10 Major Automakers Agree To Include Automatic Emergency Braking On New Vehicles

An anonymous reader writes: The U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation, and Institute for Highway Safety announced today a landmark agreement from 10 of the world's biggest automakers to include automatic emergency braking on all new vehicles as a standard safety feature. The car manufacturers are: Audi, BMW, Ford, General Motors, Mazda, Mercedes Benz, Tesla, Toyota, Volkswagen and Volvo. "Automatic emergency braking includes a range of systems designed to address the large number of crashes, especially rear-end crashes, in which drivers do not apply the brakes or fail to apply sufficient braking power to avoid or mitigate a crash. AEB systems use on-vehicle sensors such as radar, cameras or lasers to detect an imminent crash, warn the driver and, if the driver does not take sufficient action, engage the brakes."

Comments

Translated

[flipper9]

You mean that automakers are allowing the police to stop people's vehicles at any time for any reason, remotely.

Re:Translated

[knightghost]

That's a next step, but this one is just another way to interfere with a driver. My traction control system tries to murder me at least twice every winter.

Re:Translated

[rtb61]

Actual use could also be problematic. I occasionally have to reverse down a steep exit from a driveway onto a road and that always sets off the parking sensors because the sensors react to the approaching pavement without detecting the vehicle current disposition, being on a steep driveway. Will that mean the car will brake and leave me permanently perched on that driveway.

Re:Translated

[fustakrakich]

Always the conspiracy nut.

It's not nuttery. It's one of many remote "payment assurance devices"

Re:Translated

[alexhs]

You mean that automakers are allowing the police to stop people's vehicles at any time for any reason, remotely.

That technology already exists. It's usually called a police roadblock.

Re:Translated

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean that automakers are allowing the police to stop people's vehicles at any time for any reason, remotely.

Even assuming that it isn't controllable remotely -- who is going to answer for accidents that happen when emergency break activate by accident?

Re:Translated

[vux984]

Will that mean the car will brake and leave me permanently perched on that driveway.

1) Automatic emergency braking has been around for a few years already. If that was going to be an issue, we'd have already heard about it.

2) IIRC the emergency braking is disengaged below a threshold speed. How fast due you hit the street off your driveway?

Re:Translated

[wonkey_monkey]

You mean that automakers are allowing the police to stop people's vehicles at any time for any reason, remotely.

Yes, if by "remotely" you mean "by putting something in their way."

Otherwise, no.

Re:Translated

[Ichijo]

But it was just an accident.

Re:Translated

[FranTaylor]

the real issue is that the cost of cars is going to go up again.

Who cares about human lives when you can get the premium sound package for a discount!

Re:Translated

[ShanghaiBill]

the real issue is that the cost of cars is going to go up again.

But the cost of insurance will go down.

the truth is they will make more money per car sold, and raise the cost of entry level cars

Car manufacturing is an very competitive business. If they could just raise prices, and expect consumers to accept it, they would have already done so.

This is proven technology, that is already installed in millions of cars. In mass production, it will add little to the cost of new cars. The cost saved in avoided or less severe accidents will likely overwhelm the equipment cost.

Re:Translated

[ganjadude]

oh but you see, they now have the blessing passing the buck, in the name of safety!

Re:Translated

[ganjadude]

i think people should be able to decide for themselves how much safety equipment they want to have

Re:Translated

[alangmead]

Very few of the rear end collisions that this type of system protects against have fatalities. Even relatively few injuries compared to other accidents. What we are mostly talking about here would be reducing property damage (the car collided into) so insurance claims will go down (to the benefit of the ones collecting the insurance premiums) This will also be a boon to the companies who own the automatic emergency braking patents, as they get to license them to the other auto manufacturers.

Re:Translated

[ShanghaiBill]

oh but you see, they now have the blessing passing the buck, in the name of safety!

Except markets don't work that way. There is no requirement to "pass the buck" to justify price increases. If they want to change the price, they can just change it, and car retailers do that daily, as supply and demand fluctuate.

Re:Translated

[SydShamino]

This safety feature mostly helps the person being hit, not the one doing the hitting.

Re:Translated

[vtcodger]

I suppose that it'll be a net plus since most driving is done on OK roads and not everyone pays as much attention to other vehicles as one might hope.. But I agree with you. The poorer the driving conditions the less well ABS works. In heavy snow, having the wheels lock up more or less at random and not stay locked makes directional control when stopping really difficult. Not that driving more than a few mph on ice or in heavy snow is usually all that great an idea. But it IS annoying to have the car go out of its way to make an already difficult task harder.

Re:Translated

[ganjadude]

lets take seatbelts

back in the day they were a luxury. they cost more to install on the car so only high end models had them. Then the government mandated them, now all cars have them and prices go up

same has happened with airbags, ABS and traction control, even things like headrests.

Re:Translated

[beelsebob]

The poorer the driving conditions the less well ABS works. In heavy snow, having the wheels lock up more or less at random and not stay locked makes directional control when stopping really difficult.

If the wheels lock up, that's because you braked too hard. ABS unlocks them for you, giving you more directional control. If you want better directional control still, don't brake so hard.

Re:Translated

[beelsebob]

What accidents? The following cars will also have an emergency braking system, and as a result, stop in time.

Re:Translated

[FranTaylor]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year

You complain about costs, but look at the above page to see that these "expensive" items have saved many hundreds of thousands of lives.

Re:Translated

[FranTaylor]

Very few of the rear end collisions that this type of system protects against have fatalities.

Whiplash injuries are really horrible, the damage is permanent and painful forever. They happen even in low speed collisions. You've completely neglected the fact that whiplash injuries will be greatly reduced.

Re:Translated

[Grishnakh]

>What kind of crappy car has ABS that still allows you to lock up the wheels when stomping on the brakes?

The kind that's driving on icy roads. ABS can only detect lockup if there's a difference in wheelspin rates. When you're sliding across ice and slam on the brakes, they're all going to stop at once, even though the car will keep moving. So, as the parent said, if your brakes lock up like that, you braked too hard. These systems are a great help, but they aren't 100% foolproof.

Re:Translated

[ganjadude]

ok, and? I understand all that...but shouldnt it be MY choice?

Re:Translated

[Grishnakh]

I've never heard of automatic emergency braking while in reverse, just when moving forward.

Re:Translated

[davester666]

In heavy snow and/or ice, when your wheels are not rotating, your vehicle is going to continue sliding in whatever direction it currently is moving, regardless of which direction you have the front wheels pointed.

ABS RELEASES your brakes, so the wheels can rotate, both giving you more control over which direction you go AND working to increase the friction between your tires and the surface they are on [as when the tire is sliding, the coefficient of friction between the tire and the surface is LESS than it would be if the tire is rotating.

Re:Translated

[Jeremi]

i think people should be able to decide for themselves how much safety equipment they want to have

That would be fine if the only people who suffered were the people who made the bad decisions. In this case, however, it's not only the inattentive-and-cheap car owner who suffers, but also whatever (or whomever) he runs into.

Re:Translated

[icebike]

You mean that automakers are allowing the police to stop people's vehicles at any time for any reason, remotely.

Oh come off it.

This technology is already in lots and lots of cars, its being advertised heavily by at least a half dozen car companies, from Subaru all the way up to Mercedes.
When have you ever seen police stop anybody electronically?

The technology has been proven for years in options packages or standard equipment on higher priced cars, and these days on mid priced cars.
I've had it since 2012, and it has never once false alarmed and applied brakes inappropriately. It can detect and warn me of slower traffic AHEAD of the car in front of me, even when the car ahead has not yet realized it is approaching a crash.

I'm embarrassed to admit It has braked the car at least a couple times for me when I was distracted.

Re:Translated

[icebike]

Even if you lock them up hard (which is easy to do when on glare ice) the traction control system still detects that the wheels have stopped.
Some systems used initertial sensors, but it was found that drivers will steer during a skid, and this fact can be used by the computer that it is in a 4 wheel skid.

Modern electronic stability control systems are an evolution of the ABS concept. Here, a minimum of two additional sensors are added to help the system work: these are a steering wheel angle sensor, and a gyroscopic sensor. The theory of operation is simple: when the gyroscopic sensor detects that the direction taken by the car does not coincide with what the steering wheel sensor reports, the ESC software will brake the necessary individual wheel(s) (up to three with the most sophisticated systems), so that the vehicle goes the way the driver intends.

Re: Translated

[stevedog]

It is an issue already. I have PreSafe braking on my car (2015), which will automatically beep if closing on a car such that your rate of deceleration will be insufficient to prevent a collision, and then brakes if you get especially close and are braking but just not enough.

It has gone off quite a few times when I am getting close to a car that is turning, because it can't detect the "rate of turn" and figure out that by the time I get there, the car won't be there anymore. It sometimes even does this on oddly contoured road with no other cars, like a decline approaching an inclining turn (sees the road as an unmoving object).

I like the feature overall, because unless I am already braking, all that happens is a tone sounding, and it's especially nice in stop-and-go traffic. If the car had actually slammed on the brakes each time, though, I would not be nearly as excited.

Re:Translated

[DigiShaman]

I doubt it. It's not just proximity, but the rate of speed closing in on the obstruction; in your case the pavement rather than another car. Otherwise parallel parking wouldn't be possible anymore. So as long as you're slowly backing out of the driveway like you normally would, I would think that AEB wouldn't be triggered.

Re: Translated

[stevedog]

No. Part of being in society and benefiting from said membership is an inherent agreement that there are certain ways in which you, and those around you, will be limited in the damage they can do to one another. You have a case for an argument like that when your decision has no reasonably foreseeable potential victims. This is not one of those scenarios. That is not to say that this should be mandated by any means, just to say that this is not one of those "my consequences, my choice, no discussion necessary" questions. That's why it should be discussed.

Re:Translated

[FranTaylor]

No, it should not be your choice. Your choice means nothing to anybody but you. However the safety of the other motorists is very much directly the business of the government, because the public roads are owned by the government and the constitution states quite directly that the government should act to protect the general welfare of the population.

Re:Translated

[FlyHelicopters]

ok, and? I understand all that...but shouldnt it be MY choice?

No, not really... because those things also make the rest of us safer...

If you're driving on private land, you don't need any of it. But if you're driving on public roads with the rest of us, then yes, you need it all.

Re:Translated

[FranTaylor]

ABS RELEASES your brakes, so the wheels can rotate,

you are making the rather brash assumption that the tires are pointed in the same direction as the car is moving. If the car is sliding and the driver is not pointing the wheel correctly then none of the tires will be lined up with the direction of travel and ABS is not going to be of any help at all, the tires will still just slide.

Re:Translated

[ganjadude]

how does me wearing a seatbelt, or have airbags in my car, or a higher belt line, or taller head rests have anything to do with the safety of anyone other than myself (baring passengers in the car, who are also free to decide if they want to ride with me or not)

I might be willing to cave on ABS and traction control, but the others??? please explain how your line of reasoning fits

Re: Translated

[ganjadude]

i didnt sign any agreement, and simply being born doesnt subject me to any

Re:Translated

[ganjadude]

me wearing a seatbelt makes you safer....how

Re:Translated

[ganjadude]

not if their car has all the bells and whistles!

Re:Translated

[epyT-R]

I'm not sure the diminishing amounts of safety gained by these kinds of gimmicks is worth the massive distraction factor they cause. The solution isn't to enable people who can't be bothered to drive properly. The solution is to get distracted drivers off the road.

Re: Translated

[Fwipp]

No.

Re:Translated

[David_Hart]

Very few of the rear end collisions that this type of system protects against have fatalities.

Whiplash injuries are really horrible, the damage is permanent and painful forever. They happen even in low speed collisions. You've completely neglected the fact that whiplash injuries will be greatly reduced.

According to the info below, a small percentage do have extended health issues after experiencing Whiplash. However, most people do recover from it.

http://www.healthline.com/heal...
http://www.bottonline.co.uk/gu...
http://www.mayoclinic.org/dise...

That being said, I do agree that if this reduces injuries by preventing accidents then its a good idea. The problem is that it also needs to show that it doesn't end up causing other types of accidents.

For example, the car in front is breaking, you are breaking and steering off the road to miss the guy in front and to prevent the guy behind from hitting you, and then the automatic breaks kick in, causing the guy behind you to hit your car and launch it into the car in front. In this case, you could have avoided the accident by driving on to the shoulder of the road but the automatic system wouldn't let you.

Re:Translated

[David_Hart]

how does me wearing a seatbelt, or have airbags in my car, or a higher belt line, or taller head rests have anything to do with the safety of anyone other than myself (baring passengers in the car, who are also free to decide if they want to ride with me or not)

  I might be willing to cave on ABS and traction control, but the others??? please explain how your line of reasoning fits

I'm willing to bet that if you dig deep the major proponent for this is the Insurance industry. Why? Accidents eat into the bottom line.

Re:Translated

[davester666]

Yes. And in that exact situation, non-ABS brakes would do exactly the same thing. And there are also situations where ABS activating is worse than if it didn't activate. Just like seatbelts and airbags will kill some people. But for the vast majority of cases where it does activate, it results in the driver having more control and being able to stop faster than if it did not activate.

Formula 1 didn't ban ABS brakes because they didn't work well. It was because they worked too well.

Re:Translated

[wvmarle]

Your example shows poor driving overall: in this case keeping far too little distance between your car and the car in front of you.

There's not much technology can do against poor human driving, short of fully automating the car and removing the human factor from the equation all together.

