Slashdot Mirror
Study Finds Automatic Braking With Rearview Cameras, Sensors Can Cut Backup Crashes By 78 Percent (cbsnews.com)
A new study from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) found that combining automatic braking with rearview cameras and sensors can cut reverse crashes by 78 percent. Rear automatic braking alone, which is an option in just 5 percent of new vehicles, is linked to a 62 percent drop in reported backup accidents in cars with that equipment. CBS News reports: Starting in May, all new cars in the U.S. will be required to have a rearview camera. Some automakers are going further by adding backup warning sensors and reverse automatic braking. For the first time, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety tested that combination of technology. Two models -- the 2017 Subaru Outback and Cadillac XT5 SUV -- earned superior ratings. Four other vehicles scored an advanced rating for generally avoiding a collision or substantially reducing the vehicle's speed. But there's some room to improve. One vehicle did not stop automatically when backing up to a dummy car parked at an angle. Automatic braking in the front will become standard in most cars in 2022 but there's currently no plan to make it standard for backing up.
I thought it was a big white wall, quite a bit farther away...
Fortunately I was moving quite slowly, and the trucking company was more amused than annoyed.
davecb@spamcop.net
Water from condensation, especially when frozen over, make it worth-less than turning my head around. Vehicle manufacturers, please replace the rear camera and add radar with screen.
If we're headed for self-driving cars this seemingly trivial problem should be closer to 100% not 78%.
If the computer installed on your car prevents you from doing something stupid too many times (one time is too many times), it should also automatically file paperwork to have your license revoked.
My Camry has a backup camera and cross-traffic sensors. It will not brake automatically (I think that was added the following year). The camera gives me a wider angle view than is possible looking from the drivers seat, and the cross-traffic sensors set off an alert about a passing car or pedestrian well before I would be able to see them myself, especially if I'm next to one or two large vehicles. If it beeps I stop, wait to see if anything goes past, and if not I back up extra cautiously just in case. I don't know about implementations on other cars, but on mine it's incredibly accurate. The only time it doesn't go off is if a car/person is already within view of the camera.
Please refer to title..
I'm so old I remember back in the 70s the taxicab companies in New York discovered that putting a brake light in the rear window of their cars cut rear-ending accidents by 60%. The light was at eye level (for a driver) rather than bumper level.
You would have thought they had re-invented fire, the wheel, and all the rest of science and how marvelous everyone thought that was.
Now a car that brakes automatically before it hits something. My my.
Now, as then, my reaction is the only astounding thing is how absolutely anyone could be surprised at the result.
Stop driving behind people when they are backing up.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Now that cars can detect objects in close proximity to the rear and automatically brake for them, why not take the next step by adding a feature to brake-check tailgaters? Ensuring a safe following distance in back would make it safer to brake hard to avoid collisions in front.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
Cars continue to get more expensive as more mandatory safety equipment is added.
Annnnd, what happens when I'm trying to back away from danger into some tall grass; is it going to let me, or is it going to overrule the human? I'm sick to death of engineers, etc., thinking they've thought of everything, to the detriment of the unsuspecting users, decades later.
Should the auto manufacturers work on getting real security into their vehicles before we install auto braking or anything that adjusts the car for you?
Maybe I'm not seeing it right, but isn't "reverse automatic braking" what you do when the traffic light turns yellow as you approach?
You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
78% of people who have crashes while reversing aren't paying attention to what's around them.
Seen quite a few Tesla model x cars trying to back into supercharging stalls and they keep automatically braking. They finally give up and just drive away. Cars should definitely at least do more slowing down when they detect objects in front, but there should be some happy medium and not just slam on the brakes to cause folks behind to rear end you especially due to mistakes of sensors braking and slowing you down. Personally, I've always been one for cars trying to adapt by modulating it's taking over of the steering, brake and accelerator but allowing one the ability to overcome the effect by purposely overcoming the feedback.
