14 ms·

Autonomous braking: 'The most significant development since the safety belt'

161 points by ZeljkoS 9y ago

matt_the_bass 9y ago
I recently bought a WV Atlas with adaptive cruise control and front assist. It also has a variety of other sensors and assists. It is no way an AV, but these features IMHO add a lot of value. If every car had them, I bet road safety would increase significantly. I agree with the article. I think it is a big deal.
- leeoniya 9y ago
  yep, got a VW Alltrack last year. the adaptive cruise is really neat.
- akira2501 9y ago
  > If every car had them, I bet road safety would increase significantly. If you look into the data on fatal accidents and examine them even for a few minutes you'll easily see that this is a foolhardy bet. The causes of accidents and fatalities are highly variable and not what you would expect. There's also extreme variability between the individual states; for example, Texas has more _total_ fatalities than California. There's extreme variability between the sexes and for different age groups within those sexes. Finally, there are motorcycles. AI/Driverless, AV and all the attendant sensors and inputs will have an impact, just not nearly as large of one as many people unfortunately expect.
  - alexfringes 9y ago
    What’s a good way to look at and explore this data? Where did you learn about the patterns you mention above?
    - akira2501 9y ago
      Use NHTSA's FARS: https://www.nhtsa.gov/research-data/fatality-analysis-reporting-system-fars https://www.nhtsa.gov/research-data/fatality-analysis-report... Personally I downloaded their database and then converted into an SQLite database that I could run queries against. They do have an online tool, but I have no experience with that.
      - matt_the_bass 9y ago
        Cool! Just a hobby for you or do you have other motivation to explore the data?
  - TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
    I haven’t looked at any data, but I’m willing to bet non-fatal vehicle related collisions out number fatal ones by a significant factor. Would a decrease in some types of collisions be a reasonable assumption under the grandparents premise?
  - edejong 9y ago
    > Finally, there are motorcycles. Absolutely, I wish every prospective motorcyclist would study the stats (more than 35 times increased mortality rate per driven km [1]) and discuss this with their loved ones. Those who insist driving a motorcycle afterwards deserve their genes to be removed from the gene pool. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorcycle_safety https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorcycle_safety
    - ghaff 9y ago
      Perhaps you can also provide a reference to how risk-taking is inherently an undesirable genetic component that should be weeded out.
      - edejong 9y ago
        I'd prefer to give a reference to how risk-taking while involving others is an undesirable trait. When I mortally hit a motorcyclist, even without a fault of my own, I might feel guilty the rest of my life. So indirectly, the irrational risk-taking of others is involving those who are trying to act responsibly. So, I suggest to take the risk-taking elsewhere: go climb a mountain, do base-jumping or take the motorcycle to a racing track (bonus: real competition!). But leave other motorists out of your game.
    - arbitrage 9y ago
      Nobody deserves eugenics.
      - edejong 9y ago
        I never proposed for others to consciously select for certain genes. Those who drive a motorcycle can inform themselves of the risk they take and as such, choose for the higher probability of their genes not making it to offspring. Especially considering that it is predominantly 16-24 yo who die in motorcycle accidents.
    - KozmoNau7 9y ago
      Before wishing death or removal from the gene pool on anyone, maybe you should look at why the accident rate is high, especially in the US. Severely deficient mandatory motorcycle training, riders who refuse to wear helmets or any safety gear at all, a tendency to just go for the biggest most powerful engine right away, and of course shitty drivers, who either deliberately antagonize riders, or simply don't give a shit. Squids and outlaw bikers heavily skew the numbers.
  - matt_the_bass 9y ago
    I think safety includes non-fatalities. Where I live I can safely say that nearly every day during rush hour there is a rear ending collision causing lots of delays for lots of people. Rarely does this kill someone but it’s still a safety issue. I bet nearly all of these would be mitigated if every car had such technology.
  - Silhouette 9y ago
    If you look into the data on fatal accidents and examine them even for a few minutes you'll easily see that this is a foolhardy bet. Quoting the linked article: At the moment, most AEB systems are "forward-looking". In other words they are designed to prevent crashes where one car runs into the back of another. Such crashes account for around a quarter of all accidents, but these are the incidents which can cause some of the nastiest injuries, such as whiplash. AEB has been shown to reduce such collisions by 38%, according to research by the safety organisation Euro NCAP.
