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.