Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
During icy conditions, when I'd rather kill that deer instead of my family, or when a piece of black plastic blows across the roadway, are three that come to mind.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Don't text and drive - texters have worse reaction times than drunks!
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
a third of ... accidents were the rear-end crashes and a "large number" of the drivers either didn't apply the brakes at all (what?!) ... before impact.
Because Russian
When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
I recommend cars with smarter drivers.
this is not a surprise. i have good 3d visual modelling ability, which allowed me to assess gaps between vehicles and drive at 30mph near curbs or bollards in width-restricted areas with an inch to spare either side, for example. i remember one day, a former partner and i, driving along a motorway. approximately fifty times throughout an hour-long journey, she would drive in the middle lane directly up to the back of a car in front at more than 15mph faster than the other vehicle, *apply the brakes* when the vehicle in front was only 8 to 10 metres away, and then and *only then* look in the side mirror to see if it was safe to change lane.
by contrast i would be constantly looking left, right and back (which is actually very tiring), would know where all vehicles were, even up to a mile away in either direction, and, using 3D modelling based on speeds and locations of other vehicles, would *predict* whether it was necessary for me to speed up or slow down in order to merge into faster (or slower) traffic in order to overtake vehicles *plural* in front. or, in some cases, whether to simply sit there happily at the speed of the vehicles in front.
now, this person - my former partner - drove an average of *four to five hours* per day like this. but if they are anything to go by, i am honestly and genuinely not surprised to hear that there are people who cannot judge distances, for whom the world is 2D, devoid of depth and the awareness that goes with it.
*that having been said*... the addition of "features" that apply the brakes without permission seem like an incredibly bad idea. i am reminded of a discussion recently... allow me to quote:
"We inadvertently built our own panic and short-sightedness into
the very systems designed to protect us from our worst impulses"
http://aeon.co/magazine/techno...
then, also, there is the failure of the three laws of robotics (yes, asimov's work demonstrated that the three laws are an *outright failure*, not a success). the three laws basically provided robots that *prevented* humanity from taking risks. on a species-level, the three laws *terminated* our evolution and advancement.
so, honestly, i have to say that if people cannot have the good sense to be sufficiently aware when driving a 1500 kilogramme object that is capable of causing death to themselves and those in the immediate vicinity, then please, with much respect and love, give them family a darwin award, be glad that they weren't driving in *your* vicinity at the time, and be glad that our species gene pool's "average spacial awareness" capability just went up a tiny notch.
"a "large number" of the drivers either didn't apply the brakes at all (what?!) "
For the simple reason that they were distracted, were not watching the road, simply were not aware of imminent danger like a big fuckoff lump of iron in front of them... BAM! 70+mph right up some poor bastard's arse.
THIS, folks, is why driving without due care and attention should be more severely punished than it is. It does cost lives.
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
I drive about 150mi per week on highways, not freeways, and watch as dozens and dozens of people text. They're easy to spot.
Were we to apply the emphasis towards keeping your eyes on the road, rather than improving brakes-- which were probably ok as they DON'T DO FORENSICS on such accidents, better money would be spent.
How do you get people to stop fooling with their devices? Enable motion detection, which keeps the cam on in the phone. Might not work for many, but I'd like to see texting and driving fined in the same way as DUIs. Same problem: irresponsibility.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Yes. Stop making a law for every possible way you can not focus on driving (e.g. law against texting and driving, law against talking on phone and driving, etc.). Just make driving erratic a crime commensurate with a DUI and be done with 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?!)
That is because they didn't hit send yet. They were still staring at their phone and not concerned whatsoever with the innocents in the car with them, or the innocents in the car in front of them.
Another poster said that texters have worse response time than drunks. That is probably not true, because drunks at least have a response time. You can't respond to something when all of your sensory input is focused on something else. For texters, the response comes after the crash.
I have noticed a trend for years that rear end collisions have been getting more prevalent and the damage more severe. It was like people weren't even hitting the brakes. I blamed it on texting while driving. Now the statistics are saying the same thing.