Brake pipes have never been secure, and it really isn't that big of a problem. So now someone can tap a wire and mess with your brakes in more ways than just draining the fluid to stop them working. Fantasies about controlling a car's brakes via the radio's Bluetooth connection aside, what threats do you actually see here? CAN networks have been separated between the high-speed engine management and safety network and the low speed infotainment, climate control and other "comfort" features on most cars for at least a decade now.
My Citroen bleats at any grass, so I generally ignore it. But fortunately it does not stop me driving.
People tend to just look at the camera when they are backing up, instead of looking around them and checking their mirrors.
Sonar/radar backup systems that beep (beep faster as you get closer) when you are close to an object are much better - the beeping tells you how how close you are, while you can still look around.
I had crashes doing that also.
Search for bird view 360 camera. They are 4 cameras that cover all sides of the vehicle and the views are remapped to give a view from overhead with a picture of the car in the middle for reference.
You get a view as if a drone is flying overhead looking down on your car. No blind spots, and distance is easily judged.
They make such a major difference to driving, parking and reversing. Every car should have these, but you can get aftermark fits for them.
I rented a car with automatic braking, and the false positives are terrifying. I routinely triggered the autobraking when backing out of driveways onto the road, where there's a change in gradient. The ABS kicks in, and it sounds like your car has bottomed out and is grinding against the ground.
It's particularly annoying because you can see on the reverse camera that there's nothing behind you, so you start doubting yourself, the camera, and the car. It's kind of like a random punishment system. You don't know what's going to cause the next zap, so there's no clear corrective path of action to take to correct this.
Laugh while you can, monkey-boy.
Saturday I bought a 2018 Subaru with automatic backup breaking. The *first* time I reversed the car out of my garage onto the street, the car slammed the breaks so hard I nearly lost my grip on the steering wheel. I quickly checked the backup camera to see what the car had seen... I saw... nothing... no people, no cars, no cats, nada. "WHAT THE **** CAR!" Its been almost a week, and I haven't had any similar incidents, but needless to say I am now leery each time I put it in reverse.
On the plus side, the full-range adaptive cruise control is amazing. The car uses cameras to optically track the the car ahead and will manage the throttle and break pedal in stop and go traffic as well as freeway speeds. Its both strange and beautiful to be able to work through a series of anti-timed stoplights without touching the pedals at all... just a single tap on a steering wheel button gives the car a few seconds of 'permission' to release the breaks and accelerate if the car ahead starts moving. The car will keep up with the flow of traffic and will bring itself back to a full stop with no other intervention.
(I still treat the car as a 15 year old who has only been behind the wheel for 5 days. I stand by ready to slam on the break if it does anything stupid, but it is still amazing what the car can do).
Automatic braking sensor just caused a crash in a professional cycling race a couple of days ago
http://www.cyclingnews.com/new...
Well, then maybe this system isn't so bad after all if it keeps stupid jerks like that from killing bystanders. Needless to say we never got into her car again after that.
Non-Linux Penguins ?
I will never own a vehicle with automatic brakes. Warning sensor?...sure, Brakes?...never. I have two vehicles in my garage, right now, with brake warning sensor. In any kind of spirited driving, they often give off false alarms. Are they going to put in sensors in the rear to make sure you don't get plowed into from the guy behind who was tailgating, because you're the one who's going to legally be at fault. And this just in...
http://www.cyclingnews.com/new...
Just another day in Paradise
Fantasies?
https://www.usatoday.com/story...
https://www.theguardian.com/te...
https://www.theguardian.com/te...
Just another day in Paradise
And you wonder why the rest of the world doesn't buy American made cars...
Women parallel parking, the car will just keep applying the brakes.
I know I will drive right behind him and get a check.
At the Abu Dhabi Tour, Pro cyclist Mark Cavendish was knocked out of the race by a car with automatic braking. There was congestion in front and back of the car, and that triggered the sudden braking. Cavendish hit the car, went down and was injured.
photosMy Photostream
Manual transmissions used to have advantages over automatic for fuel economy and performance. Those days are over. At this point, manual transmissions are for hipsters, and cars with manual transmissions should really only come with one of these as its entertainment system.