Re:Translated

[firewrought]

i think people should be able to decide for themselves how much safety equipment they want to have

That would be fine if the only people who suffered were the people who made the bad decisions. In this case, however, it's not only the inattentive-and-cheap car owner who suffers, but also whatever (or whomever) he runs into.

Even then it wouldn't really be fine. Case in point: before state legislators started passing seat belt laws in the late 80's/early 90's, the usage rate was ~14%. Think about it: six supposedly mature adults each climb behind the wheel of a 1 ton death machine and prepare to undertake the most dangerous part of their day, and only one of them takes the most basic precaution of buckling up. Incredible. Fast-forward to present day and 5 of those 6 adults (87%) buckle-up. Thank you government regulation and public advocacy. Somehow, 4 out of 6 people find their own mortality less worthy of motivation than the threat of a $25 fine and a chiming dashboard nag light.

Sometimes a little nanny government can go a long ways.

Re:Translated

[aevan]

I'll give you an example for the seatbelt one: was on a highway-speed road, when the person on a road to the left ran the stop sign, and smashed in the my driver side. Instead of kissing the passenger seat from the hit, I was kept in the seat behind the wheel long enough to notice an idiot on a RIGHT side road (was a little offset) decide if the other side was crossing it must be safe...and race out. Because was still 'driving', managed to minimise THAT impact somewhat.

Re:Translated

[Anonymous Coward]

They are after our precious braking fluids!

Re:Translated

[kheldan]

I don't know about any conspiracy-theory nonsense, unless you have facts to back that up, but otherwise I'm OK with this sort of technology -- so long as it actually works properly 100% of the time and doesn't do something stupid that actually gets you into an accident instead. Otherwise I've done fine without such things for 35 years of driving, I can do fine without it for however many more years, too.

While we're talking about driving.. what the hell are they teaching new drivers these days, that they don't know you're supposed to match velocities with the rest of the traffic when entering a freeway? I'm serious, they're getting on a freeway that's humming along at 70-75mph, and they're doing it at maybe 60mph. I see this every single day, too. Do they think they're going to break their cars or something, if they stomp the accelerator pedal?

Re:Translated

[youn]

Please send my regards to Christine :)

Re: Translated

[Your.Master]

You don't have a signature on your driver's license?

Re:Translated

[Your.Master]

Your death or injury means you will lose control of your vehicle.

Re: Translated

[dunkelfalke]

The thing is, you are assuming that the car that is turning won't be there anymore. This is not given. The car might abort the turn for some reason, it might stall, it might take longer than you expect. Better to slow down.

Re: Translated

[Cyberax]

Sure. Nobody forces you to stay in the society. If you object to traffic laws then don't drive on public roads. Easy enough, isn't it? Or you can move to another country without traffic laws (might I suggest Pakistan or Somalia?).

Re:Translated

[dunkelfalke]

So my suggestion is to remove the driver airbag and install a large steel spike into the steering wheel. That will help getting distracted drivers off the road rather quickly and for good.

Re:Translated

[Cyberax]

We won't have to give you paychecks for your disability for the rest of your life. And I'm 100% sure that you'll come whining for disability payments even in case of your own negligence leading to it. Just like any other libertarian (including Ayn Rand).

Re: Translated

[Anonymous Coward]

"figure out that by the time I get there, the car won't be there anymore"

YOU IDIOT!

Please stop driving like this. I bet you also assume that a pedestrian crossing the road a 100 yards ahead of you is going to get out of the way in time?

What happens if the pedestrian trips and stumbles in the road? What if that turning car sees an obstruction to the turn and stops? They are focussing on the road/drive they are turning into and you aren't, so there's every chance you won't see the obstruction.

You MUST treat all obstructions as potential stoppages and slow down accordingly. Yes, on average you'll end up going a little slowly, but it's infinitely safer.

Re:Translated

[zAPPzAPP]

What does that have to do with automatic braking?
Electronics are already controlling the brake system. If they wanted to allow for remote locking of the brakes, they could do it. No need to hook those up to sensors like laser/radar and an evaluation system. A simple switch (or bit) would do it.

Re:Translated

[markdavis]

>>"i think people should be able to decide for themselves how much safety equipment they want to have"

>"That would be fine if the only people who suffered were the people who made the bad decisions. In this case, however, it's not only the inattentive-and-cheap car owner who suffers, but also whatever (or whomever) he runs into."

Now THAT is a slippery slope if ever I saw one. MOST things that people do, even if in just some remote way, can affect others. Financially, through insurance costs, if nothing else (and that excuse is being used more and more to control our lives now). That doesn't mean society should control everything we do and buy in the name of safety.

Freedom and safety are diametrically opposed.

Re:Translated

[AmiMoJo]

No, it won't. Once it engages you just have to tap the brake, and it doesn't engage at all under certain conditions like when you already have your foot on the brake.

Re:Translated

[MrL0G1C]

If you want to die, there are plenty of options, this safety feature is primarily about saving other peoples lives.

Re:Translated

[Hognoxious]

I occasionally have to reverse down a steep exit from a driveway

If you reversed in you wouldn't have that problem.

Re:Translated

[fisted]

ESC software will brake the necessary individual wheel(s) (up to three with the most sophisticated systems), so that the vehicle goes the way the driver intends.

Defeating physics if necessary.

Re: Translated

[MightyYar]

I had to disable it once, in mid slow-motion skid on snow as I was approaching a retaining wall. I'm not sure what the car was trying to do, but it was not working.

Re:Translated

[thegarbz]

Or we could just implement a small safety feature to reduce risks in the single most dangerous activity any of us are likely to do on a given day.

Seriously, car safety features is one area where we can't spend too much. I say we abolish the TSA and the DHS and spend their entire budget on vehicle safety and targeted road improvements, and you'll improve lives more than any of those two departments ever have or ever will.

Re: Translated

[pnutjam]

"Those who would give up momentum, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither speed nor Safety."

Re:Translated

[beelsebob]

The best way to accomplish that seems to be to be to lock all four wheels and use the steering to control direction while the vehicle slowly slithers to a stop.

Wrong

Not only do you have less control over direction when the wheels are locked than when they're unlocked, but your car will stop more slowly.

Re: Translated

[Intron]

Do they remove the capability once your car is paid?

Re:Translated

[drinkypoo]

ABS can only detect lockup if there's a difference in wheelspin rates.

This is completely false and also besides the point, because all cars since 2010 have active yaw control/electronic stability control (AYC/ESC) and they have accelerometers that know what the car is up to. But in fact, no difference in wheel spin rates is necessary. Modern vehicles don't just cross-check between different wheels, they also test whether a wheel speed is ridiculous. Just like OBD-II has a "comprehensive" monitor that continually checks for out-of-range values, the vehicle knows the engine and transmission output speeds and can react to clearly invalid conditions. In fact, an automatic transmission usually has both input and final output speed sensors, even when it's a transaxle; the output speed sensor is located right before the differential. Then there are also wheel speed sensors, which may be located at the wheel itself or which may be located at the outputs of the differential. Ideally you want them at the wheel, but that provides opportunities for failure of the cable leading to the coil pickup.

My 1997 A8 has a crank position sensor which tells it engine speed, a cam position sensor which is used for cam position and to cross-check the crank position, an input speed sensor in the ZF5HP42 slush box, an output speed sensor before the center diff in the box, and output speed sensors on both sides of the front diff, also in the transaxle. It not only knows how fast everything is going, but it also knows how much torque the engine is producing at any given time, and the climate control can ask for more or the transmission can ask for less during shifts. The traction control system in the ABS module will brake individual wheels and/or ask for torque reduction. And my car doesn't even have ESP! Cars built later in the year got it, as well as Bosch ABS 5.1 instead of 5.0, and they have accelerometers beneath the driver's seat which also drive braking, torque reduction, etc.

Of course, if too many speed sensors go bad, the system throws up its hands and gives up. But that's what you want. The system can actually detect intermittent shorts or opens, although mine is too old to actually distinguish between them.

Re:Translated

[drinkypoo]

Seat belts keep you in your seat and in control of the vehicle in a collision, and keep you from being thrown psuedorandomly from the vehicle where you become a road hazard to others. I agree that mandating the rest of that stuff is wrong to a degree. Nobody should be allowed to sell a basically unsafe car because our society shits on you if you don't have a car, and otherwise people will be essentially forced to buy deathtraps because they are poor.

With that said, you can make a 100% custom vehicle, and drive it on public roads. Insurance may be expensive, but that's your choice, right?

Re:Translated

[kheldan]

km/h

..OK, I sometimes, apparently, forget the Internet is world-wide. I'm in the U.S.; I'd expect driving habits/driver education and training to be different in other countries, but I'm specifically talking about drivers here in the U.S. Sorry for the confusion.

Re: Translated

[AvitarX]

In my focus it would cut acceleration if the wheels were spinning faster than the car was moving (ever so rarely when starting in rain and a decent amount in snow)

When trapped in snow or mud, you need to spin the wheels a little bit. Also when powering through a puddle you probably shouldn't be driving through

The owners manual explains reason one in the how to get out of a snow drift section.

Re:Translated

[RealUlli]

I see it often too, just the other way around. Most cars are doing about 120 km/h (which is the speed limit) and some people are overtaking them at 140 km/h at least. They don't know about velocity matching nor speed limits.

Overtaking at a significant speed difference is ok. However, when you want to join another lane, you should match velocities, not force everyone else to match yours.

Replying to the grand-parent:

While we're talking about driving.. what the hell are they teaching new drivers these days, that they don't know you're supposed to match velocities with the rest of the traffic when entering a freeway? I'm serious, they're getting on a freeway that's humming along at 70-75mph, and they're doing it at maybe 60mph. I see this every single day, too. Do they think they're going to break their cars or something, if they stomp the accelerator pedal?

A while ago, I was watching a video from a trucker, who was also mad at idiots not accelerating on the onramp. In the comments, a person just having gotten his driving license spoke up and said he was trained to gently accelerate when joining the freeway, to save fuel.

Apparently, the trainer never considered it saves much more fuel when the truck coming up from behind doesn't have to brake and accelerate again...

Disclaimer: what I described happened in Germany, with a truck speed limit of 80 km/h, the person merging doing maybe 70. (70 km/h == about 44 mph)

Re: Translated

[MobSwatter]

Actually it is more about the fact that driving is something you should never have to actually pay attention to, or so they believe. It's Google posturing itself for selling self driving cars so the powers that be can mold you into even more of a retard.

Re:Translated

[Type44Q]

Even if you lock them up hard (which is easy to do when on glare ice) the traction control system still detects that the wheels have stopped.

You're confusing anti-lock brakes and stability with traction control: traction control merely limits wheel-slip under acceleration.

Re:Translated

[michelcolman]

No, when stopping on non-compacted snow, the snow will build up in front of the locked wheels and improve braking. With anti-lock brakes, you roll over the snow so it doesn't build up in front of the wheels and your stopping distance actually increases.

In most other conditions (dry, wet, ice,...) a good ABS system does indeed let you stop quicker. But not in snow.

And many cheaper ABS systems even give you longer stopping distances on dry roads too. Pretty much the only advantage of those is keeping steering control while braking hard.

Re: Translated

[dlenmn]

Agreed. Note that at least two large manufacturers are missing, but I doubt Honda and Nissan will benefit because of the increased cost to other brands. In fact, I bet they'll soon jump on the bandwagon. Seriously, the cost of this is basically nill. It's mostly software and a couple bucks in sensors.

Re: Translated

[Cederic]

That made me laugh.

Although the anti-speed brigade also underestimate the safety benefits of momentum.

Re:Translated

[Cederic]

rtb61 occasionally has to drive down a steep exit from a driveway.

Now tell me why he doesn't have that problem?

Re:Translated

[Cederic]

I love my speed limiters. They've saved me a lot of money and probably helped me avoid losing my licence.

The problem is that if you drive at a speed that's safe for the conditions, you end up getting fined for speeding. Stupid, I know.

Re: Translated

[icebike]

Not confusingly at all. These systems are one and the same in mist modern cars. Once you have the hardware to do one, adding the other is dirt cheap. You will seldom see a vehicle sold wwit one bbu not the other.

Reread what I posted.

Re:Translated

[angel'o'sphere]

Yes, and this thinking is exactly the reason why governments make laws to prevent people who have such stupid thoughts from living according to what they think.
You know what I think? If you don't want to pay, can not afford, saftey measures, insurances and other means that makes the live of your co-citizens more save: then stay of my lawn!

Re:Translated

[angel'o'sphere]

Freedom and safety are diametrically opposed.
No, they arent.
Freedom is restricted by people who make you less free, e.g. putting you in jail, hunting you, restricting you in some way.
Safety is restricted by people who harm you. No need to restrict your freedom, self percieved safety, to harm you. However you can be guarantied that after your safety was harmed you have less freedom.

Re:Translated

[angel'o'sphere]

There is no 'single emergency breaking patent'.
Every company buildung such a system has its own patent(s).

Re: Translated

[angel'o'sphere]

The cost is about 2000 dollars.
Radar and/or a stereoscopic camera, plus the hardware/software to analyze the pictures and control the car.
It is not 'just a bunsh of sensors'.

Re: Translated

[pslytely psycho]

" A decent driver knows to put just enough throttle to spin the tires uphill, maintain a straight trajectory, and keep a constant forward momentum."'

You've never actually driven in snow have you? (disclosure: I am a professional driver trainer for OTR * semi truck** drivers) You are not a decent driver since spinning the tires means YOU HAVE LOST TRACTION AND ARE LOSING MOMENTUM, you must keep your tires rolling forward without spinning them to maintain momentum. When they begin to spin you have failed.

