Topic: Automaker pact to make automatic emergency braking standard in all models

[Autos_Editor]

Agreement in principle to be firmed up in coming months
Read More...

[Fobroader]

Oh goodie...... 

[Noto]

I'm actually a huge fan of this... But it may put me out of work.  Good.  Do it.

[X-Traction]

No doubt this will result in a storm of protests from self-styled "enthusiasts" that they don't need such nannies.  Too bad.

As traffic becomes more dense, problems are being created by those who dodge back and forth between lanes to try and make their way forward.  The problem is that at any given time a lot of people in one lane are waiting for a large enough break in the other lane to switch to the other lane.  People have varying tolerances for how small a gap they will merge or force their way into, as others have varying tolerance for what they consider an unfair lane change.

A general result is that people tailgate each other to block lane-changers.  This raises the probability of rear-end collisions.  Even the most minor incident on our busy roads immediately backs up traffic for kilometers, and this dynamic resulting from crowded roads is too much of a nuisance to not take advantage of systems that will prevent contact between cars.  If the "sporty" aggressive drivers don't like it, they have no one but themselves to blame.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

[tpl]

THis will be interesting.   There you are driving along in medium speed traffic on a crowded non-divided highway.  The radar and or lidar sensor on your car will have to be clever enough to determine its return signal from the direct transmissions of all the cars coming towards you.   This feels as if it will have to be a short range version of some military avionics and perhaps even cleverer as the timescales and distances will be so much smaller. and it has to be cheap and work in a snowstorm.   Nowadays there are so few cars with these systems that it is not a problem but when the allocated spectrum, whatever that will be, gets as crowded as 2400 Mhz WiFi in a big apartment building, who knows.    I think I'll be just as happy with the computing power in my head and the Mk 1 optic nerve.

I am sure it can be made to work reliably, after all Google's self drivers seem to manage, but I wonder just how much computing power they have on board.
If someone said it would double the lines of code in a car I'd believe them.

[RoadRageous]

No doubt this will result in a storm of protests from self-styled "enthusiasts" that they don't need such nannies.  Too bad.

I don't get the desire to blindly accept, without critical thought, safety pronouncements from anyone, including the IIHS and government.
Most modern safety innovations have serious tradeoffs, especialy those that seek to make up for deficiencies in skill/training and ability, rather than enhancing my ability to drive the car.

Air bags have killed and crippled hundreds of people, while keeping safe those too stupid to put on their seat belts, and costing billions of development dollars. For the money that has gone into airbags, we could have accomplished far more. And remember especially when this tech was new. Even today, with so much refinement in the controls, most of it very recent, they are still far from perfect. And I am speaking of the main airbags. I have less of an issue with the side air bags, which actually address a problem that seatbelts do not.

Better roll over protection has lead to heavier cars that pollute more every single day they run ( and yes, pollution causes the full range of suffering ) and such poor rear visibility that cameras are nearly mandatory.

If the "sporty" aggressive drivers don't like it, they have no one but themselves to blame.

This mis-diagnoses the issue that you are attempting to hang your hat / argument on.
First, you did not get cut off because someone is being "sporty", The top reasons are

1. They are late.
2. They are cranky.
3. They are undisciplined.
4. They are selfish and do not respect safe driving pracitices, at least for the few momemts that it takes to execute the cut off.
5. They actually didn't see you (lack of competency).

These are behavioural issues which the active braking will not address, and which have large safety concerns well beyond the singe case that this tech is aimed at.

Second, you seem to invision a scenario where very car packed together will safely brake, because they all have this tech. At the vey best, that's 15 to 20 years away. And that assumes commercial vehicles are also included. Then what about motorcycles ?

I have been in exactly the situation you describe. The way I avoided an accident was :

1. Recoginze the car in front was panic braking
2. Know that I am being tailgated.
3. Calculate that I have a safe margin to stop, without using full braking immediately.
4. Partially brake so that the tailgater can react.
5. Increase braking, and stop without getting hit.

The system described cannot do this because it is not looking backwards, and I doubt the programming will be so sophisticated.
Also it will try to distract me by chirping or flashing me. Exactly what I need in an emergency situation.

This might be a good place to point out that legally, I am required to be in full control of my car at all times. If this tech get in the way of that, then I have the right to reject it.

