be?

Can they make the system even better by finding cases it didn't help? Almost certainly. Progress isn't a straight line, but increases are increases.

Re: Automatic emergency braking should become mandatory, feds say

#280

Post by grepfru_it »

grugagag wrote: post #196
hnick wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My new car has lane keep assist and AEB and I haven't had these issues. From what I hear it's very much to do with a maker's implementation (mine is Hyundai, who for various reasons seems to have a bad reputation in North America but a good one in Australia). For the lane keep assist I feel a nudge but it's extremely easy to overcome just through a normal grip on the wheel - if I don't budge it won't move. It's been…

Maybe also it depends on the type of traffic and local driving habits and what saves your life in one city or country could kill you in another. The thing is, I’d rather have it disabled and not save lives but also not take any by default. It will surely improve over time and if it becomes flawless sure, I’d take it. The thing is that I don’t wan’t to be beta testing with my life or my passengers lives. In cases wher…

Definitely. As a New Yorker now living in the Deep South, it’s night and day. All of those features are off (including traction control) in the northern cities. You need to be on your toes in nyc especially.

But in the south? Not a single one of the original poster’s complaints are valid here with the exception of cars who cut you off and then speed away (no need to slam on the brakes, cruise control). Personally, the early brake warning has saved someone else’s property at lease twice.

Post reply on HN