- jbrooksuk 9y ago
  I recently bought a T-Roc and ACC is pretty awesome. The issue I have is on the motorway, when changing lanes, it has a tendency to lose speed and with it being a 1 litre, it takes a while to build up the speed again. It also has front sensors which has alerted and braked for me a couple of times when someone has almost stopped dead at 60MPH (even with stopping distance, it was a quick stop).
  - matt_the_bass 9y ago
    Maybe Changing lanes isn’t really a use case for cruise control that doesn’t require extra user attention. In my car you can manually give it the gas when changing lanes and accelerate faster than by ACC without disabling ACC. Maybe your car allows that too?
nxc18 9y ago
Autonomous braking is a huge step, and, imho, more exciting at the moment than full autonomous driving because it can save lives right now, and is unlikely to take them (shots fired at Uber). But buyer beware. Even within the IIHS safety standards, there is considerable variability. I love my Toyota Corolla (2017), but it's braking will only take a few mph off after warning you. I can't wait until my lease expires and I can upgrade to the Subaru (edit: or maybe the Volvo from TFA). Look up the videos, they are fully capable of stopping without any collision up to ~40 mph (disclaimer: never rely on these safety features, it's still your responsibility to be safe). Do your research, happy and safe driving!
- martinwww 9y ago
  even warning few seconds before impact is useful, of course there are better systems but Toyota implemented Safety Sense to all cars which is great.
  - Ninn 9y ago
    Sorry, but i do not see how the warning is useful, as it first of all distract your attention from driving, and secondly happens too short a time before the would be accident for you to react in my experience. So as a stand alone warning feature without automated breaking, i dont see the use case that you're praising?
    - cma 9y ago
      > as it first of all distract your attention from driving, They didn't do tests with drivers inexperienced with the system?
    - jakobegger 9y ago
      A lot of accidents happen because people don't see the car ahead of them. This could be either because they are distracted (eg. fidgeting with the radio or their mobile phone), or because vision is poor (dense fog). A system that warns you in those cases that there's a vehicle in front of you sounds useful to me.
vaughanb 9y ago
Anti-lock brakes never yielded the accident reduction expected, primarily because drivers used the improved braking performance to drive faster in poorer conditions. I guess the AEB works at reducing accidents because it IS autonomous and does not "improve performance". BTW the KPI is reduction in insurance cost.
- clhodapp 9y ago
  > drivers used the improved braking performance to drive faster in poorer conditions That's not the ideal outcome but it's still a net win, no?
  - xiphias 9y ago
    The problem with this combination is that it may reduce the number of crashes/injuries, but increase the number of deaths at the same time
  - AFNobody 9y ago
    Faster = higher probability of an injurious and/or fatal accident. So from a safety standpoint, that is a not a win.
  - gargravarr 9y ago
    A German taxicab company did a study, pitting half its fleet with ABS against the other half without it. The accident rate stayed the same (in fact, was insignificantly higher) in the half with ABS because the drivers felt overconfident in the braking system: https://web.archive.org/web/20100921074926/http://psyc.queensu.ca/target/chapter07.html https://web.archive.org/web/20100921074926/http://psyc.queen...
    - clhodapp 9y ago
      Yep! But they got to drive more aggressively without a substantial increased risk to their safety! Being able to go faster in the rain is useful in and of itself!
- 9y ago
mirimir 9y ago
Sure, AEB is a great thing. But it's odd to see "since the safety belt". Air bags have saved more lives than safety belts, haven't they? Also, I can imagine additional advantages of AEB. If someone's tailgating, just hit your brakes enough that their AEB will trigger.
- zachkatz 9y ago
  This will save countless pedestrians' lives too.
- vilhelm_s 9y ago
  The first google hit (http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.506.777&rep=rep1&type=pdf http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.506...) says > in the period 1991-2001 [...] about 109,000 lives were saved by belts and 8,000 by airbags so I guess seat belts were a bigger improvement.
  - raverbashing 9y ago
    I guess the question then is: why bother? Also airbags depend on seatbelt use to be effective, and some of them have killed people.
    - allannienhuis 9y ago
      ? why bother saving 8,000 lives? In what world is it better to NOT have airbags?
      - kss238 9y ago
        If the cost of installing airbags could instead be used to install some other safety feature, say aeb in all vehicles, and if that feature saved more lives than airbags do, then it would be better to not have airbags.
      - raverbashing 9y ago