Third, the best solution is avoidance, IF I can drive onto the shoulder to avoid an accident, that is better than throwing out the anchor in a live traffic lane. Airplane crash investigation shows that automation contributes to crashes in some circumstances, because it ads variables to the situation : the pilot must manage the transition ormake the  distinction between (a) the system working properly and (b) the sytem not working and (c) the system making a mistake.

Maybe these problems won't happen with this tech, but as long as I am able to be in full control, I want to be, and I should be.

[Snowman]

No doubt this will result in a storm of protests from self-styled "enthusiasts" that they don't need such nannies.  Too bad.

I don't get the desire to blindly accept, without critical thought, safety pronouncements from anyone, including the IIHS and government.
Most modern safety innovations have serious tradeoffs, especialy those that seek to make up for deficiencies in skill/training and ability, rather than enhancing my ability to drive the car.

Air bags have killed and crippled hundreds of people, while keeping safe those too stupid to put on their seat belts, and costing billions of development dollars. For the money that has gone into airbags, we could have accomplished far more. And remember especially when this tech was new. Even today, with so much refinement in the controls, most of it very recent, they are still far from perfect. And I am speaking of the main airbags. I have less of an issue with the side air bags, which actually address a problem that seatbelts do not.

Better roll over protection has lead to heavier cars that pollute more every single day they run ( and yes, pollution causes the full range of suffering ) and such poor rear visibility that cameras are nearly mandatory.

If the "sporty" aggressive drivers don't like it, they have no one but themselves to blame.

This mis-diagnoses the issue that you are attempting to hang your hat / argument on.
First, you did not get cut off because someone is being "sporty", The top reasons are

1. They are late.
2. They are cranky.
3. They are undisciplined.
4. They are selfish and do not respect safe driving pracitices, at least for the few momemts that it takes to execute the cut off.
5. They actually didn't see you (lack of competency).

These are behavioural issues which the active braking will not address, and which have large safety concerns well beyond the singe case that this tech is aimed at.

Second, you seem to invision a scenario where very car packed together will safely brake, because they all have this tech. At the vey best, that's 15 to 20 years away. And that assumes commercial vehicles are also included. Then what about motorcycles ?

I have been in exactly the situation you describe. The way I avoided an accident was :

1. Recoginze the car in front was panic braking
2. Know that I am being tailgated.
3. Calculate that I have a safe margin to stop, without using full braking immediately.
4. Partially brake so that the tailgater can react.
5. Increase braking, and stop without getting hit.

The system described cannot do this because it is not looking backwards, and I doubt the programming will be so sophisticated.
Also it will try to distract me by chirping or flashing me. Exactly what I need in an emergency situation.

This might be a good place to point out that legally, I am required to be in full control of my car at all times. If this tech get in the way of that, then I have the right to reject it.

Third, the best solution is avoidance, IF I can drive onto the shoulder to avoid an accident, that is better than throwing out the anchor in a live traffic lane. Airplane crash investigation shows that automation contributes to crashes in some circumstances, because it ads variables to the situation : the pilot must manage the transition ormake the  distinction between (a) the system working properly and (b) the sytem not working and (c) the system making a mistake.

Maybe these problems won't happen with this tech, but as long as I am able to be in full control, I want to be, and I should be.

 

[Stilllovetrucks]

Oh goodie...... 

 

Sooooooo do NOT want this................. omg bubble people.......

[johngenx]

There's a few things I see

We're using technology to compensate for poor driver training, lax testing and poor road design.  As we go gung-ho on autonomous braking systems and other stuff, let's get serious about other issues.  I see on/off ramps that are too short, intersections that are confusing and have poor visibility.  I see inappropriate speed limits that create large speed differentials.  Drivers that can barely control their vehicles in normal driving, much less emergency situations.  And on and on.

What about the cars on bald tires?  With faulty brakes?  With broken windscreens?  Worn out suspensions?

I think systems like these certainly have their place, but they do need to be engineered to work WITH the driver, not instead of the driver.  If we increase the skill level of the average driver, then automated systems could be designed to enhance those skills.

[X-Traction]

Since some persist in trotting out the usual objections to these systems, I'll again trot out the fact that if one is the sort of skilled driver who doesn't need such gizmos, then this system would never be activated in your car.  You might consider the benefit from such systems perhaps keeping someone else from running into you.

