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

471–480 of 512 posts

Re: Automatic emergency braking should become mandatory, feds say

#471

Post by nickpinkston »

globular-toast wrote: post #373
nickpinkston wrote: post #102

I'm becoming an old man at 36... I just want a feedspinning NA engine with a 6 speed on a 3000 lb RWD chassis where everything isn't driver aids. I know... I know... this isn't practical or safe, but goddamn it, it's the most fun for me!

That's great. Keep your fun off the public highway, though. It's too dangerous. There are plenty of racetracks and a race car doesn't need to be road legal or practical so what you describe should be much more affordable.

I like to have fun while driving everyday, but yea you gotta be safe / courteous.

Re: Automatic emergency braking should become mandatory, feds say

#472

Post by nickpinkston »

abawany wrote: post #188
nickpinkston wrote: post #102

I'm becoming an old man at 36... I just want a feedspinning NA engine with a 6 speed on a 3000 lb RWD chassis where everything isn't driver aids. I know... I know... this isn't practical or safe, but goddamn it, it's the most fun for me!

Sounds like Caterham might have what you need: https://caterhamcars.com/us/models/the-range .

I'd love to drive one, but they always seems like death traps to me haha. Makes an Elise look like an SUV!

Re: Automatic emergency braking should become mandatory, feds say

#473

Post by ics »

hnick wrote: post #369
lloeki wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a Mazda too, I can confirm GP statement regarding lane assist... in many areas but not all: - when it works it works so well the car basically drives itself esp. when you throw cruise control into the mix (this includes auto coasting + breaking) - when it doesn't it's bouncing across the lane + applies too much resistance when attempting e.g overtaking I did not have any issue with emergency braking (never tri…

> applies too much resistance when attempting e.g overtaking It doesn't turn off when you indicate to change lanes? It does on the Hyundai.

Generally it does at least in my US model. "The system is set to avoid unnecessary alarms if the system detects the vehicle behavior is intentional judging from the operation of the accelerator or turn signal." from https://www.mazda.com/en/archives/safety2/active_safety/las/

There are still scenarios where it can be an issue, for example when you need to "peek" through the lane to see if an overtake is possible safely. In this case it requires driver judgement on when to activate the turn signal. You may activate early or when committed, I don't think either is necessarily wrong.

I don't know the other commenter's scenario but don't doubt what they described. To pull another example out of my hat: bendy mountain roads (e.g. western Connecticut, minimal elevation changes), car ahead is moving slowly due to lack of power, heavy load, etc. Assume driving conditions and road lines are clear, no camera or sensor obstructions. The system is automatically active while following the bend and will attempt to keep on course. As you approach a rather wide curve (lanes are also widened, with extra shoulder) it is an opportunity to ride closer to the centerline in order to see past the vehicle and overtake. If you do that without putting on your blinker first, the system will attempt to correct while you're in the turn. Depending on how you react this can be jarring as the wheel is vibrating and you have to decide whether to commit to let the system correct, correct the correction, or commit to the overtake.

I chalk this up more to my own lack of familiarity with the system early on and not a defect per se. The wheel vibration is a very odd sensation to me on turns likely because on older cars I'd start to worry about tires or mechanical issues.

Re: Automatic emergency braking should become mandatory, feds say

#474

Post by marklubi »

jacquesm wrote: post #322
marklubi wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ha…

Make and model?

I know what it was, but I won’t participate in naming and shaming.

The dealership tried to fix it several times, and I don’t know if this is a systemic problem, or a single vehicle issue.

Either way, I don’t trust the tech. It can be developed and tested against plenty of different scenarios, but we live in a very uncontrolled and fluctuating environment.

Re: Automatic emergency braking should become mandatory, feds say

#475

Post by abawany »

nickpinkston wrote: post #472
abawany wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like Caterham might have what you need: https://caterhamcars.com/us/models/the-range .

I'd love to drive one, but they always seems like death traps to me haha. Makes an Elise look like an SUV!

I agree - the low-slung structure is excessively unfit in the era of SUVs and crossovers. I have dreamt of owning one for decades now but the price often gives me pause - I wave away the personal safety considerations by telling myself that it is probably safer than a motorbike :) .

