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

91–100 of 512 posts

Re: Automatic emergency braking should become mandatory, feds say

#91

Post by chubs »

jacquesm wrote: post #79
steve_adams_86 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> essentially powerless to do something about it given the family relationship Yeah, the fallout of telling a person they can’t drive is unreal. It took a couple years to go from incredulity towards me to finally accepting that I’m not joking/grumpy/changing my mind. Some bad driving is so egregiously bad though that it can’t be chalked up as a lapse of judgement or something. There is a strange sort of entitlement t…

I have a similar situation with an 87 year old family member that still drives and I've offered to be on call for chauffeur service or to pay for cabs or whatever it takes but they will keep doing it until they either die from other causes or get into an accident, which in my opinion is only a matter of time. So far I've managed to get them to rely on me for two really long rides and at least they no longer go on the…

Sorry to hear about that situation :( Here’s how it played out in my grandmothers life: she was fiercely independent until she (likely) caused a crash in her late 80s, ended up in hospital, then was never properly healthy again, she spiralled down gradually. It’s just not good :( hope that doesn’t upset you.

Re: Automatic emergency braking should become mandatory, feds say

#92

Post by m463 »

steve_adams_86 wrote: post #11

The only time my vehicle ever used its emergency braking was when my wife’s mom was driving, and my entire family was in the car. I was so grateful for it. The scariest part was that she accelerated toward a truck that was travelling very slowly in front of us, the car braked so hard we were all pressed into our seatbelts and the car was audibly vibrating as it lurched from the anti lock brakes. We were literally inc…

I think this is human nature at play. She knew what happened.

It's just that people don't confront huge mistakes like this head-on.

I don't know how many people have pulled out in front of me, almost killing me and they seem to just wave.

Although once an amazing thing happened. I had gotten up early at o-dark-thirty and was driving through the suburbs and this guy came barelling out of a sidestreet. I hit the brakes and he made the turn, cut me off and drove in front of me. When we got to the next stop sign, he got out of the car and came back towards me. I was about to back up and gtfo, but rolled down the window. He said "it's so early, and I didn't see you there and I'm so sorry." Very nice and I completely relaxed and smiled.

oh, also good time for the old one:

    I want to die while asleep like my grandfather,
    Not screaming in terror like the passengers in his car.

Re: Automatic emergency braking should become mandatory, feds say

#93

Post by Eumenes »

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…

I had a very similar problem - a mouse ate through my wiring harness and it was tripping my brakes lights out, which the ECU thought I was braking, and I couldn't accelerate. Took the dealer like 5 trips to figure it out. Insurance covered it.

Btw, where'd you find that old car? Locally or get it shipped to you?

Re: Automatic emergency braking should become mandatory, feds say

#94

Post by pdonis »

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.

> The other comments here make ‘automatic emergency braking’ sound like a really good idea

That's because those other comments all assume that "automatic emergency braking" will only do exactly what it's supposed to do and will never make a mistake. But any sensible person knows that's not going to happen. These systems will make mistakes, and some of those mistakes will cause harm. So you can't just make a blanket claim that such systems are good. You have to actually look at the data and balance the harm they avoid by doing what they're supposed to do when they're supposed to do it, against the harm they cause when they make mistakes.

The obvious next question is, does the proposed rulemaking here consider the consequences of the system making mistakes? As far as I can tell, the answer is no, with just one qualifier. The claims about crashes prevented and lives saved are not net savings, accounting for harm done by the system making mistakes; those claimed numbers assume the systems will always perform perfectly and will never cause any harm, only prevent it. The one qualifier is that the proposal does include two "false positive" tests to try to spot systems that brake when they're not supposed to. But there is no analysis given to show why those particular false positive tests were picked or why they would justify the extremely high level of confidence in the systems not making errors that the rest of the proposal shows.