Anyone who rear-ends someone else and is found to have disabled such a feature, should have their insurance invalidated.  And pay all the others on the road for the time wasted stuck in the traffic jams that follow these accidents.

[Fobroader]

Since some persist in trotting out the usual objections to these systems, I'll again trot out the fact that if one is the sort of skilled driver who doesn't need such gizmos, then this system would never be activated in your car.  You might consider the benefit from such systems perhaps keeping someone else from running into you.

Anyone who rear-ends someone else and is found to have disabled such a feature, should have their insurance invalidated.  And pay all the others on the road for the time wasted stuck in the traffic jams that follow these accidents.

This just adds extra wiring, cost and equipment that I have to pay and maintain on my car......also, this is unproven technology that may or may not actually work....should it not be optional??

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

[mmret]

There's a few things I see

We're using technology to compensate for poor driver training, lax testing and poor road design.  As we go gung-ho on autonomous braking systems and other stuff, let's get serious about other issues.  I see on/off ramps that are too short, intersections that are confusing and have poor visibility.  I see inappropriate speed limits that create large speed differentials.  Drivers that can barely control their vehicles in normal driving, much less emergency situations.  And on and on.

What about the cars on bald tires?  With faulty brakes?  With broken windscreens?  Worn out suspensions?

I think systems like these certainly have their place, but they do need to be engineered to work WITH the driver, not instead of the driver.  If we increase the skill level of the average driver, then automated systems could be designed to enhance those skills.

I agree, and I'd point out that the general concept is that, as is typical, society is relying on technology to compensate for poor policy decisions..

Its easier to do it that way, compared to coming up with the political will for an "analog" solution.

The V60 has AEB. I have heard that it is tuned to err on the side of allowing you to hit something rather than brake in error (prefers Type 2 error to Type 1). It also has a two stage warning flasher HUD thing, which only warns instead of actually braking. I like the setup and the philosophy - haven't tested the AEB and I don't plan to but I find the warning flasher to be well calibrated and it so far has gone off at pretty much the right times IMHO. You can also set the sensitivity high/med/low.

[Noto]

if one is the sort of skilled driver who doesn't need such gizmos, then this system would never be activated in your car.  You might consider the benefit from such systems perhaps keeping someone else from running into you.

[X-Traction]

Since some persist in trotting out the usual objections to these systems, I'll again trot out the fact that if one is the sort of skilled driver who doesn't need such gizmos, then this system would never be activated in your car.  You might consider the benefit from such systems perhaps keeping someone else from running into you.

Anyone who rear-ends someone else and is found to have disabled such a feature, should have their insurance invalidated.  And pay all the others on the road for the time wasted stuck in the traffic jams that follow these accidents.

This just adds extra wiring, cost and equipment that I have to pay and maintain on my car......also, this is unproven technology that may or may not actually work....should it not be optional??

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

Unproven?  What if it's based on, say, missile guidance systems?  Good enough for you?  Such things have been on cars for ages.  I think the QX4 had auto cruise control as an option, in what, 2000?  Have you heard of complaints of malfunctions?  In the meantime, how many driver malfunctions have you hear of?

Do you think speedometers should be optional?

[rrocket]

Since some persist in trotting out the usual objections to these systems, I'll again trot out the fact that if one is the sort of skilled driver who doesn't need such gizmos, then this system would never be activated in your car.  You might consider the benefit from such systems perhaps keeping someone else from running into you.

Anyone who rear-ends someone else and is found to have disabled such a feature, should have their insurance invalidated.  And pay all the others on the road for the time wasted stuck in the traffic jams that follow these accidents.

This just adds extra wiring, cost and equipment that I have to pay and maintain on my car......also, this is unproven technology that may or may not actually work....should it not be optional??

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

Unproven?  What if it's based on, say, missile guidance systems?  Good enough for you?  Such things have been on cars for ages.  I think the QX4 had auto cruise control as an option, in what, 2000?  Have you heard of complaints of malfunctions?  In the meantime, how many driver malfunctions have you hear of?

Do you think speedometers should be optional?

It's the same technology used in automated cars...and there have been plenty of incidents with those