* Over The Road (long haul)
** Lorries

Re:Translated

[mikeiver1]

Really? To bad it has to come to this. The reality is that this is being driven by the fucking assholes being distracted by the driving from their all important texting. The car should punch the assholes in the face every time is has to save them and the innocent other driver/s from an accident. I drive allot and dodge at least a couple of idiots a month while they are busy texting.

Re:Translated

[kheldan]

Well if it's the case here in the U.S. that drivers training instructors are teaching student drivers that saving a teaspoon of gasoline is more important than not creating a traffic hazard, then there needs to be some serious reform around here with regards to driver training in general. Nothing trumps physics, especially where human lives are concerned.

..grandparent..

Oh and by the way you can leave off with that bullshit right now.

Re:Translated

[hucker75]

They can already ask you to stop and arrest you if you don't, so what's the difference?

Re:Translated

[ebvwfbw]

I see the clueless are still on /.

Here's a hint - suppose you're not on ice, wouldn't it be really nice to stop to not hit that deer? If it's worried about you locking your brakes because you're an asshole relying on it to save you, so you do stupid things like follow way to close - that's your fault. Drive as if you don't have abs, it's just a dumb car with drum brakes. It'll save your ass then.

Re:Translated

[kmoser]

You mean that automakers are allowing the police to stop people's vehicles at any time for any reason, remotely.

And hackers. Let's not forget the hackers.

Re:Translated

[swalve]

Not necessarily. Some systems use the ABS to do traction control, some use the electronic throttle to cut engine power.

Re:Translated

[swalve]

People are notoriously bad at realizing this. The ABS only goes off if it detects wheels going different speeds when they shouldn't. The ABS only triggers once you have already lost control!

There is a scenario where the ABS can slow things down, but it's not something that can be relied upon. That is when the vehicle is on a material that will form a wedge/clump (like gravel or packable snow).

Re: Translated

[KingMotley]

Sorry, the AC is correct. Many TCS systems will attempt to keep the tires from spinning, and without spinning, the tires don't rotate enough to keep the car moving forward, especially with rear wheel drive cars. I often have to disable the TCS system for my car for it to even be able to move forward in relatively deep snow. If going up a hill as he mentioned, the TCS system can and will make you lose enough momentum that you get stuck on the hill and the only way to move after that point is now in reverse (if you get stuck and don't start sliding backwards that is).

Re:Translated

[robi5]

> Maybe we should all live in bunkers surrounded by big mounds of cinder blocks. That would be the ultimate safety.

We're already doing that. What you describe is called 'walls', and the emerging structure, 'buildings'. These bunkers are rarely left, except for the purpose of expressly being outside of them, or much more frequently, just moving from one bunker to another. In this case, other 'wall' structures collectively called 'car chassis' provide some physical protection, which itself is dangerous to its surroundings as weighs a ton.

Walls are a successful defense and regulation tool and can be found everywhere, from cellular walls to country borders.

Since building cars from cinder blocks isn't a good option, people add other physical and behavioral elements to augment the protection part, including the horn, traffic rules and traffic lights, legal and police enforcement, safety belt, crumple zones, lights, airbags, ABS, traction control, and emergency braking, which e.g. Volvo has had as an option for several years. Over the course of time, if deemed effective, these elements become mandatory. This is just yet another small step.

Re: Translated

[robi5]

Yes you were BORN and thus became part of society and its legal system, deal with it or escape society. You can't just cherry-pick.

Re:Translated

[robi5]

> how does me wearing a seatbelt, or have airbags in my car, or a higher belt line, or taller head rests have anything to do with the safety of anyone other than myself

Who said the benefits are only limited to your safety. There's also cost. If you get maimed, it's pretty expensive to keep you from not dying, and you may never be able to work again. You may have dependents or loved ones for whom your tragic event would suck big time. Also, the article is about an active safety system that can actually reduce targets (e.g. other cars and their passengers, or pedestrians) being hit.

> (baring passengers in the car, who are also free to decide if they want to ride with me or not)

Children? I don't think so. Even their own parents aren't allowed to just 'decide' about stuff like that. It's a question even with adults, if they can legally agree to such thing. For an easy example, it may not be obvious or known to them that your car is unsafe, so the 'informed' is missing from informed consent.

Re:Translated

[q4Fry]

Because when this tech comes out, no one will drive a car that doesn't have it? Just like every vehicle on the road now has a catalytic converter and side-curtain air bags?

Re:Translated

[Toshito]

I guess you're not a motorcycle rider.

Re:Translated

[cwsumner]

What accidents? The following cars will also have an emergency braking system, and as a result, stop in time.

Sorry, the world is not that perfect... 8-)
And just because it is computerized does not make it perfect, either.
I know about it, I'm the one who computerizes things.

Re:Translated

[cwsumner]

So my suggestion is to remove the driver airbag and install a large steel spike into the steering wheel. That will help getting distracted drivers off the road rather quickly and for good.

That might actually be effective, psychologicelly. But unlikelly to be enacted, too many people are afraid of fear.
But maybe a taser?

Or maybe just detect when the steering stops being moved, and then trigger the taser. Yeah! 8-}

The first fuse I pull

[Anonymous Coward]

bullshit, no way I'm letting the car brake for me.

Re:The first fuse I pull

[FranTaylor]

bullshit, no way I'm letting the car brake for me.

if you have ABS, the car is already deciding when you can brake and when you can't.

if you have an automatic transmission, the "gas" pedal is merely a "suggestion" to the system that actually controls the throttle.

if you are driving on public roadways you have already agreed to follow whatever regulations the government has decided to impose on you

Re:The first fuse I pull

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah, cuz buhGAWD, you don't want to prevent accidents. you are so responsible and intelligent that you straight up will pull the muhfuggin fuse out because you WANT to get into a muhfuggin accident.

high fives, my fellow retard.

we are truly bruvvers.

Re:The first fuse I pull

[bobthesungeek76036]

if you have an automatic transmission, the "gas" pedal is merely a "suggestion" to the system that actually controls the throttle...

It doesn't have to be an automatic transmission. on my BMW with a 6-speed stick, the "gas" pedal is nothing more than a potentiometer that feeds the master computer and said computer controls everything including a stepper motor connected to the throttle body...

Re:The first fuse I pull

[sexconker]

if you have an automatic transmission, the "gas" pedal is merely a "suggestion" to the system that actually controls the throttle.

You're thinking of electronic fuel injection (at least I hope you are).
If you want direct control over the flow of fuel to the flaming chambers of boom, you'll need to ditch EFI and bring back the ol' choke. It's fun for about 5 minutes.

Re:The first fuse I pull

[FranTaylor]

the "gas" pedal is nothing more than a potentiometer that feeds the master computer

In the old days before computers the gas pedal still was not directly connected to the throttle. There is a linkage from the transmission that overrides the pedal input and backs off the throttle when the transmission shifts gears. It's all mechanical.

Re:The first fuse I pull

[Anonymous Coward]

bullshit, no way I'm letting the car brake for me.

if you have ABS, the car is already deciding when you can brake and when you can't.

Nope, what ABS does is rapidly pulse the brakes for you (and much faster than you can) when it detects a situation where the brakes would lock and the car would simply skid. In over 4 years my ABS has had to kick in a handful of times (it's damn obvious when it does) and I was glad that it did each time.

Re:The first fuse I pull

[FranTaylor]

You're thinking of electronic fuel injection

no, the oldest automatic transmissions from the 1950s and 1960s worked this way.

Re:The first fuse I pull

[FranTaylor]

Nope, what ABS does is rapidly pulse the brakes for you (and much faster than you can)

so in other words the car is deciding the braking action, not you

Re:The first fuse I pull

[Predius]

You've got it backwards. The linkage between the throttle and the transmission was how the automatic determined 'demand' or load. Light input, upshift occur sooner. Put it into the floorboards and it'll wait to upshift until the last moment. Unloading the transmission was done via an ignition cutout triggered by the transmission.

Re:The first fuse I pull

[beelsebob]

Actually, re modern ABS, it's much much smarter than that. It's lifting the brakes when it detects that the wheels have locked, just enough to unlock them, and then finding the ideal traction spot for you. Pulsing was just the first (fairly naïve) implementation.

Re: The first fuse I pull

[stangdriver]

The pedal for my 66 is linked directly to the carburetor.

Re:The first fuse I pull

[FranTaylor]

Have you driven a stick shift car? You know how you have to momentarily back off on the throttle as you shift? This has to happen in an automatic, also. This is what the mechanism does.

Re: The first fuse I pull

[FranTaylor]

you mean its linked directly to the servo mechanism bolted to the side of the carburetor

Re:The first fuse I pull

[FranTaylor]

it is the same because the computer is controlling the brakes, not you

Re:The first fuse I pull

[Grishnakh]

Yes, but they don't have bony long legs like deer, and windshields are made of laminated safety glass so you should be safe.

Re:The first fuse I pull

[Predius]

No, it doesn't. (And yes, I drive stick, and also road race motorcycles and am familiar with clutchless shifting using the throttle there.) The ignition cut out is what temporarily unloads the transmission making for a smoother shift, the linkage doesn't 'pull back' on the throttle. Think of it this way, have you ever felt the throttle pedal 'push back' more during a shift? You actually don't need to unload a traditional planetary gear automatic to shift anyways, the gear change is accomplished by bands restraining outer gearsets. Again, to demonstrate this unplug the ignition cutout feed from the transmission, floor it and hang on as you get hard but functional shifts.

Re:The first fuse I pull

[FranTaylor]

Think of it this way, have you ever felt the throttle pedal 'push back' more during a shift? Y

that's not how the mechanism works

Drive an automatic car with a tachometer. Watch how the revs move when you shift, its not from you pushing on the pedal.

Re:The first fuse I pull

[thegreatbob]

The only time I've had issues with ABS (in dry weather) is in moderate braking while going over an abrupt change in road height (e.g. misaligned expansion joints on a bridge). The effects of the ABS system having activated are present for a potentially unnerving time after it activates, and I've had to pump the pedal to avoid hitting the person in front of me.

Re:The first fuse I pull

[thegreatbob]

In all of the vehicles I've owned, I've successfully deactivated the ABS system by pulling the fuse. For testing purposes, obviously.

Re:The first fuse I pull

[Predius]

That RPM drop isn't from closing the throttle. It's from cutting spark, ignition cutout at first, and then from the inertia of the car overcoming the torque of the motor and DRAGGING it down to rev match. The throttle linkage controls the shift points and weather or not the transmission 'kicks down' a gear when you stab the throttle.

Modern cars that are full electronic don't use a mechanical linkage to signal the transmission to alter shift patterns now.

For an example of this, look at this vid: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Note how the kickdown lever is operated and adjusted, it's pushed by the throttle when you floor it. Not the other way around.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?... GM uses a different setup, again you can see how the setup is to signal the transmission as to what's going on. Alternate methods GM used were vacuum sensing, no physical linkage.

http://www.jalopyjournal.com/f... has a discussion on using C4 transmissions without the throttle linkage, note no worries about the transmission not somehow closing the throttle on shifts, 'cause it never did in the first place.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... has a paragraph on the governor in the transmission that is controlled via either a mechanical throttle linkage or vacuum, aka the part we've been discussing. Note the lack of any comment about it closing the throttle.

Ultimately though, if you want to see this in action, drag out your ye-olde automatic with a mechanical throttle linkage and get it on a lift so the drive wheels are off the ground and the car is stable and secure. Pop the air filter off so you can watch the throttle body butterfly(s) while a friend runs the car up through the gears. You won't see any movement during shifts.

Re:The first fuse I pull

[quintessencesluglord]

God you are dense.

Following your line of logic, if you have electric windows, the car is deciding to open and close them, not you. If you have power brakes, the car is deciding to brake, not you. If you have cruise control, air conditioning, etc.

ABS modulates the brakes. That is more than fine hair away from deciding when you can and can not brake. Those of us who grew up without ABS still reflexively take our foot off the brakes when the wheel goes numb, and reapply because, get this, ABS only allows you to steer with locked brakes. Your actual stopping distance is longer than if you had applied the brakes short of engaging the ABS.

And you might have discovered the "1,2,3" past the "D" on an automatic transmission. Surprise! You can control the gearing just like a manual. The throttle body controls the throttle for automatic or manual.

But more to the point, implementation of automatic braking is going to be key. If it is noticeable for all the wrong reasons, it is just inviting people to disable it. And if it can't differentiate between a semi in front of me or a motorcycle, or when you happen to drafting on track days, several automakers could be facing lawsuits when sudden, unanticipated application of the brakes cause the vehicle to go out of control.

Re:The first fuse I pull

[epyT-R]

if you have ABS, the car is already deciding when you can brake and when you can't.

Not exactly. ABS is (mostly) a fixed response to a fixed input, and even with that there are situations where it's better to have it disabled. Systems like 'automatic braking' are using (shitty) heuristics to decide when to brake for you.

if you have an automatic transmission, the "gas" pedal is merely a "suggestion" to the system that actually controls the throttle.

Agreed, and there's already been issues with such systems. The answer isn't more needless complexity.

if you are driving on public roadways you have already agreed to follow whatever regulations the government has decided to impose on you

That doesn't mean those impositions are rational or valid.

Re:The first fuse I pull

[epyT-R]

Your assumption that it's always safer is the problem.

Re:The first fuse I pull

[0123456]

Nope, what ABS does is rapidly pulse the brakes for you (and much faster than you can) when it detects a situation where the brakes would lock and the car would simply skid.

