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.

26 of 304 comments (clear)

  1. I have an even better idea by EmagGeek · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:I have an even better idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      And daily test drivers under 26

    2. Re:I have an even better idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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?

    3. Re:I have an even better idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Well let's see, lose your license in the USA and it's an automatic felony conviction for not having a driver's license. Then you can't drive anywhere, you get fired from your job, and you'll never find another job as a convicted felon, so your life is already over. It would be more merciful just to execute dangerous drivers, don't you think?

    4. Re:I have an even better idea by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:I have an even better idea by Jeremi · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

      I was a safe driver for 11 years; no tickets, no accidents, no "close calls", no complaints. Then one day I was driving to the airport early in the morning, got distracted by my radio, didn't notice that the traffic light was red, and ran right into a car that was (legally) crossing the intersection.

      My question: should I have been driving for those previous 11 years? If not, why not? What kind of test would you have had me take to show that I was a dangerous driver? Or, if I was a safe driver except on that one morning, how would your plan have prevented my accident?

      The fact is, most people are safe drivers most of the time. Except for when they're not.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    6. Re:I have an even better idea by TWX · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    7. Re:I have an even better idea by kheldan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Let's just train and test drivers more thoroughly to keep unqualified drivers off the road in the first place. Driving may be a privelege and not a 'right', but just beefing up the punishment side of things isn't going to help much compared to making drivers competent in the first place. We're living in an era where people are getting less and less skilled at pretty much everything, and have need to learn fewer and fewer things, because of the internet and because of more and more cheap gadgets.

      I do not approve of any system that will arbitrarily override my basic controls of the vehicle, it's a bad idea. Why should I or anyone relinquish control of braking to some anonymous software writer(s) that may or may not have covered all possible contingencies properly? Just one more system to fail in your vehicle. No, I propose we educate, train, and test drivers more rigorously, and if they're not truly competent, then they don't get to drive.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    8. Re:I have an even better idea by HornWumpus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's more or less how it is. So they drive even worse clunkers as they know they will lose them every time they talk to a cop.

      Then the cops stop doing anything out of frustration, leaving the laws selectively enforced.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    9. Re:I have an even better idea by tibit · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This government regulation isn't about protecting you from idiot drivers. It's about protecting you from the long tail of accidents that happen in spite of everyone following the rules. People aren't infallible. Occasionally, we make mistakes even with the best of training. Unless you're a race driver, your driver "training" is nowhere near the amount of training the olympic athletes receive. Yet, invariably enough, in every olympics there's a bunch of snafus committed by the best trained people. That should be the only thing you need to see to realize that, once again, no matter how well prepared you are, you will make mistakes even if your weally, weally wish not to. I mean fuck, these people are fucking competing for olympic medals. They are the best of the best worldwide. And they do mess up. So yes, no matter how good you think you are, you will commit random errors on the road that may prove deadly. The regulations and the technical means here are to make those random things less deadly. That's all.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    10. Re:I have an even better idea by PPH · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This.

      No mod points left, but I agree. We ae trying everything to get people out of private cars and onto public transportation with little effect. Just pull the licences from the worst drivers and hand them a transit pass. Reduce traffic volume and save money by postponing expansion projects. And do so by getting the crappiest drivers off the road.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    11. Re:I have an even better idea by Immerman · · Score: 3, Interesting

      An easy, partial solution - scooters and motorbikes. I've met several people who adopted them after losing their license. They can be far cheaper to both own and operate than a car, and when you reduce the total mass by an order of magnitude you reduce the potential damage to others in a collision by the same factor. Of course that proportionally *increases* the risk to the driver as well, but why shouldn't reckless drivers be faced with bearing the bulk of the damage from future collisions? With luck it will even improve their situational awareness when they are once again allowed to operate a car.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    12. Re:I have an even better idea by ColdWetDog · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You don't have a right to be able to afford anything. At least in any society beyond pure communism - which has never existed in groups of more than say, 100.

      It would be a nice societal benefit to allow persons without much economic means to freely travel - but nothing on the order of a mandate. Now, most societies agree that people should be allowed to travel freely without undo government interference but there is nothing that says somebody else has to pay for it or allow an individual to put others at risk for economic or any other reason.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    13. Re:I have an even better idea by hey! · · Score: 3, Informative

      I have an even better idea: let's find a way to fix human beings so that they're perfectly consistent in their behavior.