        While 8k is a substantial value, other technologies might be more effective, less costly and possible safer. Remember the takata airbag defect killed 15 people in the US. https://www.consumerreports.org/car-recalls-defects/takata-airbag-recall-everything-you-need-to-know/ https://www.consumerreports.org/car-recalls-defects/takata-a...
squam 9y ago
Perhaps Tesla should consider licensing this tech from Volvo. /snark
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- taneq 9y ago
  Serious question: Would the Volvo system have picked up and appropriately responded to the gore point involved in the recent fatal Tesla crash? Any time anyone raised the question of Tesla's AEB's reliability, the responses were along the lines of "no AEB is perfect", "AEB only works on cars", etc.
  - unityByFreedom 9y ago
    > Would the Volvo system have picked up and appropriately responded to the gore point involved in the recent fatal Tesla crash? I'd rather ask, would the Volvo system steer towards the barrier like Tesla's AP may have done [1] [2]? "IIHS research shows that AEB systems meeting the commitment would reduce rear-end crashes by 40 percent." [3] AEB on its own may save lives. Whether autosteer systems do or not is an open question. [1] https://youtu.be/VVJSjeHDvfY?t=37s https://youtu.be/VVJSjeHDvfY?t=37s [2] https://youtu.be/6QCF8tVqM3I?t=28s https://youtu.be/6QCF8tVqM3I?t=28s [3] http://www.iihs.org/iihs/news/desktopnews/u-s-dot-and-iihs-announce-historic-commitment-of-20-automakers-to-make-automatic-emergency-braking-standard-on-new-vehicles http://www.iihs.org/iihs/news/desktopnews/u-s-dot-and-iihs-a...
    - taneq 9y ago
      Both are good questions. 1) Do other autosteering systems (such as Volvo's) share this failure mode? (I don't know much about Pilot Assist but it seems to require a lead car to follow, is that right? Apparently Pilot Assist 2 doesn't, though? Currently reading http://forums.swedespeed.com/showthread.php?348321-Auto-Pilot-Assist-2-thread-(experience-problems) http://forums.swedespeed.com/showthread.php?348321-Auto-Pilo... and it doesn't sound great.) 2) Should AEB stop the car if there's something solid in front of it, regardless of what the autosteer system is doing? (I would have thought so, and it's disappointing that in this case it didn't!)
frogcoder 9y ago
I was wondering about the AEB when the Uber accident happened. It should’ve been equipped with AEB but it still hit a pedestrian. Did they just pull out the whole software and replace it with their own navigation logic?
- MertsA 9y ago
  Yes, that was something that was mentioned before by Volvo. Uber disabled the AEB that came with the vehicle and according to Volvo it likely would have detected the pedestrian.
- facorreia 9y ago
  The company that makes the standard safety equipment said it had been disabled[1]. [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-26/uber-disabled-volvo-suv-s-standard-safety-system-before-fatality https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-26/uber-disa...
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- icc97 9y ago
  The skeptic in me thinks that this story is Volvo trying to counter the bad news of their car killing a pedestrian with good news of how many drivers haven't died. Although it's not their fault for the crash, celebrating the safety of an SUV, when it's size and extra weight means that crashes with pedestrians will more likely end in death, seems odd.
boxcardavin 9y ago
I drove into a dust storm in Central Washington in a rental Volvo several years back and autobraking saved me from rear ending a car. I made it out, but a huge pileup ended up happening just behind me. https://www.kiro7.com/news/massive-crash-closes-eastbound-i-90-near-vantage-i/81725917 https://www.kiro7.com/news/massive-crash-closes-eastbound-i-...
- jakobegger 9y ago
  I've read about a couple of accidents like this, and I always wonder why people don't slow down or stop before they drive into dense dust or fog?
  - namanyayg 9y ago
    Maybe because of the worry of getting rear ended themselves? And I'm sure a lot of people do; but then those drivers don't make the news.
    - KozmoNau7 9y ago
      Slow down, put on the rear fog light. That's how you're supposed to handle it, but either people have never been taught to do it, or they've forgotten.
      - wmeredith 9y ago
        Rear fog light?
        gargravarr 9y ago
        All cars sold in Europe must have at least a rear foglight to be road-legal. Imported models must have one retrofitted. Sometimes, rules and regulations actually do improve things :)
      - magduf 9y ago
        You can't do that. We do not have rear fogs lights in America.
urban_winter 9y ago
The BBC story, also reported in multiple other places, is a nice bit of Volvo marketing g, but is nonsense. Volvo introduced Aeb in 2007 on the XC60. The XC90 only got it when they introduced the new generation a few years ago. Therefore claiming that the exceptional safety record of the XC90 is in any way related to AEB is just rubbish. The reason why XC90s are associated with so few passenger injuries (note, no claims are made for injuries to other road users by XC90s) is that they are large, heavy and chosen by safsr-than-average demographics.