However, I am NOT in favor of the new devices to apply the brakes when the driver doesn't. Automation in the cockpit will only lead to stupid people becoming MORE complacent in the car and will increase their irresponsible behaviors. Instead of looking up every other character to see what is going on, they will just stare continuously at their phone until they have finished their message.
Perhaps I could see having such a braking system if, after a single auto-braking incident, the car disabled itself except for low speed travel so it could pull over to the shoulder, and then, travel over 10 mph was disabled until the car was reset by a qualified driving instructor.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Would it be too much to ask for them to explicitly discuss cost/benefit of something like this?
Example: Our car has some "smart" routine for detecting glare ice on the road. I don't know if it has ever been right - but there have been literally hundreds of false posltives over the years. Thankfully, it doesn't do anything but beep annoyingly.
Imagine if your car foes into full emergency braking, whenever it thinks an accident is imminent. What level of false positives is acceptable? What level of false negatives? How many accidents are statistlcally likely to be prevented? How many will be caused. Assuming a positive balance, what are the financial costs of building this system into all vehicles - and what is the resultant cost in dollars/life? These are the kinds of information that the Traffic Safety Administration ought to be publishing with their proposal.
If you look at the detailed report, they break the system into three parts. All together, they expect the system to prevent about 100 deaths per year (plus a larger number of injuries. There is a very brief discussion of false positives that arose in their test scenarios (e.g., in section 4.8.1.4), but absolutely no attempt to estimate the number of accidents caused by the system.
Consider how many rear-end accidents the average person has, over how many years and miles. Then figure the reliability - the number of false positives - that can be tolerated - the number is essentially zero. Achieving this will require extraordinarily reliable sensors and software, which willwill be technically difficult and financially costly. None of this is addresses in the report.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
Erratic isn't a useful measure. Voluntarily removing your focus from driving, e.g. taking a call, removing your eyes from the road for more than a second every 20sec, there'll be something that could be a viable measure that puts people's eyes back on the road, and not the latest tweet or instagram pic.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Can find the data for death only
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
They have dropped by about a third.
Bert
I drive about 150mi per week on highways, not freeways, and watch as dozens and dozens of people text. They're easy to spot.
2 weeks ago I followed a local cop for several miles and counted 7 times that he made lane changes and merged onto and off the freeway without using his indicators. He was also slowly weaving from side to side to just outside the left and right sides of his lane. All classic symptoms of distracted driving. This cop suffered no penalty, yet I bet if the cop was following me and I exhibited the same behavior then I would have been pulled over (assuming of course that the cop would actually have been paying attention)
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
Statistically, cops have far fewer accidents that they caused. Should they be cited? Sure. Will they? Never, as the fraternity of enforcers exempts themselves, and given human behavior, you're not going to easily change that, even with cop-cams. I understand your fears, I doubt that you'll be able to change the behavior of public safety officers. Good luck.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Yes. Stop making a law for every possible way you can not focus on driving (e.g. law against texting and driving, law against talking on phone and driving, etc.). Just make driving erratic a crime commensurate with a DUI and be done with it.
I've heard this complaint more times than I can count, especially from the slashdot crowd. I used to agree with the sentiment, even. After all, why have 17 laws when you can have one that abstractly covers all the cases?
I'll tell you why: Because legal code is not computer code, and code size is not one of the factors being optimized. The seventeen laws aren't there for the sake of efficiency. The seventeen laws are there to remind people in very explicit terms (rather than abstract ones) that the thing they are doing is against the law. Texting on your cell phone is the same as distracted driving, sure. But by enumerating it explicitly, the redundant-but-specific law drives home the point that [i]this specific thing is against the law[/i]. It also generally results in news announcements reminding motorists that the new law goes into effect next month, which further drives home the point and reduces accidents.
And that's the point of these laws. To reduce accidents. Just because it is contrary to efficient coding practices does not mean that it is without merit.