      While certainly taking demonstrably bad drivers off the road is a no-brainer, even good drivers have lapses. My teenaged son is learning to drive, and whenever someone does something like cut us off I make a point of saying we can't assume the driver did it on purpose, or did it because he was an inconsiderate or bad person. Even conscientious and courteous drivers make mistakes or have lapses of attention.

      It's the law of large numbers. If you spend a few hours on the road, you'll encounter thousands of drivers. A few of them will be really horrible drivers who shouldn't be on the road. But a few will be conscientious drivers having a bad day, or even a bad 1500 milliseconds.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    14. Re:I have an even better idea by nukenerd · · Score: 3, Informative

      Driving isn't a right, it's a privilege.

      No, it's not. Like the parent said, it's a necessity. Banning people from doing whatever they must to survive is neither effective nor reasonable.

      So no-one can ever be stopped from driving where you live? In the UK there are quite a few classes of people not allowed to drive. Children, people banned for the more serious traffic offences, the blind and poor sighted, and older people who fail the driving re-test they must take periodically. How they get around is their own problem. One solution is not to live somewhere they can only reach by driving a car. I live in a remote area and I accept that one day, when I get old, I might have to move into a city.

    15. Re:I have an even better idea by houghi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you do that 4 times in a row, the yes. there is a clear dfifference between a dangerous driver and somebody who had an accident.

      And if you do not knwo that difference them yes, you should not be on the road anymore.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  2. Not a fan by rmdingler · · Score: 5, Interesting
    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.

    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

    1. Re:Not a fan by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Not a fan by Bob9113 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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; when I go into a long left hander (like a freeway interchange), the weight transfers to the right and the body rolls. The outside (right) rear wheel suspension compresses, and the anti-roll bar lifts the left rear wheel off the ground. It is a stable driving configuration, they just overbuilt the anti-roll bar for the vehicle weight. The inside rear wheel would be unweighted and providing negligible traction even if it were touching the ground, so it is not a risk.

      But here's what happens next: The inside wheel is not being driven, nor is it touching the ground. Air friction slows the wheel, and the traction control system kicks in. It sees that I have three wheels going 60 MPH and one wheel going 20 MPH, and assumes that I am in an aggressive spin. It brakes the three fast wheels; aggressively. And the vehicles bucks like a horse that just saw a rattlesnake. That does cause a very real risk of losing control.

      Sensor-based driving assist is a fine option. It's great for people who want the freedom to text while driving, because it keeps them from killing me. Making it the norm may reduce accidents overall, and we may reach a day when it is superior to any human. But we have not yet reached the point where economy-priced driving assist is less dangerous than an attentive and skilled driver.

    3. Re:Not a fan by OzPeter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    4. Re:Not a fan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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; when I go into a long left hander (like a freeway interchange), the weight transfers to the right and the body rolls. The outside (right) rear wheel suspension compresses, and the anti-roll bar lifts the left rear wheel off the ground. It is a stable driving configuration, they just overbuilt the anti-roll bar for the vehicle weight. The inside rear wheel would be unweighted and providing negligible traction even if it were touching the ground, so it is not a risk.

      But here's what happens next: The inside wheel is not being driven, nor is it touching the ground. Air friction slows the wheel, and the traction control system kicks in. It sees that I have three wheels going 60 MPH and one wheel going 20 MPH, and assumes that I am in an aggressive spin. It brakes the three fast wheels; aggressively. And the vehicles bucks like a horse that just saw a rattlesnake. That does cause a very real risk of losing control.

      Sensor-based driving assist is a fine option. It's great for people who want the freedom to text while driving, because it keeps them from killing me. Making it the norm may reduce accidents overall, and we may reach a day when it is superior to any human. But we have not yet reached the point where economy-priced driving assist is less dangerous than an attentive and skilled driver.

      This and things like my traction control (that freaks out when there is slush on the ground and needs to be turned off so that I'm not stalled in an intersection) and pre-emptive braking systems that are so paranoid that people now complain that they cannot get into a parking garage because the gate is triggering the braking system before they can get close enough to swipe their card or hit the ticket button are why I laugh whenever someone claims that we'll have self-driving cars by 2020 or some other unrealistic date.

    5. Re:Not a fan by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    6. Re:Not a fan by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 3, Informative

      It seems like inattentive drivers are already breeding at an alarming rate.

      Interesting you should say that, since the number of automobile accidents of all kinds has been declining steadily for the last 30 years, at least.

      As has the number of fatal accidents.

      And all this while the number of vehicles on the road has been increasing.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    7. Re:Not a fan by zieroh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
  3. Love collision avoidance in my Volvo by swb · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  4. It ain't rocket science by Radical+Moderate · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "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.