ggg9990 9y ago
Another reason the XC90 has a great safety record is that it’s a 4500 pound car with a 4 cylinder engine. This isn’t safety enhancing in itself but does ensure that it is only bought by people with the most sedate driving habits.
- lazyjones 9y ago
  Those 4-cylinder engines deliver up to 303hp and the hybrids get another 87hp from the electric drive train. So they're not exactly weak cars...
  - ggg9990 9y ago
    Drive one. The throttle is leaden.
    - alkonaut 9y ago
      That's programmed for fuel economy. It has to combine 3 impossible things: a pretty small engine, a heavy car, AND has to do X mpg in "normal" driving. The solution is to make the mapping from driver input to actual throttle/fuel be pretty lame. It's the same Usually there is at least a mode called e.g. "sport" or "power" that maps the pedal to the engine in a better way (except for economy). The XC90 T8 has a "power" mode where you get from 0-60 in 5s flat.
- AmVess 9y ago
  It's a 4400lb car that will do 0-60 in 6.4 seconds in top trim. It's 4 cylinder engine is both supercharged and turbocharged. The demographics determines the safety, not the number of cylinders it has.
  - ggg9990 9y ago
    The Audi Q7 3.0T is $7k cheaper and does 0-60 in 5.7 seconds. The XC90 is a completely drivable and enjoyable car, but people who care about performance are likelier to choose a different SUV and likelier to get into an accident in that SUV.
vigdals 9y ago
Thats some really impressive stats. I think this is a combination of great safety equipment, the safeness of the car itself (crash tests and so on) and the people who buys it. Its not the most hardcore drivers who buys a Volvo, even tho the 2017 and newer models are really good looking. Volvo has always been a pioneer in security as well
- KozmoNau7 9y ago
  Define "hardcore driver". Is it someone who drives aggressively and takes dangerous risks?
  - vigdals 9y ago
    Yep
roflchoppa 9y ago
oh man my Datsun is a coffin compared to these things ha. lap belts are designed to cut you in half <:0
dmitriid 9y ago
Volvo's stated goal is: "Vision 2020 is about reducing the number of people that die or are seriously injured in road traffic accidents to zero. "[1] As sceptical as I am about corporate statements, you can see that Volvo is steadily working on this. They don't do splashy announcements or announce revolutions in driving, and yet they bring more and more changes and improvements to their cars. From assisted braking to lane assist to blind spot information to city collision avoidance to many many other small and big improvements. [1] https://group.volvocars.com/company/vision https://group.volvocars.com/company/vision
jnsaff2 9y ago
My relative owns one. The Adaptive cruise control only picks up moving cars in front of you and tries to kill you when there’s a stopped car in front of you, say at a red traffic light. I’ve never been brave (or stupid) enough to see whether the AEB would counter that especially in marginal road conditions.
alkonaut 9y ago
Isn't autonomous braking standard in most new premium-ish cars? My not-so-premium VW has it. Any car that has a distance-sensing cruise control should have it.
oldgradstudent 9y ago
It's a weird piece. The describe the XC90 as the safest car they ever tested, and that it hadn't had a fatality since 2002. Then it attributes it to AEB. The problem is that the XC90 got its AEB in 2015. This cannot be the reason for the impressive safety levels since 2002.
- Sammi 9y ago
  Yeah. The Volvo XC90 is a big car and most of the excellent safety record for it can be attributed to the inherent higher safety of larger cars: https://www.edmunds.com/car-safety/are-smaller-cars-as-safe-as-large-cars.html https://www.edmunds.com/car-safety/are-smaller-cars-as-safe-... https://www.technologyreview.com/s/413018/laws-of-physics-persist-in-crashes-big-cars-win/ https://www.technologyreview.com/s/413018/laws-of-physics-pe... It's just physics. When large a object meets a small object then the large object wins because it has more energy and ends up pushing the small object backwards.
  - userbinator 9y ago
    Also the fact that it's a Volvo, which among other things will introduce a lot of selection bias. For several years, there were no deaths in a Volvo 240 either: http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19941022&slug=1937339 http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=199...
    - oldgradstudent 9y ago
      Fatalities are quite rare. 2011-era midsize luxury SUVs have 13-15[1] driver deaths per million registered vehicle years in the US (UK has half the death rate per km, vehicle or inhabitants). It is not that improbable that midsize luxury SUV that sold just 50,000 cars in the UK since 2002 had no driver deaths. AEB was first installed in the 2015 model year. If we assume[2] that the same number of cars were sold each year, the XC90 had 20,000 registered vehicle years with AEB. We should expect 0.03 deaths. It would be more surprising if there was a driver death in a Volvo XC90 equipped with AEB in the UK. [1] http://www.iihs.org/iihs/sr/statusreport/article/50/1/1 http://www.iihs.org/iihs/sr/statusreport/article/50/1/1 (first table) [2] It's probably false, adjust with your favorite fudge factor.