People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
For example on my 2002 Subaru impreza wrx the antilock brakes have almost caused an accident. On dry clean pavement, but with a couple of potholes, the wheel speeds can differ enough to activate the abs system. Then that prevents you from actually braking hard for a time of almost two seconds. It makes me want to disable the system unless I actually need it such as when the roads are icy. I was exiting the freeway when the driver ahead unexpectedly stopped in a dedicated turn lane for no real reason (probably just an over cautious bad driver). I went to brake and hit a pothole at the same time and found I couldn't. Then I had to panic press the brakes as hard as I could and wound up stopping much slower and came uncomfortably close to the stopped car. Honestly it's better to optionally bypass the abs on that car unless you need it because it cripples the ability to stop properly in good conditions and an attentive driver can do better.
How about this one of a driver driving off an overpass? Or this one?.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Lot's of rear end crashes, you say? How about people get nailed for tailgating more often?
Where I live in the north east, people routinely travel 70+ mph with as little as 4-5 feet between them. It's like the automatic driving car caravans of the future minus the automatic and future part. NO WONDER there are so many huge pileups month after month when most people do not see to even attempt to maintain a reasonable minimum distance between themselves are other cars at speed.
We really don't *need* more automatic features. I predict the majority of people buying braking assist now assume they don't have to worry about distance because "the computer" will "hit the brakes for them". It's like how people with 4WD or AWD assume they can drive full speed on ice.
If I had bought my car new and was looking at features to add or avoid, I would have put the collision avoidance system on my "meh" list and would not have paid extra for it.
As it turns out, I really like it. I have the control setup for maximum distance, which means more false alerts. But although most alerts seem "false" they're only false because I'm really paying attention and have anticipated the traffic in front of me. About 25% of the time I think it's actually valuable and there was some risk of either a really quick stop or maybe even a fender bender.
The feature that goes along with it (they share the same radar system), distance sensing cruise control, I REALLY like. I wish it would beep or something when you get behind a vehicle driving 3+ MPH slower than your set point. On the Interstate its kind of easy to get in traffic going slower than I want to by small amounts and not noticing it because the car just matches pace with the vehicle in front.
But that is solved by automatic headlights that turn on when it gets dark. No need to do something manually that can be automated
Crashes have been getting much more survivable, but the number of collisions per car-kilometre has also been flat or dropping. Texting in North America took off in a fairly short period of time. If it were actually responsible for as many crashes as it gets blamed for there would have been a big spike in the collision rate. There wasn't. That supports the idea that the ultimate cause is bad drivers, and texting is just the latest thing they can be distracted by. Texting while driving is undoubtedly dangerous, but so are a lot of other things people do in cars.
Airline pilots are rather better trained than the average driver. Things also tend to happen more slowly in the air. If you're ever in a collision situation that requires action as quick as you're probably used to on a daily basis in your car, you've screwed up royally.
The problem is not the technology.
Like everything wrong with the article, the problem is crappy drivers.
Rear/side lights are there TO BE SEEN.
Headlights are there to SEE BY.
If you have a driver who doesn't know they have no rear-lights, they may not be seen by you. But if you have them without headlights IN THE FUCKING DARK, they are bad, stupid, dangerous drivers. This is not affected by whether they are running on DRL or sidelights or no lights at all. They are fucking dangerous and can't see where they are going and NOT NOTICING.
And if you're driving on a road and can't see the car in front of you, even in twilight, I suggest you put your fucking headlights on and/or stop driving until you've had your eyes checked.
DRL policy does not cause any danger that was not there previously. Many places in Europe have had DRL for decades.
Being a fucking idiot that's peering into the darkness and can't see the car in front, that's the problem.
Statistically, cops have far fewer accidents that they caused.
Who collects the data points for the statistics?
Have gnu, will travel.
With "a third of 2013's police-reported car accidents were the rear-end crashes" how many of these occurred where there are red light cameras?
Passionately Indifferent
if you give enough fuzz in the laws then it will turn into a Driving While Colored law.
Combine this with seizure laws and you will have Greater Boars "car shopping" left right and center/centre.
Hey Automakers when are we getting even KITTs dumb brother in cars??
Helps that they get to decide who caused the accident.
