Government Recommends Cars With Smarter Brakes

mrspoonsi writes The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is adding crash imminent braking and dynamic braking support to its list of recommended advanced safety features for new cars. The former uses sensors to activate the brakes if a crash is imminent and the driver already hasn't. Dynamic braking support, on the other hand, increases stopping power if you haven't put enough pressure on the brake pedal. Like lane-departure and front collision warning systems, these features are available on some models already — this move gives them high-profile attention, though. And for good reason: As the NHSTA tells it, a third of 2013's police-reported car accidents were the rear-end crashes and a "large number" of the drivers either didn't apply the brakes at all (what?!) or fully before impact.

Comments

I have an even better idea

[EmagGeek]

Let's just enforce existing laws and get dangerous drivers off the road. THERE IS NO RIGHT TO DRIVE. If you are a dangerous driver you can and should be taken off the road.

A coworker of mine was hit a couple of weeks ago by a woman who, after fleeing the scene, was discovered to have had caused FOUR injury accidents in the trailing 12 months, had been dropped from her insurance two months prior, and who, despite all of that, had not had her license suspended, and was not even ticketed for leaving the scene of the accident she caused with my coworker.

It's our complete unwillingness to hold people accountable for their actions that has created the need for EVAN M0AR government regulation to "protect us from ourselves."

People who are incapable of driving shouldn't be driving. Period.

Re:I have an even better idea

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a right to freedom of movement, though.

I'd be fine with only a small driving or needing to drive. I live in a major city in the UK. I can walk or get the bus or train almost anywhere I'm interested in going, both for excursions and my daily life.

You'll find it's the same around most of the world.

Sadly, though, the USA has a large number of places that basically have no infrastructure whatsoever. The only way to get about, to live your life, is to own and use a car. In these places, not only are dangerous drivers tolerated, but so are dangerous cars (clunkers) -- because the alternative is to deprive most of your citizens the ability to get about.

This could've been fixed in the past (avoid urban sprawl), but it's too late now, and people have a right to get about the place. Banning them from driving in a place where there's 20 miles between where anyone lives and where any food is sold or any places of employment are, and there's no public transport whatsoever, is basically a death sentence.

What are you going to do about this?

Re:I have an even better idea

[ShanghaiBill]

Let's just enforce existing laws and get dangerous drivers off the road.

That is not a better idea, just a different idea. There is no reason we can't do both. But for every accident avoided, the cost of improving brakes is likely to be far, far less than the economic cost of excluding millions of people from driving, in a society where driving is nearly essential for daily life. Also, the brake improvement can actually happen, while the probability of politicians banning a significant number of people from driving is about zero.

Re:I have an even better idea

[TWX]

It's not the "dangerous clunkers" here that are so much the problem as the uninsured, who cause accidents and cannot pay for what they've done to other people. I'm starting to think that automatic impoundment should be the default when certain kinds of paperwork are not in order, like no insurance and no or suspended license, and that the car cannot be gotten out of impound without proof that the paperwork has now been corrected, and if the paperwork condition was discovered as a result of an accident investigation, the victim (the other driver) can petition to be awarded the vehicle as compensation for the damage they received if there's no insurance and no forthcoming reimbursement.

Driving isn't a right, it's a privilege. I've paid for that privilege my entire adult life, maintaining my registration, my insurance, and my license despite having no at-fault accidents. I expect others to do the same.

Re:Not a fan

[ShanghaiBill]

it takes away the driver's discretion during the times braking is not advisable.

Real life involves tradeoffs. For almost any safety feature, there will be some corner cases where it is detrimental, but it is still a big win overall. Even airbags kill people occasionally, and about an extra dozen infants die every year in hot cars because their car seats are in the back instead of the front. But airbags save thousands of lives overall, so the cost is worth it.

Re:Not a fan

[OzPeter]

If the safety feature enables the brakes when a crash is 'imminent', it takes away the driver's discretion during the times braking is not advisable.

And if you look at the stats, about 1/3 of crashes are rear end accidents, and within that group a significant number of drivers didn't even attempt to apply the brakes. That last part was even in TFS!

You can't take away something that doesn't exist.

Re:Not a fan

[jeffb (2.718)]

Yes, yes, I'm sure you can imagine any number of situations where your lightning reflexes, superb judgement, and superhuman driving skill will produce a better outcome than some dumb automated system.

But even if you are much more skilled than the average driver -- and it does seem like 80-90% of drivers are quite convinced that they're "better than average" -- you're still likely to do dumb things behind the wheel more frequently than you do brilliant things behind the wheel. If you have a human brain, you're kind of stuck with that. There are a million things that can distract you, impair you, or confuse you, and any one of them will knock you down from that pinnacle of performance.

There will certainly be times when an automated system produces a worse outcome than a skilled human driver. But those times will be overwhelmingly outnumbered by the times when it's the other way around. It's really, really hard to reason objectively about risks like this, especially when there's a perceived loss of control involved. But if you don't let objective reasoning drive policy, you're going to end up with more dead and injured people.

When I was a kid, the debate was over seat-belt laws. There were an amazing number of people who absolutely refused to wear them. "I remember this person who was trapped in a burning (or sinking) car because they couldn't get out of the seat belt!" "I'm too good a driver to get into an accident where I'd need a seat belt to save me!" "If I'm wearing a seat belt, I can't be thrown to safety, so I'll be trapped in the collision!" Yes, I'm quite sure that some people have died because of seat belts. But that number is absolutely dwarfed by the number of people saved by them. It's cold consolation to the handful of seat-belt victims, I know, but you're still an utter fool if you let those few tragedies convince you not to use the belt.

Please don't let fear of a few extremely unlikely scenarios block a robust solution for an entire class of common problems.

Re:Not a fan

[zieroh]

Real world example: My car has traction control. It also is relatively light, has front wheel drive, and has an anti-roll bar on the rear suspension.

So here's what happens

You seem to be arguing that automated driving aids tend to interfere with real-world situations, while describing a real-world situation that is actually a glaring example of a horrible design defect with your car. You should have four wheels on the ground in all "real world" situations, end-of.

Your car is broken. And that's a piss-poor reason to be against automated driving aids.