alphadevx 9y ago
There has been a similar system on Mercedes cars (Collision Prevent Assist) for years: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5ia5e07BqU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5ia5e07BqU
- oldgradstudent 9y ago
  Aren't all of them just using Mobileye?
- pmontra 9y ago
  Don't use that if you're leading a bicycle race. It happened in the Dubai Tour earlier this year: the organizers car (a Mercedes) autobraked and the bunch crashed into it. They disabled the sensor after that. Obviously it's not a normal use case. http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/abu-dhabi-tour-organisers-blame-automatic-brake-sensor-for-cavendish-crash/ http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/abu-dhabi-tour-organisers-bl...
tristanj 9y ago
Volvo's automatic collision braking sure has improved since 2010 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNi17YLnZpg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNi17YLnZpg
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
harel 9y ago
This feature is also available in "cheaper" cars. My Kia Niro has is, and although I didn't get a chance to make "full" use of this (thankfully), I did incur the "too close" beep which prompted me to break one time I was not paying the road the attention it deserved. As a side note, with auto distance keeping cruise control, lane assist that actually moves the wheel to keep me in lane, side radar that alerts if a car is coming as I try to switch lanes and the AEB, this is great entry into autonomous driving (as far as some core systems that are actually in commercial use already).
Tade0 9y ago
I had this engage in my car once. It was the first time I was driving with glasses on - I must have misjudged the distance between me and the next car. Scared me, but not as much as the guy following me a little too closely in his E46. It does beep randomly sometimes - usually in heavy rain. But that one time it turned on pretty late, so it's a good last resort.
Bromskloss 9y ago
Still, I can't help but feeling sad, as a human, to be taken out of the equation and not be needed anymore.
- contravariant 9y ago
  As a programmer becoming obsolete is the greatest possible achievement.
jbms 9y ago
I'd like to see more variable brake lights to go with this: i.e. a strip of light across the rear of the vehicle, that progressively lights up according to how hard the vehicle is braking (or anticipates braking, if it's autonomous). Some cars have a flash-brake-lights-under-heavy-braking, but I think it would help traffic flow if you can more easily distinguish a touch of the brakes from a press of the brakes.
- veritas3241 9y ago
  I've thought this would make sense too and I feel like I'm missing something as to why it hasn't been implemented. Complexity perhaps? Interesting to note, though, that we do have weak forms of braking that don't light up the tail lights - heavy engine braking in the case of manual transmissions, lighter engine-braking for automatics, and in the case of electric vehicles (at least a Tesla in my experience) the lights don't kick on from regen unless it's passed a certain deceleration level.
  - arbitrage 9y ago
    There's no tangible benefit big enough for the added complexity and maintenance cost. What exactly do you get from incremental brake lights?
    - jbms 9y ago
      You get clearer communication from the car in front of its actions and intentions, in an intuitive way. This assists traffic flow and might enhance safety.
- enraged_camel 9y ago
  I dunno. I personally like the non-variable brake lights because I can gently tap on my brakes to make tailgaters give me space.
- mstade 9y ago
  I think some sort of variable lighting would be nifty, but in my book it's the wrong solution to what is really a problem of keeping distance. For highway driving the answer for me there has been adaptive cruise control – it's amazing! What I'm missing though is for a way to have the car keep distance, but still leave control over the gas to me. This would be very useful in high traffic situations where setting a cruise control speed isn't really usable, since you'll likely be disengaging it now and then due to braking because someone is cutting in. I put a lot more faith in sensors to judge the distance to the car in front of me, than my visual perception of brake lights. At a certain medium distance, I'm sure I wouldn't be able to judge the difference between 25% brake and 75% anyway, but my car's sensors would be able to detect that I'm on a collision course, and could adjust gas/braking accordingly.
gmiller123456 9y ago
Anybody know how well these handle water? I imagine a situation after/during heavy rain with giant puddles of water. A car in the lane next to me hits a puddle at high speed throwing a lot of water in the air in front of my car. Does the car slam on its breaks?
- dingo_bat 9y ago
  If the splash is large enough to cause visibility issues, I'd say it must slam the brakes.