Cops are a good reason to install a dash cam.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Insurance companies, nationwide. In terms of accident-free miles, only truck drivers are better.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Bought a car with early warning collision detection. Was grumbling that I spent $1500 above sticker for the car. Thought the purchase was stupid and I just had a fancy piece of tech that I would never use (i'm a good driver remember?). Then the day came when my girlfriend at the time rushed into the front door panting for air telling me she was trying to adjust the stereo (i will call this a huge influencing factor, we have a touch screen display) and didn't see a car nearly stopped on an onramp to the highway (we had traffic reports, there was no traffic, the car just was afraid to pull out to the highway). The radio mutes, a loud bell starts ringing and a bright red light flashes on the windshield. She said she looked up in time to feel the car start slowing down and so she mashed the brakes. She didn't think she did anything and the car stopped for her. I praised that $1500 add-on and will now recommend it to anyone. I would not say she is an inattentive driver, but just like other humans out there accidents happen. In this case the accident did not happen and my $40k car was saved (come on this is Slashdot, I care about my tech more than my gfs ;)
Caveats are large metallic objects on the side of a curving road tend to throw the system off. Not enough to apply the brakes but enough for it to start audibly warning you. This is resolved by adjusting the sensitivity, which I don't trust my fellow drivers to set correctly.. so to a point I think this system is not yet ready for prime time, but maybe that is still needed to finish advancing the technology (remember when airbags deployed too fast for the first 7 years of their requirement and were replaced with 2, 3 and even 5 stage deployment airbags?)
Also, I am all for mandatory backup cameras. No excuse that you didn't see me walking my child behind your car :\
As an automotive electronics engineer I don't believe you. The whole point of a traction control system is to modulate wheel torque to maintain yaw rate. If it used wheel speed to determine yaw rate there is no way for it to know whether it is seeing an actual yaw event or one it has induced itself. Every system I know of uses a gyroscope mapped to the steering angle sensor. The control loop manages braking/throttle to keep these lined up.
What you are describing is just good old fashioned suspension/tyre adhesion failure inducing an unstable oscillation mode due to the sharp static/dynamic friction coefficient transition of budget high profile road tyres, fitted to a car that is most likely experiencing severe chassis flex. The solution to that is buy a better car or slow the fuck down on public roads, not blame traction control.
Insurance companies
Insurance companies don't show up at accident scenes. Cops do and they fill out the reports that insurance companies compile into statistics.
Have gnu, will travel.
One young woman was almost touching the bumper of the car in front of her as she passed us. Oh, she was having a great time Singing to some music she had on, must have been heading to vacation from the Northeast to Florida. About 15 miles down the road, there she was in the median, wrecked after running into the back end of the car in front of her. No one could have seen that coming. Everyone has NASCAR driver like reflexes. Hell, even NASCAR drivers don't have NASCAR driver like reflexes.
So yeah, since stupid asshats refuse to follow at anywhere near a safe distance, it looks like we need to have collision avoidance radar on cars. This isn't the evil guvmint infringing on anyone's freedom, its one of those your rights to tailgate people end at my bumper, and your ability to stop in time.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
When making something safer, we can expect more lawsuits, not less, as we might naively expect. It doesn't matter if we can statistically show that a new technology saves lives. If auto manufacturers put this feature into their vehicles, suddenly it is their fault when the feature fails to prevent an accident, or causes causes an accident where one would not have occurred. Previously, the driver would be liable.
background information: I own and personally drive both ends of the spectrum, a 2014 model car and a 1970 model year truck. The 2014 has all the available electronics features. The 1970... the only electronic device in that vehicle is the ignition module; and, that was an upgrade (I hate setting points). The 1970 truck doesn't even have power brakes. I'm not a luddite. Hell, I make a living as an engineer working for a company that designs and manufactures sensors; I'm not going to argue against technology.
To the point: I read this discussion and I listen to people talking about the active cruise control and collision avoidance systems in their cars and I come to an unfortunate conclusion... These systems can and do lead to people becoming less attentive while they drive. I totally get that these systems save lives. It's just that I see people becoming dependent on these systems and not using them as they are intended.
Rear/side lights are there TO BE SEEN.