Re: Automatic emergency braking should become mandatory, feds say

#95

Post by ceejayoz »

dabluecaboose wrote: post #88
maximinus_thrax wrote: post #32

Looking at the comments here I need to double check if I'm on some gearhead forum where automatic transmission is considered appropriate exclusively for teenagers and geriatric patients. Anyway, I'll add my anecdote when my Toyota surprised me with a panic brake in a blind corner which probably saved my life by not ending up under a stopped bus. But the kicker is that my insurer gave me quite a steep discount when I…

It's not exclusively a "gearhead" opinion to not want a system in your car that can violently take control away from you unexpectedly Statistics are meaningless to the individual. Sure, emergency braking might be safer across the board, but that means little compared to an individual who already drives safely without it.

> Statistics are meaningless to the individual.

This is just blatantly untrue.

> means little compared to an individual who already drives safely without it

Until emergency breaking stops a bad driver from T-boning you in an intersection as they run a red light.

“I’ll just drive safely” was the argument against seatbelts, airbags, and antilock brakes. Motorcycle helmets, too.

Re: Automatic emergency braking should become mandatory, feds say

#97

Post by caconym_ »

jacquesm wrote: post #42
maximinus_thrax wrote: post #32

Looking at the comments here I need to double check if I'm on some gearhead forum where automatic transmission is considered appropriate exclusively for teenagers and geriatric patients. Anyway, I'll add my anecdote when my Toyota surprised me with a panic brake in a blind corner which probably saved my life by not ending up under a stopped bus. But the kicker is that my insurer gave me quite a steep discount when I…

Insurance companies are run by people that are good at statistics, and there is a fair chance that statistically this works out well but that does not mean anything for any particular individual. Chances are that EAB will cause some accidents and prevents a whole lot more, and that's enough for the insurers.

> EAB will cause some accidents and prevents a whole lot more, and that's enough for the insurers.

It should be enough for everybody on the road. People always say "don't be a statistic" but we are all part of these statistics whether we like it or not. AEB can also protect occupants of other vehicles, so using it or not is not a choice whose consequences only affect the individual making it.

Re: Automatic emergency braking should become mandatory, feds say

#98

Post by drewmol »

An eye tracking feature would be nice if incorporated into the AEB where it could be set to only activate if I’m not looking at the road in front of me. This plus have a disabling trigger on the steering wheel and auto disabled if you punch the gas from a stop. Uhhg… just imagine someone pointing a gun at you from the front of your car to carjack you, you duck while stepping on the gas - only for your tires to squeal and not go anywhere!

Re: Automatic emergency braking should become mandatory, feds say

#99

Post by maximinus_thrax »

dabluecaboose wrote: post #88
maximinus_thrax wrote: post #32

Looking at the comments here I need to double check if I'm on some gearhead forum where automatic transmission is considered appropriate exclusively for teenagers and geriatric patients. Anyway, I'll add my anecdote when my Toyota surprised me with a panic brake in a blind corner which probably saved my life by not ending up under a stopped bus. But the kicker is that my insurer gave me quite a steep discount when I…

It's not exclusively a "gearhead" opinion to not want a system in your car that can violently take control away from you unexpectedly Statistics are meaningless to the individual. Sure, emergency braking might be safer across the board, but that means little compared to an individual who already drives safely without it.

> but that means little compared to an individual who already drives safely without it.

https://udayton.edu/blogs/erma/2022/06/lakewobegon.php

My 'boomer' relatives refuse to wear a seatbelt, regardless of how many fines they've incurred, exactly because they already drive safely.

Re: Automatic emergency braking should become mandatory, feds say

#100

Post by pdonis »

asoneth wrote: post #26
version_five wrote: post #2

Regulatory capture marches forward. In an environment where small, cheap, runabout electric vehicles could become very popular, I expect lots of "for your safety" reasons why cars have to be complicated and expensive.

Multi-ton vehicles capable of moving at highway speeds are dangerous and kill roughly a hundred people a day in the US[1]. So whether these changes are driven by regulatory capture or not it makes perfect sense to tightly regulate automobiles. Personally I think consumers should be free to decide things like seatbelt and airbag use but if they drive on public roadways they should not be allowed to make cost/benefit t…

> it makes perfect sense to tightly regulate automobiles

Not the way we do it, it doesn't. What it does make sense to do is put the liability for harm where it belongs: on those who actually cause harm. But the vast majority of our automobile regulations--I include traffic laws in this category--do not do that. The regulation proposed here is an example.

Post reply on HN