But modern cars use the ABS system to do much more than that. Mine, for example, detects wheelspin and can automatically apply the brakes on that wheel, rather than cut the power to all four wheels. It will also apply additional brake pressure if it decides you're trying to do an emergency stop, but not pushing as hard on the pedal as you could.

The former is useful. Not so sure about the latter, as I've never triggered it yet.

Re:The first fuse I pull

[drinkypoo]

if you have an automatic transmission, the "gas" pedal is merely a "suggestion" to the system that actually controls the throttle.

false. the throttle is a plate that blocks off the air. in most cars with an automatic transmission, the throttle is still connected via a physical cable, and not controlled by a servo, which we call throttle by wire. As well, most automatic transmissions still have a limp home mode... which goes nicely with that manual throttle. However, in any car with electronic fuel injection (EFI) the amount of fuel delivered is controlled not by your foot, or a valve synced to the throttle, but by the computer which monitors the throttle position, O2 sensor output, and coolant temperature sensor. (More modern systems tend to have more sensors, but even in the most modern systems, those are the three most important - along, in modern systems, with crank and cam position, and knock sensors.

Re:The first fuse I pull

[Capt.Albatross]

In over 4 years my ABS has had to kick in a handful of times (it's damn obvious when it does) and I was glad that it did each time.

I am also glad that the ABS stepped in to override your choice of braking force and save your ass (and possibly the person in front of you, as well).

Re:The first fuse I pull

[Capt.Albatross]

Following your line of logic, if you have electric windows, the car is deciding to open and close them, not you. If you have power brakes, the car is deciding to brake, not you.

His line of logic does not lead there as, unlike ABS, these systems have no decision making component.

God you are dense.

Re:The first fuse I pull

[Golddess]

so in other words the car is deciding the braking action, not you

"Braking action" can encompass a lot. When working correctly, all ABS does is disallow you from being able to lock your brakes. Nothing more, nothing less. But all this talk about ABS does make me wonder about something.

Before ABS, people pumped their brakes manually in order to avoid locking the brakes. After ABS, people needed to learn to adjust how they brake.

What sort of driving changes will people need to make when getting behind the wheel of a car with automatic emergency braking?

Re:The first fuse I pull

[Grishnakh]

Your information is woefully out of date. Cars haven't had cable-connected throttles for years; they're all throttle-by-wire.

Re:The first fuse I pull

[quintessencesluglord]

Do you really want to go there?

The system responds to a set of inputs. It may be more complex than a single switch, but the function is little different than a power window that also has a lock to keep from being engaged. Oh noes! The car is deciding for me whether a window can be engaged or not! Apparently checking to see if the brakes or window is locked before engaging is decision making now. Pumping the brake I applied is apparently decision making now. Do you have any idea how absurd you sound? It's not like I can't perform the same function without the ABS.

And as already demonstrated, I can choose whether to engage the ABS by simply taking my foot off the brake and reapplying. That is worlds apart from a vehicle deciding to brake for me. Where is my disengage mechanism?

No, this line of thinking follows in the line of computers are magic, where a degree of complexity is apparently deciding for you. It's bunk, and is a red herring to the real question of the brakes being automatically applied as I swerve out of the way, and the car becomes uncontrollable. I see many lawsuits in the future.

Re:The first fuse I pull

[Walter White]

Stick shift and automatic are entirely different beasts. (I'll ignore DSG transmissions for the moment and stick with automatics that use planetary gears.)

In a manual transmission, gears slide on splined shafts and engage or disengage to change ratios. The movement from one ratio to the next requires a friction device called a synchronizer to match gear speeds or the parts clash. That's why you have to take your foot off the throttle.

On an automatic transmission with planetary gears, the gears do not change position. Ratios can be changed by holding or releasing parts of the gear set with hydraulically operated clutch packs or bands. Since gears are not engaging or disengaging, the shift can happen much faster with one clutch/band being released as the next one is grabbing.

In older transmissions this was done via hydraulic controls called a valve body that included a governor. The throttle cable connected to the valve body so that the shift points could be altered when throttle position changed.

Re:The first fuse I pull

[drinkypoo]

Your information is woefully out of date. Cars haven't had cable-connected throttles for years; they're all throttle-by-wire.

Most vehicles still don't have direct injection, and most vehicles without it still don't have throttle-by-wire. It costs more money.

Re:The first fuse I pull

[Grishnakh]

Citation needed.

It costs *less* to have throttle-by-wire. It's simpler and easier to install at the factory, that's the biggest reason for it. It has some other benefits too, like being able to momentarily reduce throttle when the transmission shifts gears; with a cable-driven throttle you need a mechanical linkage to do that, but with TbW you just do it in software. But probably the biggest benefit is you don't have to have some factory worker contorting himself to install a cable through the firewall after the engine has been installed. The engine goes in and plugs into its harnesses, the pedals go in on the other side and the gas pedal plugs into a harness, and you're done. The brake pedal still has to penetrate the firewall since we don't do brake-by-wire yet (not fully at least, a lot of cars do automatic braking in addition to your manual braking), but that's not that hard, you just install the master cylinder/booster on one side, then install the pedals on the other and connect the linkage.

Re:The first fuse I pull

[drinkypoo]

It costs *less* to have throttle-by-wire.

I don't know what leads you to imagine that a high-end potentiometer and a high-end servomotor would be cheaper than a bit of glorified bicycle cable, but you are way off your nut.

But probably the biggest benefit is you don't have to have some factory worker contorting himself to install a cable through the firewall after the engine has been installed.

Tee hee. I don't know for a fact how it's done on any particular model, but if I were designing the process it I'd feed it through much earlier. I'd install the accelerator pedal before I even installed the dashboard, and I'd install the throttle cable at the same time.

The brake pedal still has to penetrate the firewall since we don't do brake-by-wire yet (not fully at least, a lot of cars do automatic braking in addition to your manual braking), but that's not that hard, you just install the master cylinder/booster on one side, then install the pedals on the other and connect the linkage.

Actually, since the brake servo is actuated by a rod, it is totally irrelevant in which order you install the servo and the pedal. The bracket which holds the bolts, however, has to be mounted before you can mount the servo. The pedal box or bracket may mount to that bracket, or may simply mount to the floor pan. It's common for it to mount to the same bracket, though, in the case of vehicles which offer a manual transmission. But it takes more effort to do that than it does to slip a throttle cable through a hole in a firewall. Since I've actually done both things, I'm not too interested in your opinion on how difficult one or the other might be. Installing the throttle cable is much easier than mounting the brake servo and master cylinder.

Re:The first fuse I pull

[Grishnakh]

I don't know what leads you to imagine that a high-end potentiometer and a high-end servomotor would be cheaper than a bit of glorified bicycle cable, but you are way off your nut.

How do you have the car back off the throttle when it changes gears then? How much does that mechanism add in cost? And how much is the labor of a factory worker worth? Remember also there's a huge amount of robotic automation in building cars. Routing a throttle cable isn't something you can get a robot to do easily.

Re:The first fuse I pull

[drinkypoo]

How do you have the car back off the throttle when it changes gears then?

Throttles open and close. Do you mean, how do you make the engine reduce output without closing the throttle? Because you can retard the timing, and reduce fueling. You can have an air bypass valve (they're cheap) that you run all the time, then you can back it off any time you want, or close it for intake reduction.

Remember also there's a huge amount of robotic automation in building cars. Routing a throttle cable isn't something you can get a robot to do easily.

Remember, if you install it before you install a load of other stuff on top of it, it just takes a moment. The automaker has the luxury of designing the vehicle for reduced assembly time. There's a cost to all the bits and pieces for the throttle by wire systems, like adding the electrical connector to the harness. If it only takes a moment for someone to stuff in a part, then it's not a big deal. Someone's already got to pop in all the little rubber grommets.

Re:The first fuse I pull

[Capt.Albatross]

The system responds to a set of inputs. It may be more complex than a single switch, but the function is little different than a power window that also has a lock to keep from being engaged

Hint: when you are making a pedantic argument, you really can't afford to slip in equivocal phrases like "little different."

Oh noes! The car is deciding for me whether a window can be engaged or not! Apparently checking to see if the brakes or window is locked before engaging is decision making now

Did it feel particularly clever of you to introduce 'lock' into the previous sentence, and then attempt to conflate it with the locking of a wheel? Unfortunately, that fails to avoid the central fallacy of your argument, which is a misidentification of who or what is making a decision (hint: a decision involves a choice between options.)

Hint: if you are attempting to ridicule someone, but you make a ridiculous extrapolation of their position and end up ridiculing that instead, the only one looking ridiculous is yourself. Jon Stewart made a career out of ridiculing people who did this.

Pumping the brake I applied is apparently decision making now.

Did you decide to pump the brakes? (hint: no.)

Do you have any idea how absurd you sound?

I have to admit that it is a bit silly spending any time replying.

It's not like I can't perform the same function without the ABS.

It's not like you can't perform emergency braking without AEB.

And as already demonstrated[sic], I can choose whether to engage the ABS by simply taking my foot off the brake and reapplying.

By then, as you have already 'demonstrated', the ABS has already made a decision and pumped the brakes.

Where is my disengage mechanism?

No, this line of thinking follows in the line of computers are magic, where a degree of complexity is apparently deciding for you. It's bunk, and is a red herring to the real question of the brakes being automatically applied as I swerve out of the way, and the car becomes uncontrollable. I see many lawsuits in the future.

If you had stuck to this position, you would have been making a useful (or at least arguable) contribution to the discussion. Hint: just because you have a valid position, it does not follow that any claim you make in its support automatically inherits that validity, or even makes sense.

Do you really want to go there?

I have no intention of following you into the hole you have dug for yourself. I will stay on the rim and maybe hand you a spade.
 

Re:The first fuse I pull

[goose-incarnated]

the "gas" pedal is nothing more than a potentiometer that feeds the master computer

In the old days before computers the gas pedal still was not directly connected to the throttle. There is a linkage from the transmission that overrides the pedal input and backs off the throttle when the transmission shifts gears. It's all mechanical.

What the hell are you talking about? There is no linkage from the transmission that overrides pedal inputs in old cars. In new cars, maybe. In old cars everything was connected with steel cables. Throttle literally pulled open a flap that allowed more air into the intake manifold (via a venturi). Clutch (on manual) literally pushed a plate away from the transmission to decouple the engine from the driveshafts.

What you are talking about does not exist in older cars. In newer cars... maybe. But certainly not in older cars.

Re:The first fuse I pull

[Capt.Albatross]

Before ABS, people pumped their brakes manually in order to avoid locking the brakes. After ABS, people needed to learn to adjust how they brake.

What sort of driving changes will people need to make when getting behind the wheel of a car with automatic emergency braking?

An interesting question. My first thought was that people around here have already anticipated this development by not paying attention to the traffic around them.

But if we look ahead a few years, to when AEB systems are prevalent, we may find drivers who routinely run red lights and stop signs, taking advantage of AEB to make collision avoidance someone else's problem. It would be a classic example of the law of unintended consequences, and a warning of what is to come in the transition from human to automated driving.

Miranda lambert

[cosm]

https://www.google.com/url?sa=...

Glad to have it

[crow]

I bought a new car this year, and it has it. I'm very glad to have it, even though it has triggered once or twice when there was nothing there due to a sensor glitch. The reason I have a new car is that I failed to brake in time to avoid an accident.

Yes, the technology isn't perfect, but it's a lot better than not having it.

As we get more of these features, it should result in fewer accidents and lower insurance rates.

Re: Glad to have it

[cosm]

It should, but what about externalities. People become more reliant on it and could end up paying even less attention rather than pay fucking attention to the car in front of them. Speculation is moot. Show me trials before it becomes federal law or some ilk like that.

Re: Glad to have it

[FranTaylor]

People become more reliant on it and could end up paying even less attention rather than pay fucking attention to the car in front of them.

the whole point here is that humans are really poor drivers, they kill tens of thousands every year. expecting them do to better is really just folly. they need help.

Re: Glad to have it

[FranTaylor]

I think you misspelt "Americans" there.

No, Americans are actually among the better drivers in the world.

Maybe you should try looking at the accident death rates for different countries.

Re: Glad to have it

[ShanghaiBill]

the whole point here is that humans are really poor drivers

I think you misspelt "Americans" there.

Nope. Americans are not particularly bad drivers. Here is a list of traffic fatalities by country, both per capita, and by distance driven. Americans are no where near the bottom.

Re: Glad to have it

[Kjella]

The same argument has been made about ABS, traction control, electronic stability programs and similar changes that mitigate or hide the forces at work until they overwhelm the system or that take away part of the work like cruise control and so on. At least so far the conclusion has been that even though people push the limits, overall it does good. Particularly if they limit the scope to hard/emergency braking or even just damage reduction, so you normally want to brake yourself. I mean, clearly if you do the math of distance and speed you at some point cross the threshold where a crash is inevitable, but there's still time to turn a high-speed impact into a low-speed impact. And that matters a lot, it's still an accident but they're not all equal.

Re: Glad to have it

[Anonymous Coward]

How long before people start crossing the road in front of approaching cars, relying on this emergency braking feature to avoid death? There are bound to be cases of this happening, even though it's clearly dangerous.

Re: Glad to have it

[akgooseman]

Americans are nowhere near the bottom of the list of all the countries in the world. If you compare us to the first world countries on that list: we're really shitty drivers.

Re: Glad to have it

[beelsebob]

Where by "no where near the bottom" you mean "worse than pretty much all of the developed world", because that's what that table shows. I mean, you're looking at 4 times as many fatalities per person as the UK, and twice as many per mile driven.

Re: Glad to have it

[Grishnakh]

Yes, we are indeed shitty compared to the Germans. Who isn't?

Compared to everyone else (including the Italians; they're infamous for bad driving, and that's still mostly "1st world"), we're not that bad.

The mistake you're making is in comparing America to Germany in just about anything. America really isn't a 1st-world country culturally; it really resembles a 3rd-world country that won the lottery. Just look at the infrastructure in one of our major cities like NYC; it's abysmal. The traffic is atrocious, the drivers rude, the streets smell like sewers, bridges in the area are all rusting apart, I could go on and on. America is economically powerful still, but it sure doesn't show in the infrastructure or the overall cleanliness of its cities. Don't forget all the gang violence here, something that's not so much of a problem in most 1st-world countries.

Re: Glad to have it

[Grishnakh]

Why do you people keep trying to compare America only to developed nations? Have you looked at how America compares in education to other developed nations? It's at the bottom there too. Or what about childhood poverty and nutrition? Bottom. Overall standard of living? Bottom.

Re:Glad to have it

[Grishnakh]

Good luck getting the police to actually patrol and look for that.

Re: Glad to have it

[Jeremi]

Speculation is moot. Show me trials before it becomes federal law or some ilk like that.

I've discovered this really useful web site called "The Google", it lets you type in a search term like "studies of the effectiveness of automatic braking systems", and it will show you what you're looking for. It's really cool!

Re:Glad to have it

[Grishnakh]

I guess you don't want to fly in any airplanes either; they're all run by software too. But I guess you've never worked on avionics software either.

Re: Glad to have it

[beelsebob]

Because America is trying to convince the rest of the world that it's a developed nation. If your argument for that is "well, we're marginally better than the 3rd world" then perhaps you're aiming too low.

Re: Glad to have it

[Grishnakh]

If your argument for that is "well, we're marginally better than the 3rd world" then perhaps you're aiming too low.

I'm not aiming for anything except accuracy.

Re: Glad to have it

[DigiShaman]

I just imagined a standing wave of emergency breaking on a freeway during rush-hour.

Re: Glad to have it

[FlyHelicopters]

Part of that is because the standards to obtain a drivers licence in the US is a joke. Go to Germany and see how much time, money, and effort is required, then come here and show up with a pulse and get a licence. (more or less)

Re: Glad to have it

[FlyHelicopters]

Why do you people keep trying to compare America only to developed nations? Have you looked at how America compares in education to other developed nations? It's at the bottom there too. Or what about childhood poverty and nutrition? Bottom. Overall standard of living? Bottom.

All sadly true...

But we have the coolest military around with 11 aircraft carriers, so we are great at the "drop bombs on other countries" game.

*said tongue in cheek of course*

Re: Glad to have it

[FlyHelicopters]

When compared to SUVs that didnâ(TM)t have collision avoidance technology, Volvoâ(TM)s XC60 SUVs (equipped with City Safety) had:

33 percent fewer bodily injury claims
15 percent fewer property damage claims
20 percent fewer collision claims
And for Volvoâ(TM)s S60 midsize sedans, City Safety resulted in claims reductions of:

18 percent for bodily injury
16 percent for property damage
9 percent for collision

Re: Glad to have it

[FlyHelicopters]

I've discovered this really useful web site called "The Google", it lets you type in a search term like "studies of the effectiveness of automatic braking systems", and it will show you what you're looking for. It's really cool!

What is shocking is that this is a tech site, and it is full of Luddites!

Re: Glad to have it

[Bing Tsher E]

expecting them do to better is really just folly. they need help.

Fuck off. We're not all as helpless as you assert yourself to be.

Re: Glad to have it

[Cochonou]

From that table:
Italy: 6.2 fatalities per 100 000 inhabitants per year.
USA: 11.2 fatalities per 100 000 inhabitants per year.

Re: Glad to have it

[s122604]

Absolutely, we suck as drivers..... Somewhat of a "car guy" here. Anywhere on the web: When these threads pop up, you will usually get the self professed aficionados who insist that they can out-drive the ABS, or the electronic stability control, or whatever feature is being discussed...

The cold hard actuarial tested reality is that, as a whole, we cannot, and my sneaking suspicion is that the vast, vast majority of self-professed outlyers can't either.

My other pet-peeve are people who bash side-curtain airbags as "useless crap" that weighs down their car.
1) the systems don't weigh that much
2) go visit a closed-head injury rehab center and tell me side-curtain airbags are useless.

Re: Glad to have it

[thegarbz]

And I'm all for this. I can't wait for the world where I can get in my car in the morning, tell it to drive me to work and whip out my laptop and post complaints on slashdot about my daily commute.

People are horrible HORRIBLE drivers who are not only bad at controlling vehicles but make poor choices which impact traffic in negative ways (last minute lane changes, merging slowly onto fast roads etc).

I can't wait for computers to surpass us on this activity.

Re:Glad to have it

[Grishnakh]

You've obviously never heard of MISRA.

Re: Glad to have it

[Grishnakh]

*Why* do you expect more from America? Because of its propaganda? ("Land of the free!!") North Korea has all kinds of optimistic, great-sounding propaganda too, but no one takes that seriously, so why do you take America's seriously?

Yes, you should be comparing America to China and Russia, as it resembles those countries more than any others. Large land mass, large population, not so great on individual liberties, big military, vying for world power and hegemony, poor social services, big divide between rich and poor. To be fair, it's generally a little better than those two in many of these metrics (the poor in America are generally much better off than the poor in China, you can get a gay marriage in America and live openly as a homosexual but not in China or Russia, the middle class has more buying power in America, etc.), but it's simply not comparable to western European countries in any way. It makes as much sense to compare America to Switzerland as it does to compare to Lesotho.

Re: Glad to have it

[PrimaryConsult]

There's even a website that will do it for you!

Re:Glad to have it

[IronChef]

> even though it has triggered once or twice when there was nothing there due to a sensor glitch.

Based on this story I'd worry about an ill-timed glitch causing me to be hit from behind.

Re: Glad to have it

[angel'o'sphere]

Actually, americans are amoung the worst drivers of the world.
The whole world knows it, except the americans ;D

Re: Glad to have it

[RogerWilco]

Part of that is because the standards to obtain a drivers licence in the US is a joke. Go to Germany and see how much time, money, and effort is required, then come here and show up with a pulse and get a licence. (more or less)

The drivers licence in the USA is a means to obtain alcoholic beverages in primarily. It's utility in determining if someone is able to drive a motor vehicle is secondary and quite questionable.

I'm speaking of experience with having obtained both a Dutch and a US drivers licence.

The Dutch legally only allows the following country's drivers licences to be exchanged for a Dutch one without having to take both the theory and practical test: EU/EEA, Switzerland, Andorra, Israel, Japan, Monaco, Singapore, Republic of Korea, Quebec.
Any other drivers licences are not considered to be a valid proof that you've safe enough to drive on Dutch roads for a prolonged time. (tourists get excepted, confusing the issue somewhat for probably practical reasons).

Re: Glad to have it

[Reziac]

This must be why most of the car crash videos come from Europe, China, India, Russia...

I've driven all over the western U.S. for over 40 years and I've never seen the kind of aggressively oblivious driving like comes out of Europe.

Re: Glad to have it

[Reziac]

One factor not generally considered is that in America, we drive a whole lot more miles per capita than most of the world. The Wiki chart has per-capita distance for only a few countries, but we're down in the "statistical noise" range there... despite that overall, our driving is longer distances at higher speeds than any of our 'rivals'. Someone will immediately spit up the Autobahn as a speed demon, but how many Germans drive a thousand miles in a single day, most of it at 70-80mph?? that wouldn't be at all unusual in America.

Re: Glad to have it

[Reziac]

In the U.S., you also need to take theory and practical tests to be licensed. But most states accept tests from other states and sometimes other countries. If you didn't have to take a test, it's because yours too was accepted.

Re: Glad to have it

[Reziac]

I can't find it again offhand or I'd cite it, but just this morning I read of a study one of the insurance associations did in 2012 that found, much to their surprise, that cars with proximity sensors have a a higher rate of "lane incursion" type accidents. Ooops....

This is very much as I'd expect: when people think someone else is watching out for them, they generally stop watching out for themselves.

Re: Glad to have it

[Reziac]

One might consider that a signficant percentage of rear-end crashes are a byproduct of redlight-enforcement cameras, which cause people to slam on the brakes (unexpectedly to the person behind them) for fear of getting a ticket, rather than exercising judgment. This problem goes away when yellow light times are lengthened -- even one second is enough to almost entirely eliminate rear-end crashes at controlled intersections -- but that makes redlight cameras unprofitable, since they rely on not giving drivers enough time to exercise good judgment, typically by shortening yellow light times to the legal minimum (and occasionally even shorter).

Assloads of studies can be found here:

http://thenewspaper.com/

Re: Glad to have it

[FlyHelicopters]

Yes, but most of the tests in the US are a joke...

I never drove on the highway for my test, and maybe once during practice, when I was 15 years old.

The test was 15 min of showing I could start, stop, park, and drive at 35mph on a city street and that I knew what a stop sign was, a traffic light, and to stop for cops if they pulled you over.

As I recall, the whole thing took less than an hour including written test and driving test.

I'm now 40 years old and have never been tested since. That is absurd.

Re: Glad to have it

[angel'o'sphere]

Most car crash videos I have seen are from the states ... must be selective viewing :D

However driving skills are on the decline ... the people who are unable to activate the "turn signal" just drive me mad.

Re: Glad to have it

[Reziac]

I watch a lot of these vids, and being bored with Russian dashcams I've looked for others. There are a few from anywhere but damn few from the U.S. And of course I drive in the U.S. -- and I've never seen that level of idiocy, not even with 28 years driving in Los Angeles.

One thing I particularly note, here in the U.S. we're overwhelmingly respectful of signs and lanes and traffic signals, whereas in much of the world they're roundly ignored.

I've noted a close correlation between ignoring such traffic controls as well as stuff like not bothering to signal, and an "entitlement mentality".

Re: Glad to have it

[Reziac]

Generally the thought is if a driver lacks moving violations, retesting them is a waste of resources as they've demonstrated their everyday competence by not screwing up. If you've driven tens or hundreds of thousands of miles (as has the average American) with no accidents and no serious violations, why should there be an assumption that you're suddenly incompetent just because you haven't been retested lately??

Some states do mandatory road testing of people over a certain age. Some require a driver training course, either through high school or independent. Basically, they test outliers (novices and those with potential for impaired reflexes).

But all this aside, our relative lack of carnage on the road indicates that we're doing all right, despite some people's perceptions... truth is, per capita risk of fatality per mile falls under "uncommon risks" and is therefore perceived as worse than it really is.

Re: Glad to have it

[bob_herrick]

On the basis of fatalities per 1billion km we are near the bottom of the list. We are worse than all of Western Europe other than Belgium. Even Spain and Italy which, if memory serves from the time I was involved in providing auto insurance for a rental car operation in Europe, lead Europe in traffic accidents of all kinds (or did, anyway).

Re: Glad to have it

[jabuzz]

I have been rear ended twice while stationary at a junction. I also had not just stopped either. In the second case I had been stationary over a minute waiting for a gap in the traffic.

However even if I had slammed on the brakes the person behind is TOTAL to blame for failing to follow the golden rule of motoring; namely being able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear ahead. If I decide to brake to avoid a red light and you go into the back of me, then you where too close behind me and also not paying attention to the lights either.

If you really want to cheaply reduce the accident rate then just ban black and similarly dark coloured cars. A black car is 47% more likely to be involved in an accident during the hours of darkness than a white one, and white is probably not the safest colour either.

Re: Glad to have it

[q4Fry]

In an experiment with ABS in taxis, that is exactly what happened. If I may reproduce (to the best of my recollection) a line from the report: "The drivers who received ABS systems increased their aggressiveness to match to their personally acceptable level of risk."

Re: Glad to have it

[bhiestand]

I get the point you're trying to make, and don't have data to argue either way, but let's be real here. A high number of dash cam videos being from Russia is evidence of one thing, and one thing only: dash cams are far more popular in Russia.

Yes, yes, actually it's not even evidence of that. It really only tells us Russian dash cam videos are more common online, whether because Russians are more likely to upload to Youtube, more likely to use dash cams, etc.

Re: Glad to have it

[Reziac]

Certainly (sometimes I wonder if Russia has any other industry!), but does not my eyes-on experience, much of it in a crowded driving environment, reveal something too? Call me a dashcam of one -- I've been driving since 1972 and have never seen anyone in America drive like I can see any day on Youtube. The rare idiot, but not like that.

And remember, the average dashcam doesn't just show one driver. It puts a pretty good window on everyone on that road. I've watched enough of 'em to see definite regional trends. Frex, drivers in Germany and Japan aren't so oblivious as the Russians, but they make up for it by being more aggressive. Chinese drivers seem to be lemmings; if one goes over a cliff, all the rest will follow. But what's definitely different from American drivers across the board, is that everywhere else seems to have a "me first, screw you" attitude about traffic controls and lane use (common to see someone drive in any damn lane that's vacant, including the oncoming lane). Conversely, traffic in America tends to be relatively anal about respecting the rules of the road. Here, four-way stops work; they evidently don't for the rest of the driving world.

This is good

[Anonymous Coward]

My last 2 accidents came from being rear ended by jackoff distracted drivers. One of them was quite serious.

Re:This is good

[fustakrakich]

I hope it wasn't this poor guy that hit you...