Headlights are there to SEE BY.
Well, to be fair, headlights are also to be seen with. The apparent color of the lights and reflectors on a vehicle tells you which direction it is facing, especially here in the USA where we mandate orange reflectors on the front corners.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I was stopped in traffic the other day at a light and was watching in my rear view mirror that a big 4x4 truck in the lane next to me was not slowing down at all and was about to smoke the guy in front of him. I have no idea how he could have missed the fact that all 4 lanes of traffic were stopped for the light. I leaned on my horn hardcore and that luckily caught the stopped guy's attention in front of the 4x4 truck and he managed at the last second to get out of the way. It was literally inches separating this guy from a really bad day and maybe even a fire. I felt a little moment of positive Karma after that...good duty of the day.
"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?!) "
It's frickin tailgaters. Even if you're being very attentive, there's a delay between the time you see brake lights on the car in front of you, and the time you hit the brakes. Throw in texting and other distractions, and if you're traveling too close you're eating bumper before you can hit the brake pedal. And half the drivers on the road are following too close. I say bring on the auto-braking systems to protect me from these idiots.
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
So how about one law against reckless driving, augmented by a non-binding, non-comprehensive list of example behaviors that will get you busted.
Intoxication, texting, talking on the phone, leaning into the back seat to get your baby's toy off the floor, etc.
No, steering with your feet while juggling angry cats blindfolded is not explicitly on the list - but a reasonable person can look at the list and say it probably qualifies, so let a jury decide on the particulars. That's their job after all - not just to decide on the facts, but to make sure the law is being applied justly.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Reaction time isn't a problem if you drive at a speed and keep a following distance appropriate for your reaction time. This is why elderly people drive slowly.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
People in many areas suffer major difficulties if a car will not start or function. Complexity leads to vulnerability. The more parts or systems a car has the more likely it is to break or need expensive repairs. Parts and systems also add weight and therefore cause more fuel to be wasted. We need better, primitive cars that are designed to last decades with little maintenance or repairs. Examples could include a stainless steel floor pan which will never rust or a synthetic floor pan and firewall which can not rust. Body panels could be made by Rubbermade so that they do not dent, rust etc.. A 1000 cc engine can provide too much power these days. The best car engines may be as small as 750cc with good engineering, All brass and copper radiators would prevent premature death on many engines. Manual windows need few repairs compaired to power windows. Early VW beetles had a superior heating system that was fairly bullet proof. AC systems should usually be avoided as they add weight and complexity. Dash boards should be quick and easy to remove as should wiring harnesses. Modern brakes are lousy in that they require too freequent repairs and maintenance. If we standardize brake rotors, calipers and master cylinders we can offer super low prices on brake repairs. It may well be possible to produce better cars for 6K than cars now selling for 30K and the operational expenses could drop to near zero. One example of stupidity was getting rid of the 5 mph safety bumpers. Those bumpers saved billions in car repairs. Yet politicians got rid of safety bumpers. Those bumpers also saved a few lives.
And don't forget that if you are in an accident that involves an emergency vehicle, YOU are at fault. Police cars do fall under the "emergency vehicle" umbrella.
No, at least in the US a driver of an emergency vehicle has more of an onus on them to avoid accidents. They are the professional and you are the idiot. There have been numerous cases of emergency vehicle drives cited / sued for their behavior. Which is why you are finding that more and more emergency vehicles are driving fairly sedately - we've found that screaming around corners in large, lumbering vehicles to save 0.7 seconds on a call doesn't add up to anything but increased insurance costs. Slow down and you get there faster. It's something we're really stressing with the volunteer fire department drivers. We have even pulled the little blue lights that the volunteers had. It's safer if they just drive normally and get there a couple of seconds later.
An emergency vehicle running with lights and sirens has the right-of-way but that does not give them carte blanche.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
So I am stuck on the freeway in the center of 8 cars. We have not moved in so long that people are getting out of the cars to see if they can see what the problem is. But if I put my car in park and then send a text message to say I will be late I should have a fine of hundreds of dollars and get my license yanked?