Re: Automatic emergency braking should become mandatory, feds say

#476

Post by HWR_14 »

ceejayoz wrote: post #427
HWR_14 wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But they didn't study anything real world. They looked at all rear-end collisions, assumed that a percentage would be prevented and did the math to result in the 24000/360 numbers. No analysis of other affects (like sudden stops causing crashes from the cars behind them). No extrapolating from measured data.

> No analysis of other affects (like sudden stops causing crashes from the cars behind them). At least part of that effect will show up in these vehicles being rear-ended themselves (as they're exhibiting that exact sudden-stop behavior), and that sort of accident should be reduced if all cars come with AEB. You'll never be able to wipe out all variables in this sort of study, but I don't think the methodology's as f…

It's fair that you can never wipe out all variables. However, a lot of people (especially taeric) were dismissing any attempt to discuss if other aspects were important as "the NHTSA has data and you only have conjecture."

While the costs of phantom breaking are decreased if everyone has AEB, I don't think this makes the roads safer for me unless I want to buy a newer vehicle and I don't want to have to do that.

Re: Automatic emergency braking should become mandatory, feds say

#477

Post by than3 »

Yet another classic example of perverse incentives. Create a problem, offer a solution that creates other more serious problems. Force it through bureaucratic circles without representation. Create a less free world.

When you drive, you are responsible for you and your passengers safety.

How can you possibly be responsible for the car suddenly stopping when you have no control over it as a mandated safety feature.

The only choice you have if this is mandated is you can't drive. So you can't travel long distances, or transport things long distance, interferes with interstate commerce and travel you are confined to your local area of walking distance.

This is beyond stupid, and lacks any basis of granted authority since it opens the door for violating constitutional rights, in the name of a dubious claimed safety issue. Congress can't create a law and have this not be unconstitutional how can a committee think this will be any different.

Re: Automatic emergency braking should become mandatory, feds say

#478

Post by eimrine »

sebzim4500 wrote: post #459
eimrine wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comment is very hard to disagree. But how are you going to test if there might be some interference of two changes? For example, negative effect from screen/touchscreen and positive from auto-breaking - isn't your next proposal to gather more information including video of driver's moves? I have a strong feel that an argument that the drivers must be video-streaming while moving will be equally hard to disagree.

Why should drivers be video streaming? I'm just suggesting that regulators should compare accident rates of cars with and without automated breaking. I'm not saying we should spy on anybody, surely regulators already get this data.

> Why should drivers be video streaming?

Because nobody has drawn a red line and Ron Jones in 1967 has shown us how vulnerable our freedom is.

We already has a lot of mandatory non-FOSS software in cars which use to phone home which effectively is a streaming (not a video yet, but amount of data is never decreasing). And a lot of so-called safety (surveillance in reality) devices are around us nowadays - phones exposing a lot of uncertain data about us, bank cards which allows banks know where we are right now, etc. If some crackpot politician proves to safety-demanding influencers that video streaming from every moving car helps us to prevent $bad_things_list so that kind of demand is totally possible, especially if using cars for mass killings would become more common than mass shootings.

> I'm just suggesting that regulators should compare accident rates of cars with and without automated breaking.

It's impossible because you have not 100% of the data.

Re: Automatic emergency braking should become mandatory, feds say

#479

Post by Dylan16807 »

taeric wrote: post #445
Dylan16807 wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not "contriving bullshit" to give some examples of how a single average number could be misleading, clearly labeled as hypotheticals.

It is literally the definition of FUD here, though. These aren't things that have happened. And the data is ridiculously clear on progress. To paint these doubts is pretty much only to spread fear and uncertainty.

It's not FUD, they're not stating it as a fact, they're asking for an analysis of AEB in lots of different situations and not just overall.

Re: Automatic emergency braking should become mandatory, feds say

#480

Post by peteradio »

regularjack wrote: post #402
matheusmoreira wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what? If that's the price to pay to maintain control, fine. These precedents are also creating risk by the way. It hasn't been that long ago since news was posted here of security researchers remotely cutting off car engines or cars repossessing themselves if you don't pay on time. That's the sort of existential risk you're paving the way for by accepting "safety" in exchange for control. It's not really your car…

Right, it's a slippery slope. Today they're making your car save lives, tomorrow they'll be draining your bank accounts and seducing your significant others.

How many lives makes it worth it? Just one? Should it make an appreciable difference? I am hesitant to hand the reigns of society to safety nazi bean counters who are more interested in appearing to "do sometihng" than actually improving our lives.
Post reply on HN