Re: How dare they?

[cosm]

Your sarcasm is actually true. It is our right. And you also have the responsibility of paying for poor decisions. This generation would rather hand over the hard choices to somebody else rather than risking the responsibility of making a choice themselves, or for that matter, being afraid of living in a free society where such choice are possible.

List of "major automakers"

[crow]

I like that all of the Big Three American automakers are included: Ford, GM, and Tesla.

The biggest names missing are Fiat/Chrysler, Honda, Hyundai, and Kia. I'm not surprised that the Koreans aren't included, as they are going for the bottom of the market where there's not as much padding for added costs.

Re:List of "major automakers"

[Anonymous Coward]

Tesla is not a "big three". Every company listed is bigger than Tesla.

Re:List of "major automakers"

[laffer1]

By that same logic, it explains why fiat and honda are also not agreeing to it. They target those same consumers.

Re:List of "major automakers"

[ShanghaiBill]

It is also easy for Tesla to "volunteer", since all of their cars already have this technology. So they are agreeing to do nothing.

Re:List of "major automakers"

[biff-mo]

Honda already has this on their 'touring' trimmed vehicles.

Re:List of "major automakers"

[AmiMoJo]

Honda offer it on all models in Japan, so I'd be surprised if they didn't join in anyway. Kia are trying to become a major player too, e.g. releasing an EV that's actually quite good, so I bet they will offer it as well.

Re:List of "major automakers"

[drinkypoo]

The biggest names missing are Fiat/Chrysler, Honda, Hyundai, and Kia. I'm not surprised that the Koreans aren't included, as they are going for the bottom of the market where there's not as much padding for added costs.

FCA's chairman has been running around claiming that the industry can't survive without more brand consolidation and platform sharing... because FCA is circling the bowl. FCA literally cannot afford to put this technology into every car they sell. They have already sacrificed their margins with the massive incentives necessary to move their cars off of lots. You can only sell so many Hellcats before that market is saturated, and the only other vehicle they've got that people want is the new little Jeep. But you can only sell so many of those, too...

Re: How dare they?

[FranTaylor]

And you also have the responsibility of paying for poor decisions. .

How precisely does one bring back the dead? Do you really think that perpetrators are actually capable of restoring the damage they've caused? huh?

Here's an Idea...

[Irate Engineer]

Why don't we put some effort into human factors and get people to put their hands on the wheel and pay attention?

If you're going to get fancy and throw technology at the problem, how about spending some effort to force people to shut their fucking cell phones off while driving? There has to be a way that you can brick cell phones while it is in the vehicle. Get some people on this, find a way. I see idiots fumbling on their phone and drifting off the highway or across lanes of traffic all the time. Let's fix this, OK?

Automating car response like braking is not going to work well on a snowy day with slick roads. Might be dandy in sunny, dry California, but the rest of the world actually has weather and precipitation. Having cars slamming on the brakes randomly because the computer mistook a drift of snowflakes or blowing leaves for a car bumper is going to cause more accidents, not less.

Re:Here's an Idea...

[FranTaylor]

Why don't we put some effort into human factors and get people to put their hands on the wheel and pay attention?

Humans are proven to be terrible drivers, they kill tens of thousands of people every year. "Human factors" are not going to get rid of the screaming child in the back seat and they are not going to solve the argument you are having with your spouse. Humans can and will get distracted and kill people. It happens every day. Rearraging the controls on the dashboard is not going to solve any of these problems.

Re:Here's an Idea...

[SirSlud]

This is the abstinence only approach. Doesn't work.

I'm also glad that in two seconds of things, you've come up with reasons that the thousands of engineers involved in implementing things like this haven't thought of. I hope they read your post!

You may be an irate engineer because you're surrounded by reasonable engineers.

Re:Here's an Idea...

[ShanghaiBill]

Why don't we put some effort into human factors and get people to put their hands on the wheel and pay attention?

Because that is not going to work, and it is unrealistic to expect it to.

Re:Here's an Idea...

[ThatAblaze]

I think humans have proven to be amazingly excellent drivers in general. Every time I have occasion to visit a wall-mart parking lot I look at the people and think "Man! Kudos to that freak of nature for getting all the way from their house to the parking lot without swerving off the road!"

When I think of how the average person manages to make hundreds of trips in a row without a collision despite the fact that we have evolved zero traits to support safe driving I get all teary with pride. 200 years ago there was no need for anyone to learn to drive, and yet today the vast majority of the population manages to do it with over 99% success rate. If I was an alien from another planet and I was reading statistics on how the human population behaved I would assume that we couldn't possibly be as good of drivers as we are.

Re:Here's an Idea...

[Irate Engineer]

Why don't we put some effort into human factors and get people to put their hands on the wheel and pay attention?

Because that is not going to work, and it is unrealistic to expect it to.

Citation please. Explain why this won't work, and why it is unrealistic, or at least more unrealistic than fail-safe automated braking systems on cars.

Re:Here's an Idea...

[angel'o'sphere]

Why don't you explain why 'fail safe automatic breaking systems' are unrealistic on a car, when the majourity of cars sold in europe already have them?

Re:Here's an Idea...

[Irate Engineer]

Did everyone forget to take their meds today? Jesus Christ, what a bunch of assholes you all are. Read the series of threads. I asked the initial question.

Re:Here's an Idea...

[Reziac]

Proof that you trust your fellow man -- with your very life:

You drive on two-lane roads, don't you??

Someone linked the Wiki fatality stats page, and ... looks to me like for most of the first world, fatalities amount to statistical noise. Factor in miles driven per death and suddenly the hazard level amounts to... well, nothing. Especially in America, where we drive a whole long longer distances than does most of the world.

Driving is basically the same skill, albeit extended, as running through the woods withing banging into either trees or your fellow hunters or the occasional bear, or running across the prairie without breaking a leg in a gopher hole or stepping on a cactus or rattlesnake. If there is one trait that sets humans above other animals, it's the ability to extend a skill to a new activity. So... I'm really not very surprised that as a species, we're pretty durn good at this driving thing (even allowing for the entertainment provided by Russian dashcams).

Re:Here's an Idea...

[goose-incarnated]

This is the abstinence only approach. Doesn't work.

Tell that to the gun-control crowd; they're pushing for abstinence rather than education. TBH, if such a large part of the population is delusional enough to expect abstinence to work over education in area $FOO, I see no reason why they wouldn't hold the same view in area $BAR.

This will be so cool!

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't wait for someone to come up with a device that projects a vehicle signature out the side so it will slow down the car beside me so I can cut in line! Bwwwwaaaaaahhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!

Make driving exiting to make it safe.

[trout007]

The problem is the low speed limits. They make driving so boring. If you could actually drive as fast as conditions allow I would spend time enjoying the drive and paying attention not dozing off because someone decided 45 mph is the safe speed.

Re:Make driving exiting to make it safe.

[FranTaylor]

The problem is the low speed limits. They make driving so boring..

People like you are why human drivers will soon be outlawed.

Re:Make driving exiting to make it safe.

[Bing Tsher E]

You have such a strong sense of the inevitable.

You're as smug as the average Italian in 1938. Everything will be okay, and now the trains even run on time!

Re:Make driving exiting to make it safe.

[drinkypoo]

45 mph IS the safe speed on a non-divided highway. Actually, it's more like 35, but then we would never get anywhere. In order to get what you want, we would have to have a Snow Crash-style future where everything is privatized. Then you could pay for access to the high-speed roads, which would both accomodate faster driving through finer construction and also perhaps only be available to drivers who have passed a high-speed driving test.

Remember, a "safe" speed is one at which nobody will die even if someone fucks up or there is an equipment failure.

Re:Make driving exiting to make it safe.

[RogerWilco]

Those speed limits exist because you share the road with grandma. The roads are designed to she can get to visit her brother safely. It means that for those with better vision and reflexes than her, the roads are indeed a little boring. But still plenty of people manage to get into accidents, especially quite a few young people with good vision and reflexes.

It's also the irresponsible drivers that make it necessary to have the rules in the first place. Cars at speed are very lethal implements. Unfortunately drivers licences aren't a good enough gatekeeper to keep the stupid out of getting behind a wheel.

Jim Jefferies explains it quite well in a talk about gun control: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:Make driving exiting to make it safe.

[hucker75]

People like you is why I'm 99% of the time stuck behind some loser who has such a slow brain he can't drive fast.

Re:Technological solutions to social problems

[FranTaylor]

yeah, it's better if you don't call your wife to apologise.

Tesla is not a Big Three company

[RobinEggs]

The so-called Big Three automakers in America are Ford, GM, and Chrysler. Tesla has yet to ship even 100,000 vehicles in one year; the rest each have over a dozen models that ship that many, several that ship well over a million, and there's a few models between them that ship into the tens of millions.

Sorry to be so pedantic and punchy in correcting this, but I think it's a little annoying - bordering on delusional - how often slashdot people, reddit people, etc. give Tesla and SpaceX credit for things far, far beyond what they've actually accomplished so far. Those companies have impressive potential, but they're **far** from replacing Chrysler, NASA, Lockheed, or any other the other entities in their markets.

Re:Tesla is not a Big Three company

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want to be pedantic and punchy, Chrysler at most gets a half point since it's owned by FIAT as part of a holding company that's headquartered in London.

Re:Tesla is not a Big Three company

[Grishnakh]

Replacing NASA? WTF are you talking about? No one's replacing NASA, especially since NASA doesn't even actually make rockets, and never has. They contract it out to companies like Rocketdyne. SpaceX is trying to replace them, or Orbital.

Re:Tesla is not a Big Three company

[pipingguy]

'Delusional' seems to describe a lot of people (and media) these days. I blame computers and software, because now "anything is possible" and people are gullible enough to fall for the blatant hype and marketing.

Re:Tesla is not a Big Three company

[cliffjumper222]

Well, from a market cap perspective, the big three are Ford, GM and Telsa. Fiat-Chrysler was eclipsed by Telsa back in '13:

Ford - $54.4B
GM - $47.7B
Tesla - $32B
Fiat-Chrysler - $18.8B

Re:Tesla is not a Big Three company

[Bing Tsher E]

Has Musk really roped in thay many suckers, now? He should focus on selling cars to real people next.

Oh, he makes that claim. We'll see.

Re:Tesla is not a Big Three company

[ThatAblaze]

Some day you, too will join the dark side.

Remember, we have free cookies.

Re:Tesla is not a Big Three company

[dunkelfalke]

Market cap has become essentially meaningless. It used to be the sum of the expected dividends over the lifetime of the company. Nowadays it is a fantasy number that only shows how much investment banks are hoping to cash out before the next bubble bursts.

One of the best examples of this was Nortel which had a market cap of, if I remember correctly, close to 400 billion, in 2000, but about 4 billion only two years later.

Re:Tesla is not a Big Three company

[angel'o'sphere]

Market cap is just the sum of the 'value' (actually: the current price) of all shares of said company.
It has nothing to do with investment banks etc.

and what stops

[ILongForDarkness]

they guy with the older car behind you from rear ending you instead? Or are these systems going to optimize between the risk of crashing into the guy in front of you vs the risk it will stop too quickly for the guy behind you to respond (yeah I know we all leave sufficient space between us and the car in front to brake)?

Re:and what stops

[SirSlud]

All this does is do what you should be doing anyhow. If the guy behind you is going to rear-end you because you stopped safely to avoid a collision, he was doing to rear-end you after you rear-end the car ahead of you. This isn't rocket science. The only thing that understandably scares people is that if computers are making decisions for us, even if it makes a significant reduction in accidents, we feel like we could have done better had the computer not intervened. It's a blame thing. But any accidents involve victims who did nothing but be in the wrong car at the wrong time. But yes, we crave control, it's built into our fabric of the instinct to survive. Unfortunately, we're also great at making things that we can't control very well.

Re:and what stops

[niftymitch]

they guy with the older car behind you from rear ending you instead? Or are these systems going to optimize between the risk of crashing into the guy in front of you vs the risk it will stop too quickly for the guy behind you to respond (yeah I know we all leave sufficient space between us and the car in front to brake)?

I have taken to larger and larger gaps up to the point that fool slip in and remove the gap.
Break horsepower on some vehicles is astounding today. This one reason I sold
my old Ford 71' 4x4 truck. I do miss the visibility... If auto drivers could see what even small
truck drivers see many car lengths ahead they would drive with more care.

Re:and what stops

[slazzy]

They could flash the brake lights which would provide some added safety.

Re:and what stops

[ILongForDarkness]

True somewhat. If you use all that space between you and the guy in front beause you give him a "love tap" the guy behind you has more space/time to stop. In the majority case you probably are better off slamming your brakes I guess but I can see cases where you end up getting rear ended where you with your slower reaction wouldn't have gotten in an accident at all. Say the guy in front of you slams his brakes then releases, your system slams the brakes and you get rear ended because the guy behind you was closer to you than you were to the guy in front and/or there vehicle needs more space to stop.

Re:and what stops

[ILongForDarkness]

That might be the end result of these automatic "emergency" braking systems: they start to enforce sufficient space between vehicles. After all, the manufacturer doesn't what to get sued when your car fails to stop itself in time to avoid a rearend collision. This might also be one of many things manual drivers will have to give up if they don't opt for a driverless car: regulations will gradually be put into place to make an autopilot take over whenever the driver tries to do something that the government doesn't like: can't speed, can't follow too closely, turn into another lane without enough room etc. It might get to the point where everyone can "drive" a car because you can basically stomp on the gas pedal and the car will steer to avoid everything for you, the only "skill" would be in actually getting to where you want to go though I suppose that could be tied into the system that prevents you from turning into someone too.

Re:and what stops

[ILongForDarkness]

Yeah, or deploy spike strips :) That would be awesome actually if the jerk that needs to be unsafe for an hour drive so that they can be 3 car lengths closer to home ends up spending $800 and a few hours getting their car towed and all tires replaced: definitely would change the incentives.

Re:and what stops

[Ol Olsoc]

they guy with the older car behind you from rear ending you instead? Or are these systems going to optimize between the risk of crashing into the guy in front of you vs the risk it will stop too quickly for the guy behind you to respond (yeah I know we all leave sufficient space between us and the car in front to brake)?

Probably will optimize for the legal system It's a human thing, thinking the person who is at fault is the wronged person. Not leaving enough room to react and stop is a risk many take, and many people learn every year that "The guy in front of me "stopped short" is never a successful defense.

It's become even worse with the advent of the evil for profit redlight cams, where in servicing the stockholders and inflating the coffers, yellow lights are shortened to the extent that when a driver sees a yellow light, they hit the sprags hard. And Joey who was checking his facebook behind them finds out who's at fault for rearending another driver.

Which is to say, that if I run through the now altered traffic light - I am at fault. If Joey rear ends me, because I did the legal thing, it's his fault.

Re:and what stops

[ILongForDarkness]

Then you get busy street corners where the only time cars move is on the yellows. I feel for the drivers but it sucks as a pedestrian. Some intersections in Toronto where I work there are always about 50 people on each side trying to cross for each light. The only window the drivers turning get a chance to cross is the small window between when cars start stopping for the yellow and when the green the other way (and the cross light for pedestrians with it) kick in. Cabs seem to be the most aggrressive trying to get through that gap.

Re:and what stops

[hucker75]

I love people like you that leave big gaps so I can pull into them.

Re:and what stops

[hucker75]

The back of your car is tougher than the front. And a rear end shunt pushes you into your seat instead of forwards. And it's the driver behind's fault. So it's best for you and your car and your insurance premium to get hit from the back than the front. So avoid the car in front, and if someone hits you, tough shit on them.

Re:Technological solutions to social problems

[rwa2]

Eh, I'll take technological solutions over political solution any day. At least that way I have some control.

Re:No Thanks

[SirSlud]

You're not smart. You will never believe this, but it doesn't change the fact.

Re:Technological solutions to social problems

[ShanghaiBill]

Technological solutions to social problems never work.

Stop saying this. It is a stupid meme. Technology has solved many social problems.

Besides, rear ending other cars is not a "social problem".

Re:No Thanks

[Anonymous Coward]

If this system is engaging all the time for you, you shouldn't be operating a vehicle in the first place.
 
Also, I've never seen a cyclist kill anybody on the road, if you have trouble turning your wheel 2 degrees to the left, then 2 degrees back to avoid one, you shouldn't be operating a vehicle in the first place.
 
Roundabouts are even easier to negotiate than 4 way stops (which confuse most people for some reason), if you can't figure them out, you shouldn't be operating a vehicle in the first place.
 
If you'd like to know why we have to have speed limits, go look in the mirror.

33,000 automobile deaths per year in US

[Beeftopia]

Source from CDC (as of 2011).

Source from IIHS (as of 2013).

This will save lives. Even with excellent drivers behind the wheel.

Maryland just abolished the parallel parking requirement, because of the growing moron population. Automated safety systems can come none too soon.

They used to call that "illegal collusion"

[Ungrounded Lightning]

... announced today a landmark agreement from 10 of the world's biggest automakers ...

They used to call such agreements "illegal collusion" or "a trust" under anti-trust law.

"Voluntarily" adding an expensive new system as "standard" (i.e. you can't not buy it and still get the car), in unison across a broad swath of the market, keeps the consumers from making their own tradeoff of cost vs. functionality and voting with their dollars.

I guess it's not supposed to be illegal if the government is pressuring them to do it. B-b

Re:They used to call that "illegal collusion"

[FranTaylor]

I guess it's not supposed to be illegal if the government is pressuring them to do it. B-b

What would be wrong with the government regulating the safety of the vehicles that travel on its roadways? You can drive any old shitbox on your own property but on public roads you must respect the lives and safety of your fellow citizens.

Re:They used to call that "illegal collusion"

[RogerWilco]

I don't see how this is different from getting seatbelts into cars, getting lead out of car fuels or similar things.

Modern technology

[AaronW]

Out of all of the accidents I have been involved in over almost 30 years of driving, technology like ABS, automatic emergency braking and stability control would have prevented just about all of them. In most cases it was the other driver's fault (the one case it was my fault I was young and had a parent screaming at me when traffic suddenly stopped (AEB would have prevented that one if both my car and the one behind me had it). I've been rear-ended twice (both times totaling the car) because I had to stop suddenly and the person behind me wasn't so fast. The only one that wouldn't have been prevented was when an Asian driver who spoke little English panicked when trying to change lanes and side-swiped a bunch of cars (I was stopped in an exit lane). Even then, it's possible that stability control might have helped, though most of this I attribute to a very inexperienced driver. These systems work because they can react far faster than a human can or doing things that are just about impossible to do otherwise (i.e. stability control controlling each wheel's braking independently, ABS managing each wheel's brake independently for maximum stopping power while maintaining control). A properly designed AEB system can recognize and respond to an emergency stopping situation far faster than a human can.

I'm mixed on traction control. My Toyota Prius had it and it sucked. I'd go over a pothole and lose most of my power. On my Tesla it's not very noticeable other than the blinking indicator when it kicks in. Since the Tesla responds instantly with TC (about 1000 times per second according to Tesla) it's able to apply maximum power to the wheels without slipping, much like how ABS works for braking My Prius, on the other hand, behaved as if it suddenly lost most of it's puny power for about a second.

I've never owned a car with AEB though I'm pretty sure my next one will have it. Hopefully I'll never have to use it. Given how fast technology is moving forward, my next car will likely also have self-driving capability since at this point when I eventually replace my car it will likely be another Tesla.

Re:Modern technology

[Greyfox]

Hmm. I've been in two since I started driving in 1986. One, lady parked on the side of the road opened her door into my side as I was going by. Her looking in her rearview before getting out would have prevented that one. Also, her having car insurance would have helped, too.

Second one I hit a patch of ice coming around a corner and slid into a curb. Traction control/ABS might have helped there. That was before they were standard on most cars.

I've also prevented my now-elderly father from being in a few. He'll occasionally not notice that traffic has stopped, and I've pointed out that everything's stopped ahead. He would very definitely benefits from having emergency braking on his car. It might even save his life at some point in the future. Oddly, it's not because of his age. He's always been like that. I warn him well in advance now, when I'm in the car and he's driving. I think he watches the guy directly in front of him, while I'm watching the entire line of cars for as far as I can see. Brakes come on 6 cars forward, I tell him they're all getting ready to stop.

Re:Modern technology

[phantomfive]

I'm mixed on traction control. My Toyota Prius had it and it sucked. I'd go over a pothole and lose most of my power. On my Tesla it's not very noticeable other than the blinking indicator when it kicks in.

AFAICT it's a win when you live in snowy places, but doesn't make much of a difference in temperate climates.

Re:Modern technology

[drinkypoo]

AFAICT it's a win when you live in snowy places, but doesn't make much of a difference in temperate climates.

It's a big win anyplace you may have to deal with sand or gravel on the road, which is pretty much everywhere but especially on twisty mountain roads... which are where you find the most of it. Good old posi-traction is pretty good for that too, if it's some kind of fast-acting diff and/or you're putting down enough power to lock it. But it's nothing like traction control.

One place traction control is awesome is on steep dirt driveways. My 1993 Impreza LS with all of 100hp and 150ft-lb would spin the wheels on my driveway pretty easy, not like it was a problem but it was still funny. My 1997 A8 Quattro lets me just mash the pedal and then it takes off like it's on pavement. It's bananas. Thing is, it will also do that if two wheels are on pavement and two are off, so for stuff like merging back onto the highway after pulling off, it's choice. And I live in the sticks where a lot of places have dirt lots out front still, so it's useful even for pulling on to main street :)

Anyway, California has the most drivers, vehicles, miles of road, and road-miles traveled... and the most twisty roads with sand and gravel on them. And that's just for the US. Try sunny Mexico, or Costa Rica...

Re:Modern technology

[RogerWilco]

These systems work because they can react far faster than a human can or doing things that are just about impossible to do otherwise

Most people don't realize how slow people really are because our brains lie to us. It takes quite a while for the neuron signals to travel from our brain to our feet when braking. Our brain delays us becoming conscious of that we decided to use our foot by the same amount.

But in reality there is up to about 0.5 seconds between the moment the visual input reaches our eyes, and we are able to start moving our feet. In a car at speed that can be quite a distance.

awesome

[behrooz0az]

so, Big truck is coming from behind, My only way to escape is to crash to a wall. but no, I can't. Because I'm a retard and my car knows better.
awesome.

Re:awesome

[drinkypoo]

Don't worry, AEB is coming to big trucks, too.

Re:awesome

[RogerWilco]

Some people get killed by seatbelts and airbags each year as well, but on average they save much more lives.

Re:Technological solutions to social problems

[tompaulco]

Besides, rear ending other cars is not a "social problem".

OK, well don't call it social. How about a human issue? The person in back was following too close for the circumstances. That is a human being issue, not a technological problem. Unless the brakes fail, which they do in like 1 in a million rear end accidents.

Ramming speed?

[LessThanObvious]

Have they considered there may be a reason I'd like to intentionally hit an obstacle. Maybe I want to push a stalled car off railroad tracks. Maybe I don't want my road rage options to be so limited.

Re:Ramming speed?

[FranTaylor]

by the same logic they should outlaw automatic transmissions because there are things you can only do with a stick shift

Re:Ramming speed?

[ThatAblaze]

Outlaw?

Yes, by that logic I do prefer to buy manual transmissions.. but who said anything about outlawing anything?

speed improvement

[BradMajors]

This will enable drivers to go faster and to drive more reckless, since they know their car will automatically break if the driver makes a mistake.

Normally I would applaud...

[fragMasterFlash]

Normally I would applaud such innovative technology being adopted but right now the blackhats seem to be winning. The era of gansta engineering is holding us all back from a better future.

Re:Normally I would applaud...

[FranTaylor]

the blackhats seem to be winning.

if these are the people who are saving thousands of lives every year then I say more power to them

Re:Normally I would applaud...

[Bing Tsher E]

The means don't matter to you, just your hypothetical ends, That's kinda scary.

What could possibly go wrong?

[J4]

Oh yeah, this will be great on taxicabs. Won't cause any wrecks at all...

at what price

[Tristfardd]

Yes, and I will enjoy robot cars. Yet when I drive I am aware that it is only my competence that prevents me from dying or killing someone else. And, yes, every driver with enough miles under his belt has had occasional blind luck that saved him from doing either one of those. What bothers me is the general loss of physical competence in the population. People just don't know at a gut level how the physical world works. Drivers get some training in it and robot cars will take that away. Most people could not bring down a tree safely. Most people don't even know how protect themselves when they fall. I said I like the idea of robot cars, but the only way people learn about physical reality is through risk, injury, and possible death. An argument can always be made that an activity that encompasses these three things should be modified or banned. Is this good? John

Re:at what price

[FranTaylor]

Most people could not bring down a tree safely. Most people don't even know how protect themselves when they fall.

If people don't have to drive any more then they will have lots more time that they can use for leisure activities.

Re:at what price

[Bing Tsher E]

That's very utopian of you to say that. Will you next start specifying the 'safe' leisure activities we are permitted to engage in?

Um, your whole approach in this thread reeks of busy-body social planner. Again, fuck off.

Re: How dare they?

[FlyHelicopters]

And that is the problem... you can do what you want, right up until you put me in danger...

You're driving on public roads, accept that safety is required...

Re: How dare they?

[epyT-R]

Part of that decision making process also lies with the dead. They chose to take the risk of driving. Welcome to life. It is not others responsibility to make sure you are 100% safe at their own expense. Not only is it an oppressive imposition, it's not possible to accomplish.

Re: How dare they?

[epyT-R]

Also accept that safety is not guaranteed. Gimmicks like these, at best, grant dimishing-return safety, and only when certain assumptions are true. They aren't always. That's why there's resistance to them.

Oy

[RJFerret]

First thought, I can fly up at maximum rate to a toll booth line, or line of traffic at a red traffic light, and the car will stop me without collision in dry conditions? That'll be TERRIFYING to the car in line. That'll mean MORE accidents for those accustomed to such systems in the wet or snow.

(It's like antilock brakes, they increase the stopping distance for those who properly apply brakes, but reduce it for those that don't, but nowadays everyone has to adapt to a different technique that is a greater stopping distance.)

Second thought, I can push a button to keep the guy next to me from going anywhere because his brakes are now activated? I can get the guy on the highway who is a jerk to suddenly be stopped by using an app on my phone? The hacking potential is awesome!

Third thought, now if you drive over the speed limit, your car will brake wherever people decide you shouldn't be going faster than some amount, regardless of reasons for doing so, or your brakes will be worn down and overheated. Great.

Rush's "Red Barchetta" song is no longer the future, it's hear.

PS: Just like it has come time to stop updating Windows to prevent MS from installing malware via updates, it might be time to stop buying new cars.