161 points by ZeljkoS 9y ago

I recently bought a WV Atlas with adaptive cruise control and front assist. It also has a variety of other sensors and assists. It is no way an AV, but these features IMHO add a lot of value. If every car had them, I bet road safety would increase significantly. I agree with the article. I think it is a big deal.

leeoniya 9y ago
yep, got a VW Alltrack last year. the adaptive cruise is really neat.
akira2501 9y ago
> If every car had them, I bet road safety would increase significantly. If you look into the data on fatal accidents and examine them even for a few minutes you'll easily see that this is a foolhardy bet. The causes of accidents and fatalities are highly variable and not what you would expect. There's also extreme variability between the individual states; for example, Texas has more _total_ fatalities than California. There's extreme variability between the sexes and for different age groups within those sexes. Finally, there are motorcycles. AI/Driverless, AV and all the attendant sensors and inputs will have an impact, just not nearly as large of one as many people unfortunately expect.
- alexfringes 9y ago
  What’s a good way to look at and explore this data? Where did you learn about the patterns you mention above?
  - akira2501 9y ago
    Use NHTSA's FARS: https://www.nhtsa.gov/research-data/fatality-analysis-reporting-system-fars https://www.nhtsa.gov/research-data/fatality-analysis-report... Personally I downloaded their database and then converted into an SQLite database that I could run queries against. They do have an online tool, but I have no experience with that.
    - matt_the_bass 9y ago
      Cool! Just a hobby for you or do you have other motivation to explore the data?
- TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
  I haven’t looked at any data, but I’m willing to bet non-fatal vehicle related collisions out number fatal ones by a significant factor. Would a decrease in some types of collisions be a reasonable assumption under the grandparents premise?
- edejong 9y ago
  > Finally, there are motorcycles. Absolutely, I wish every prospective motorcyclist would study the stats (more than 35 times increased mortality rate per driven km [1]) and discuss this with their loved ones. Those who insist driving a motorcycle afterwards deserve their genes to be removed from the gene pool. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorcycle_safety https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorcycle_safety
  - ghaff 9y ago
    Perhaps you can also provide a reference to how risk-taking is inherently an undesirable genetic component that should be weeded out.
    - edejong 9y ago
      I'd prefer to give a reference to how risk-taking while involving others is an undesirable trait. When I mortally hit a motorcyclist, even without a fault of my own, I might feel guilty the rest of my life. So indirectly, the irrational risk-taking of others is involving those who are trying to act responsibly. So, I suggest to take the risk-taking elsewhere: go climb a mountain, do base-jumping or take the motorcycle to a racing track (bonus: real competition!). But leave other motorists out of your game.
  - arbitrage 9y ago
    Nobody deserves eugenics.
    - edejong 9y ago
      I never proposed for others to consciously select for certain genes. Those who drive a motorcycle can inform themselves of the risk they take and as such, choose for the higher probability of their genes not making it to offspring. Especially considering that it is predominantly 16-24 yo who die in motorcycle accidents.
  - KozmoNau7 9y ago
    Before wishing death or removal from the gene pool on anyone, maybe you should look at why the accident rate is high, especially in the US. Severely deficient mandatory motorcycle training, riders who refuse to wear helmets or any safety gear at all, a tendency to just go for the biggest most powerful engine right away, and of course shitty drivers, who either deliberately antagonize riders, or simply don't give a shit. Squids and outlaw bikers heavily skew the numbers.
- matt_the_bass 9y ago
  I think safety includes non-fatalities. Where I live I can safely say that nearly every day during rush hour there is a rear ending collision causing lots of delays for lots of people. Rarely does this kill someone but it’s still a safety issue. I bet nearly all of these would be mitigated if every car had such technology.
- Silhouette 9y ago
  If you look into the data on fatal accidents and examine them even for a few minutes you'll easily see that this is a foolhardy bet. Quoting the linked article: At the moment, most AEB systems are "forward-looking". In other words they are designed to prevent crashes where one car runs into the back of another. Such crashes account for around a quarter of all accidents, but these are the incidents which can cause some of the nastiest injuries, such as whiplash. AEB has been shown to reduce such collisions by 38%, according to research by the safety organisation Euro NCAP.
jbrooksuk 9y ago
I recently bought a T-Roc and ACC is pretty awesome. The issue I have is on the motorway, when changing lanes, it has a tendency to lose speed and with it being a 1 litre, it takes a while to build up the speed again. It also has front sensors which has alerted and braked for me a couple of times when someone has almost stopped dead at 60MPH (even with stopping distance, it was a quick stop).
- matt_the_bass 9y ago
  Maybe Changing lanes isn’t really a use case for cruise control that doesn’t require extra user attention. In my car you can manually give it the gas when changing lanes and accelerate faster than by ACC without disabling ACC. Maybe your car allows that too?

nxc18 9y ago

Autonomous braking is a huge step, and, imho, more exciting at the moment than full autonomous driving because it can save lives right now, and is unlikely to take them (shots fired at Uber). But buyer beware. Even within the IIHS safety standards, there is considerable variability. I love my Toyota Corolla (2017), but it's braking will only take a few mph off after warning you. I can't wait until my lease expires and I can upgrade to the Subaru (edit: or maybe the Volvo from TFA). Look up the videos, they are fully capable of stopping without any collision up to ~40 mph (disclaimer: never rely on these safety features, it's still your responsibility to be safe). Do your research, happy and safe driving!

martinwww 9y ago
even warning few seconds before impact is useful, of course there are better systems but Toyota implemented Safety Sense to all cars which is great.
- Ninn 9y ago
  Sorry, but i do not see how the warning is useful, as it first of all distract your attention from driving, and secondly happens too short a time before the would be accident for you to react in my experience. So as a stand alone warning feature without automated breaking, i dont see the use case that you're praising?
  - cma 9y ago
    > as it first of all distract your attention from driving, They didn't do tests with drivers inexperienced with the system?
  - jakobegger 9y ago
    A lot of accidents happen because people don't see the car ahead of them. This could be either because they are distracted (eg. fidgeting with the radio or their mobile phone), or because vision is poor (dense fog). A system that warns you in those cases that there's a vehicle in front of you sounds useful to me.

vaughanb 9y ago

Anti-lock brakes never yielded the accident reduction expected, primarily because drivers used the improved braking performance to drive faster in poorer conditions. I guess the AEB works at reducing accidents because it IS autonomous and does not "improve performance". BTW the KPI is reduction in insurance cost.

clhodapp 9y ago
> drivers used the improved braking performance to drive faster in poorer conditions That's not the ideal outcome but it's still a net win, no?
- xiphias 9y ago
  The problem with this combination is that it may reduce the number of crashes/injuries, but increase the number of deaths at the same time
- AFNobody 9y ago
  Faster = higher probability of an injurious and/or fatal accident. So from a safety standpoint, that is a not a win.
- gargravarr 9y ago
  A German taxicab company did a study, pitting half its fleet with ABS against the other half without it. The accident rate stayed the same (in fact, was insignificantly higher) in the half with ABS because the drivers felt overconfident in the braking system: https://web.archive.org/web/20100921074926/http://psyc.queensu.ca/target/chapter07.html https://web.archive.org/web/20100921074926/http://psyc.queen...
  - clhodapp 9y ago
    Yep! But they got to drive more aggressively without a substantial increased risk to their safety! Being able to go faster in the rain is useful in and of itself!
9y ago

mirimir 9y ago

Sure, AEB is a great thing. But it's odd to see "since the safety belt". Air bags have saved more lives than safety belts, haven't they? Also, I can imagine additional advantages of AEB. If someone's tailgating, just hit your brakes enough that their AEB will trigger.

zachkatz 9y ago
This will save countless pedestrians' lives too.
vilhelm_s 9y ago
The first google hit (http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.506.777&rep=rep1&type=pdf http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.506...) says > in the period 1991-2001 [...] about 109,000 lives were saved by belts and 8,000 by airbags so I guess seat belts were a bigger improvement.
- raverbashing 9y ago
  I guess the question then is: why bother? Also airbags depend on seatbelt use to be effective, and some of them have killed people.
  - allannienhuis 9y ago
    ? why bother saving 8,000 lives? In what world is it better to NOT have airbags?
    - kss238 9y ago
      If the cost of installing airbags could instead be used to install some other safety feature, say aeb in all vehicles, and if that feature saved more lives than airbags do, then it would be better to not have airbags.
    - raverbashing 9y ago
      While 8k is a substantial value, other technologies might be more effective, less costly and possible safer. Remember the takata airbag defect killed 15 people in the US. https://www.consumerreports.org/car-recalls-defects/takata-airbag-recall-everything-you-need-to-know/ https://www.consumerreports.org/car-recalls-defects/takata-a...

squam 9y ago

Perhaps Tesla should consider licensing this tech from Volvo. /snark

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
taneq 9y ago
Serious question: Would the Volvo system have picked up and appropriately responded to the gore point involved in the recent fatal Tesla crash? Any time anyone raised the question of Tesla's AEB's reliability, the responses were along the lines of "no AEB is perfect", "AEB only works on cars", etc.
- unityByFreedom 9y ago
  > Would the Volvo system have picked up and appropriately responded to the gore point involved in the recent fatal Tesla crash? I'd rather ask, would the Volvo system steer towards the barrier like Tesla's AP may have done [1] [2]? "IIHS research shows that AEB systems meeting the commitment would reduce rear-end crashes by 40 percent." [3] AEB on its own may save lives. Whether autosteer systems do or not is an open question. [1] https://youtu.be/VVJSjeHDvfY?t=37s https://youtu.be/VVJSjeHDvfY?t=37s [2] https://youtu.be/6QCF8tVqM3I?t=28s https://youtu.be/6QCF8tVqM3I?t=28s [3] http://www.iihs.org/iihs/news/desktopnews/u-s-dot-and-iihs-announce-historic-commitment-of-20-automakers-to-make-automatic-emergency-braking-standard-on-new-vehicles http://www.iihs.org/iihs/news/desktopnews/u-s-dot-and-iihs-a...
  - taneq 9y ago
    Both are good questions. 1) Do other autosteering systems (such as Volvo's) share this failure mode? (I don't know much about Pilot Assist but it seems to require a lead car to follow, is that right? Apparently Pilot Assist 2 doesn't, though? Currently reading http://forums.swedespeed.com/showthread.php?348321-Auto-Pilot-Assist-2-thread-(experience-problems) http://forums.swedespeed.com/showthread.php?348321-Auto-Pilo... and it doesn't sound great.) 2) Should AEB stop the car if there's something solid in front of it, regardless of what the autosteer system is doing? (I would have thought so, and it's disappointing that in this case it didn't!)

frogcoder 9y ago

I was wondering about the AEB when the Uber accident happened. It should’ve been equipped with AEB but it still hit a pedestrian. Did they just pull out the whole software and replace it with their own navigation logic?