Airbus seems to think pilots are stupid. But, in their defense there does seem to have been a lot of Airbus accidents caused by pilot error. So, either Airbus pilots are more stupid or their training is really bad. Tim S.
It also means that, instead of just being charged with "distracted driving," the perp can be charged with "texting while driving" and "driving erratically" and "distracted driving," which adds up to triple penalty (including jail time!) unless he gives up his right to trial and allows himself to be railroaded into a "plea deal."
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
In Car and Driver's long term test of the KIA K900, the following incident happened:
At approximately 11,400 miles, the adaptive cruise control falsely identified a vehicle ahead and threw the K900 into a full panic stop on I-90 in southeastern Montana. A scary event. Could a giant bug have splattered on the radar’s lens? So far, we all have theories but no hard data.
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2015-kia-k900-v-8-long-term-test-update-review
A most dangerous category of automation is overly assumptive reflex actions based on incomplete knowledge of the situation.
What happens when I want to change lanes to avoid an accident and a computer has already decided to hit the breaks or apply them harder than intended? Now vehicle is turning and breaking at the same time probably in less than ideal conditions contributing to an initial event.
Only thing grosser than eating Cheetos and licking your fingers while texting and driving is making others pay for your cheesiness.
Reaction time isn't a problem if you drive at a speed and keep a following distance appropriate for your reaction time. This is why elderly people drive slowly.
Drunks are still (at least sometimes) looking at the road. Texters, not so much. When you're not looking at the road, doesn't matter what your reaction time is, because you just won't see the accident about to happen.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
I am so fucking sick of idiotic vehicle design ideas being mandated
by government.
A good example is "daytime running lights". This moronic design
tends to cause many drivers to forget to switch their lights on when
darkness falls, because the daytime running lights make these drivers
think their headlights are already switched on when they are not switched
on. The result is cars driving in the dark with NO TAIL LIGHTS.
Fuck the government and all its "we will make the world safe for you" bullshit.
More often than not, the end result is worse than if nothing had been done.
.
Where I live the mandated "daytime running lights" includes the tail lights.
I crashed and totaled my 2004 Mazda RX-8 about 18 months ago. A vehicle changed to my lane on the highway, then had to do a panic stop from 70mph to stopped. The normally amazing RX-8 brakes (and I had the high end braking package) failed in that circumstance. I had to do maximum braking. Anti-lock backed it off from a skid but never kicked back in. I rolled into the stopped vehicle in front of me at 30-40mph. You could see evidence on the road behind me: just a six inch skid, then nothing.
It would be good to handle more cases like this rather than the old methods of doing poorly in some braking (like here) to help people not good in snow.
Stephen D. Williams
Well, if you like throwing money at symptoms, I guess this might help (how much will it cost?). Won't do anything for the broken road design, where the Federal manual literally defines a street as "see: highway." Speed on, car-sitters. Meanwhile, those looking for a less, ah, passive role in their daily transportation options might instead consider what the Strong Towns folks are saying.
No, steering with your feet while juggling angry cats blindfolded is not explicitly on the list
I can confirm through painful first-hand experience that the word 'angry' is entirely superfluous in that context.
As does anyone with a cold or flu - statistically they're 4 times more likely to crash than someone at the blood alcohol limit.
In the EU this is called Autonomous Early Braking and is effecively mandatory on all new cars (you don't get an NCAP rating without it). The argument, as others have explained, is not that this technology is foolproof but that the benefits outweigh the disadvantages.
I've no idea if EU cars will keep this feature in US models, but it would be great if we could use the same terminology on both sides of the Atlantic.
One problem is that "reckless driving" is hard to define. Either it's going to be too vague to be enforceable, or it's going to be useless in many cases.
If you base it on how the vehicle is being driven, you wind up tolerating a lot of stuff that the driver is getting away with this time. (This is a good use of a reckless driving law.) If you base it on observation of the driver, it's going to be biased and uncertain.
Moreover, there's a legal principle that a person should theoretically be able to know whether a given action is legal or illegal. Driving while doing something that might cause careless driving is not going to stand up to court challenges.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes