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

Not a fan

[rmdingler]

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.

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

[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.

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

[Jeremi]

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.