Re:Oy

[wvmarle]

First thought, I can fly up at maximum rate to a toll booth line, or line of traffic at a red traffic light, and the car will stop me without collision in dry conditions? That'll be TERRIFYING to the car in line. That'll mean MORE accidents for those accustomed to such systems in the wet or snow.

These systems do indeed not prevent moronic behaviour. Yet they do help to keep such morons (and, more importantly, the other people on the road) safe.

(It's like antilock brakes, they increase the stopping distance for those who properly apply brakes, but reduce it for those that don't, but nowadays everyone has to adapt to a different technique that is a greater stopping distance.)

Citation needed.

Second thought, I can push a button to keep the guy next to me from going anywhere because his brakes are now activated? I can get the guy on the highway who is a jerk to suddenly be stopped by using an app on my phone? The hacking potential is awesome!

Only if the system is somehow connected to an open network. Which is not necessarily the case.

Third thought, now if you drive over the speed limit, your car will brake wherever people decide you shouldn't be going faster than some amount, regardless of reasons for doing so, or your brakes will be worn down and overheated. Great.

Again only possible if your car is network connected, and the breaks have such a feedback possibility to reduce your speed. The easier way to accomplish this is course to fiddle with the throttle, considering you have gained access to the car already that should be no problem.

Re:Oy

[zyzko]

(It's like antilock brakes, they increase the stopping distance for those who properly apply brakes, but reduce it for those that don't, but nowadays everyone has to adapt to a different technique that is a greater stopping distance.)

"Tekniikan maailma" which is a leading and highly respected auto/general tech magazine in Finland tested this back in the day when ABS was a new thing. Rally drivers who are by definition should have excellent driving skills and reactions time were just barely able to mach ABS in straight braking distance. When other factors such as random timing requirement (even though they knew to expect it at some time) or requirement to steer during braking to avoid collision ABS beat every rally driver.

And tech has evolved since. I really don't believe you or any other Internet Guy who thinks they can "apply brakes properly" can beat professional drivers.

Re: How dare they?

[epyT-R]

The existence of a law is a terrible way to justify something. Laws are just codified opinions of the (usually) technically uninformed. Laws that force the use of safety 'features' that only add safety under certain conditions while causing serious distractions in others, just make the uneducated driving public even less attentive and more distracted behind the wheel.

Re: How dare they?

[FlyHelicopters]

No, there is resistance to them because people are afraid of change, afraid of things they don't understand, and comfortable in their self-delusions.

I will admit that is true of me from time to time, so I'm not special or exempt from that.

But the facts are plain, such features do save lives, do reduce crashes, and are better for people's safety. That really can't be disputed, many studies have been done, several have been posted in this thread.

I hope there will be a way to turn this off

[guacamole]

I hope there will be a switch to turn off this feature permanently. I for one enjoy the process of driving a car myself and being in control. I don't need nannies telling me how to maintain speed, stay in lane or when to brake.

300 km/h

[Max_W]

Why a car carrying one old man needs 500 horsepowers and a speed of 300 km/h in the first place? This is an aviation speed already.

My kingdom for mod points!

[DerekLyons]

Sorry to be so pedantic and punchy in correcting this, but I think it's a little annoying - bordering on delusional - how often slashdot people, reddit people, etc. give Tesla and SpaceX credit for things far, far beyond what they've actually accomplished so far. Those companies have impressive potential, but they're **far** from replacing Chrysler, NASA, Lockheed, or any other the other entities in their markets.

Mod the parent up - the grandparent is frankly delusional in ranking Tesla among the "Big Three". A quick Google search shows there's over three dozen dealer groups who sell more cars per year than Tesla has built in the last decade. (The largest dealer group alone sold 318,000 cars in 2014 - versus 78,000 Model S sedans over the last three years.)

Another idea

[sonamchauhan]

Three short blasts of the horn when its doing this...

Gets everyone around you alerted to the fact your car thinks an accident is likely.

Brakes aren't the issue, drivers are

[Kohlrabi82]

Automatic emergency braking includes a range of systems designed to address the large number of crashes, especially rear-end crashes, in which drivers do not apply the brakes or fail to apply sufficient braking power to avoid or mitigate a crash.

From my experience on german highways most dangerous situations arise because drivers don't keep enough distance between vehicles. Emergency brakes will certainly help with that, but what's really needed is proper training of drivers, and more careful driving.

Next step

[Ol Olsoc]

Incorporate this with a forward radar to eliminate tailgating.

Joey checking his facebook and driving so close to me at 80 that I can't see his headlights - even when he could pass me - needs reined in.

If people feel they need to ride my backside that hard, they should at least buy me dinner and a movie first.

And you got the hard one right

[Hognoxious]

Rush's "Red Barchetta" song is no longer the future, it's hear.

It's a song. You can't see, smell, feel or taste it.

Re:And you got the hard one right

[RJFerret]

It's Slashdot, you can't edit mistypes.

prevent turning

[sad_]

next should be a system that ignores the input from the steering wheel if the direction turned to is not 'free'. there are already systems that warn you that you can't change lanes, so should be easy to do, in modern cars the steering wheel is not directly connected to the wheels anyway.

It was a joke.

[crow]

It's a shame people can't identify a joke without a smiley face.

Adaptive Cruise Control

[crow]

One thing to point out is that the same hardware that supports emergency braking is also what is used for adaptive (or "traffic aware") cruise control. I find this to be an incredibly useful feature. It takes most of the stress out of traffic jams. And if everyone had it (and chose to use it), it would eliminate many traffic jams.

It even works in city traffic. With cruise control on, if a car in front of me stops for a red light, my car automatically stops behind it. All I do is steer. It works really well.

Re:Adaptive Cruise Control

[damnitalready]

Do you not have problems when the car in front of you pulls into the turning lane? That's where in-town ACC driving seems to not be so great for me.

Re:Adaptive Cruise Control

[crow]

Yes, when the car in front of me turns, it's a second or two slow in recognizing that it's clear. When someone cuts in front of me on the highway, if they're going faster, it doesn't slow down, even if I'm briefly following closer than it would normally allow.

Re:Technological solutions to social problems

[ShanghaiBill]

That is a human being issue, not a technological problem.

Nonsense. There is overwhelming evidence that technology can prevent rear end collisions. The reason this technology is being more widely adopted, is because it has already been proven effective in high end cars.

Re:Technological solutions to social problems

[serviscope_minor]

That is a human being issue, not a technological problem

False dichotomy. Humans are deeply mediocre at a vast number of things, though we can do them. This is why other humans often build machines to do those things better. One thing humans are not good at doing is mindless, repetitive tasks without becoming distracted. Driving is one of those. The automatic braking is a machine to do a bit of it better.

Your entire life is filled with machines to help you do things better than you could do alone. Heck, the car itself is one of them.

Re:No Thanks

[RealUlli]

I don't want to spill my beverage or hurt my dog when my car decides I need to brake more quickly than I actually need to, nor do I want to be rear ended when I see a clown coming in hot behind me and needing another foot to stop while I've got 3 feet in front of me.

When the automatic emergency brake activates, you already don't have that foot. You might have an inch, if you're lucky. If that other guy then still rear-ends you, at least your back is probably quite a bit more damaged than your front, which leads to the assumption that he pushed you into the car in front. That way, he gets to pay the whole accident. He probably was tailgating you anyway.

Try non ABS

[dlenmn]

Speaking as someone who lives in WI, USA and, until recently, drove a car _without_ antilock brakes, you're nuts if you think that ABS is doing more harm than good. It takes very little to lock non-antilock brakes on a sowy road. ABS aren't part of some conspiracy. They're life savers. (FWIW I speak as an defacto American automotive Luddite with my manual transmission.)

Public roads

[dlenmn]

The driving we're talking about is done on public roads, so the public (and by extension the government) are entitled to require safety devices that reduce the risks to others on public roads. There is no "right" to drive on public roads without working brakes, lights, etc. The only slippery slopes here are the ones you'll spin out your unsafe car on -- and maybe hurt an innocent bystander. (That said, I think you should be allowed to drive without a seatbelt -- as idiotic as the idea is.)

Re:Public roads

[cwsumner]

The problem with legislating safety, is that legislators know nothing about safety and neither do the acedemic consultants that they hire.
People usually make safer decisions than governments, you just hear more about the accidents because the news media want power and money.
When a law (partly) stops a rare type of accident, and causes a much more common accident, then safety is reduced.

This is not a welcomed feature...

[damnitalready]

I have this now, and thought it would be cool, until you factor in that the vehicle doesn't know when the vehicle in front of it is pulling into the next lane, or off into a driveway. This feature came coupled with the Adaptive Cruise Control feature, too, and very often my vehicle slows down harsh to stay behind a vehicle that has just moved out of my lane into a turning lane. The one time that it did slam on the brakes for me, it was to avoid hitting a car that pulled into a convenience store driveway and I was no risk of hitting. Since turning off the auto-brake, I left the alarm on, and it goes off quite frequently for a variety of reasons, only a couple times being a real vehicle in front of me coming at me at a high rate of speed. I like the technology, but I don't think it's anywhere good enough to make it mandatory.

Re: How dare they?

[epyT-R]

Eh come on, the 'afraid of change' mantra is a tired refrain at this point. There are valid criticisms to unnecessary complexity and change. Such features CAN save lives. They can also cost them if the rather rigid assumptions set by the designers/programmers (or assumed by politicians) are not true. As a result, I prefer to have more control over a simpler device.

Re: How dare they?

[FlyHelicopters]

There are valid criticisms to unnecessary complexity and change.

Perhaps, but in this case, not really...

AEB is good, not having it is bad, the numbers don't lie...

As a result, I prefer to have more control over a simpler device.

Sure, but that is an emotional feeling, not based on the facts. The fact is, cars with AEB have fewer crashes than those without AEB.

What you prefer, and what makes you safer, aren't always the same thing. And since you drive on the same roads as me, I'm thrilled this agreement has been made, it reduces the chance of being rearended by... someone like you. :)

Re: How dare they?

[martas]

I'm confused. Where in the article does it say that people expect this technology to make them 100% safe?

Re: How dare they?

[epyT-R]

No. It's a choice based on the fact that over complexity has a way of magnifying minor errors into major fuck ups. What you prefer and what makes you safer aren't always the same thing. I'm unhappy people are rushing into vehicle automation before the technology is ready (or secure for that matter). It increases my chances of getting killed by your car when it decides to slam the brakes at speed because of a software glitch, or a misanthrope with a laptop on an overpass..

What if...

[Dirk Becher]

... I get caught up in a situation where I HAVE to create a collision to minimize overall damage? Like, I'm caught up in traffic and a truck ignores a red light heading towards me and my only way to survive is to "push" the car ahead of me? Or I'm stuck in the mud and have to drive up a steep slope that emergency break recognizes as an obstacle? Or a riot breaks out and my car becomes a weapon of self defense. Or my garage burns down and I have to break through the door to save my vehicle.

Can emergency breaking be overriden voluntarily?

Warn the driver?

[hucker75]

Do they really warn the driver first? What's the point in that? I thought they just braked if you didn't (computers react faster, so if you miss it, it's still got time to).

My Experience with these systems

[Parts09]

I have a 2013 Ford with this system installed. There have been a few times where it helped and a couple times where it nearly scared me to death. First it has helped a few times... Once when I was in slow moving bumper to bumper traffic and was looking at the signs for my exit. The car in front braked suddenly from about 25kms/hr. The blinking lights and beeping got my attention before the car had to apply the brakes. The other time a car in front of me braked hard and the system in this case applied the brakes a second before I could. However there have been a couple experiences where it hasn't been as useful. The system obviously can't read minds so in some common cases it reacts when it shouldn't. When passing on rural roads and you start to accelerate before pulling out the car freaks out and starts the collision warning. This is the same as trying to get to speed to change lanes on the highway when it is moderately busy. You see the break in the traffic on the left and start to speed up to match traffic... The system sees a speed differential and closing with the car ahead and starts the warning. Of course the issues may be due to the terrible turbo lag in the Ford Ecoboost and the fact I needed to really plan ahead to get over into that left lane.

Re: How dare they?

[FlyHelicopters]

You fear complexity... but as I said, the numbers don't lie...

http://www.nhtsa.gov/About+NHT...

AEB technology is already showing benefits in the real world. Several studies, including a recent report from IIHS, show that AEB technology can reduce insurance injury claims by as much as 35 percent.

Could this technology hurt one person, somewhere, ever? Yes. But it will help far more than it hurts.

It is similar to airbags. Airbags have sometimes been a problem and actually hurt people by going off at the wrong time, but in total, they have saved FAR more lives than they have taken.

You fear the edge case while ignoring the majority of times when this would save someone from a crash. That is emotional reasoning, not sound logic based on facts.

Oh and also

[drinkypoo]

It has some other benefits too, like being able to momentarily reduce throttle when the transmission shifts gears; with a cable-driven throttle you need a mechanical linkage to do that, but with TbW you just do it in software.

You use a nice cheap air bypass valve to control air without diddling the throttle.

Re:Oh and also

[Grishnakh]

You use a nice cheap air bypass valve to control air without diddling the throttle.

Right, and how much does that cost, in both parts cost and assembly time and extra complexity? You don't need this valve when you have throttle-by-wire; less assembly time, less labor cost, and greater overall reliability.

Also, this doesn't sound right at all. Air bypass valves are used so that the engine can idle when your foot is off the throttle. That's why they're called the "idle air bypass solenoid". They increase air to the engine. When you shift gears, you need less air to the engine; you have to back off the throttle. Throttle-by-wire eliminates all that extra complexity by having the ECU control it directly. You also get better shifts because the ECU can better handle rev-matching.