I own a 2003 Golf TDI with stick. How much do I have to pay for a "good" automatic? While you can get good ones, a lot of time you have go up in price (or add a Sports Package) to get better heuristics. Though many cars have a "manual override" place on the gear selector.
What, in your opinion, are some sub-$30K cars with non-annoying transmissions? Or are they all "good" (in your opinion) nowadays?
If we're headed for self-driving cars this seemingly trivial problem should be closer to 100% not 78%.
Sounds like the problem is the corners. Need additional cameras for checking to the sides for scenarios where you are turning and backing up and also when other objects are moving. And it does require much additional computation to predict movement of multiple objects relative to one another so bare bones automatic breaking is really about just automatically stopping when something is already in the warning area regardless of whether it is moving or not. To get to 100% you need to add side views and have software that is extrapolating movements of other vehicles, people, children, pets, shopping carts, etc.
These are largely solved problems from a technology perspective with multiple ways of doing it for some companies like Waymo and maybe GM and a few others, but putting these features into cars and making these features affordable for mass production and consumption is going to take a few more years.
Still...dumb automatic breaking can help avoid 62% of accidents... that is a win. Looks like at least minor accident rates are going to go down by at least half in the next ten years which is a huge hugely good thing for everyone besides repair shops and insurance companies.
Unfortunately I would suspect that to avoid most fatalities it will require more sophisticated autonomous driving among all the car makers which is a level that apparently only a few companies have achieved so far.
Study Finds Looking Where You Are Going Can Cut Backup Crashes By 84%
The reason we need backup cameras is because the car makers have made it impossible to see out the back of the car. The rear window is too high to accommodate bigger trunk on miniature car, there is no windshield wiper/washer on it, the rear roof posts are massive to mitigate crumpling in rollover, can't see past headrests to mitigate injury in rear-end collisions, etc.
I imagine a minivan equipped with automatic braking would have still hit the parked car due to the angle of impact. https://youtu.be/6MJ_D7DaH-w
How many backup related accidents are there? How much will it cost to add? And how much more in repairs when the sensors or cameras go bad? And how much shorter will the service life of the vehicle be? These trade-offs, vs better driver education and enforcement are rarely discussed. The safety industry seems to have a good track record of foisting questionable and expensive systems on the auto industry. Air bags that are too powerful for smaller occupants or that go off too easily and then require thousands of dollars for repair work to the dash and refitting are a good example. Remember when they were supposed to be "supplemental restraint systems"?
Yeah, because only American made cars can be hacked. Good luck with that.
Just another day in Paradise
So far it seems that way - Chrysler, Tesla and Tesla. German cars have had firewalled CAN since forever, and Japanese are too conservative to add remote control "features" to their cars before all the quality issues are ironed out. I guess the Koreans and Chinese are probably carrying a similar risk as the US in terms of adding new features based on the latest "cloud" trends without thinking them through.
Great, more stuff to pay for and more stuff to break. As a bonus, DRM can be included to prevent third party repairs.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/tec...
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/...
https://www.theregister.co.uk/...
https://www.bleepingcomputer.c...
https://www.bna.com/hacking-ca...
Shall I go on?
Just another day in Paradise
Including the backup camera requirement... Forcing car makers to install a $20 part to keep a few hundred people a year from backing over kids or damaging their cars isn't "freedom"
https://www.ceoutlook.com/2017/06/26/trump-admin-may-change-backup-camera-law/
None of these is about messing with the brakes. The first three are about being able to operate convenience features like remote unlock and remote start by connecting directly to the car's modem (ie, all the authentication in these systems is server side). The 4th one says that - shock horror - you can update the software in your entertainment system from a USB stick. And the last one is about a bug in the app for Hyundais that let hackers steal your password so they can use the app themselves.
I never said they were, and you hadn't implied that you were specifically talking about brakes in my response regarding American vehicles getting hacked. There are plenty of other hacks out there, and I'm not going to go search them just for brakes just because you've got some kind of problem with American vehicles.
Just another day in Paradise