MertsA 9y ago
Yes, that was something that was mentioned before by Volvo. Uber disabled the AEB that came with the vehicle and according to Volvo it likely would have detected the pedestrian.
facorreia 9y ago
The company that makes the standard safety equipment said it had been disabled[1]. [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-26/uber-disabled-volvo-suv-s-standard-safety-system-before-fatality https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-26/uber-disa...
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
icc97 9y ago
The skeptic in me thinks that this story is Volvo trying to counter the bad news of their car killing a pedestrian with good news of how many drivers haven't died. Although it's not their fault for the crash, celebrating the safety of an SUV, when it's size and extra weight means that crashes with pedestrians will more likely end in death, seems odd.

boxcardavin 9y ago

I drove into a dust storm in Central Washington in a rental Volvo several years back and autobraking saved me from rear ending a car. I made it out, but a huge pileup ended up happening just behind me. https://www.kiro7.com/news/massive-crash-closes-eastbound-i-90-near-vantage-i/81725917 https://www.kiro7.com/news/massive-crash-closes-eastbound-i-...

jakobegger 9y ago
I've read about a couple of accidents like this, and I always wonder why people don't slow down or stop before they drive into dense dust or fog?
- namanyayg 9y ago
  Maybe because of the worry of getting rear ended themselves? And I'm sure a lot of people do; but then those drivers don't make the news.
  - KozmoNau7 9y ago
    Slow down, put on the rear fog light. That's how you're supposed to handle it, but either people have never been taught to do it, or they've forgotten.
    - wmeredith 9y ago
      Rear fog light?
      - gargravarr 9y ago
        All cars sold in Europe must have at least a rear foglight to be road-legal. Imported models must have one retrofitted. Sometimes, rules and regulations actually do improve things :)
    - magduf 9y ago
      You can't do that. We do not have rear fogs lights in America.

urban_winter 9y ago

The BBC story, also reported in multiple other places, is a nice bit of Volvo marketing g, but is nonsense. Volvo introduced Aeb in 2007 on the XC60. The XC90 only got it when they introduced the new generation a few years ago. Therefore claiming that the exceptional safety record of the XC90 is in any way related to AEB is just rubbish. The reason why XC90s are associated with so few passenger injuries (note, no claims are made for injuries to other road users by XC90s) is that they are large, heavy and chosen by safsr-than-average demographics.

ggg9990 9y ago

Another reason the XC90 has a great safety record is that it’s a 4500 pound car with a 4 cylinder engine. This isn’t safety enhancing in itself but does ensure that it is only bought by people with the most sedate driving habits.

lazyjones 9y ago
Those 4-cylinder engines deliver up to 303hp and the hybrids get another 87hp from the electric drive train. So they're not exactly weak cars...
- ggg9990 9y ago
  Drive one. The throttle is leaden.
  - alkonaut 9y ago
    That's programmed for fuel economy. It has to combine 3 impossible things: a pretty small engine, a heavy car, AND has to do X mpg in "normal" driving. The solution is to make the mapping from driver input to actual throttle/fuel be pretty lame. It's the same Usually there is at least a mode called e.g. "sport" or "power" that maps the pedal to the engine in a better way (except for economy). The XC90 T8 has a "power" mode where you get from 0-60 in 5s flat.
AmVess 9y ago
It's a 4400lb car that will do 0-60 in 6.4 seconds in top trim. It's 4 cylinder engine is both supercharged and turbocharged. The demographics determines the safety, not the number of cylinders it has.
- ggg9990 9y ago
  The Audi Q7 3.0T is $7k cheaper and does 0-60 in 5.7 seconds. The XC90 is a completely drivable and enjoyable car, but people who care about performance are likelier to choose a different SUV and likelier to get into an accident in that SUV.

vigdals 9y ago

Thats some really impressive stats. I think this is a combination of great safety equipment, the safeness of the car itself (crash tests and so on) and the people who buys it. Its not the most hardcore drivers who buys a Volvo, even tho the 2017 and newer models are really good looking. Volvo has always been a pioneer in security as well

KozmoNau7 9y ago
Define "hardcore driver". Is it someone who drives aggressively and takes dangerous risks?
- vigdals 9y ago
  Yep

roflchoppa 9y ago

oh man my Datsun is a coffin compared to these things ha. lap belts are designed to cut you in half <:0

dmitriid 9y ago

Volvo's stated goal is: "Vision 2020 is about reducing the number of people that die or are seriously injured in road traffic accidents to zero. "[1] As sceptical as I am about corporate statements, you can see that Volvo is steadily working on this. They don't do splashy announcements or announce revolutions in driving, and yet they bring more and more changes and improvements to their cars. From assisted braking to lane assist to blind spot information to city collision avoidance to many many other small and big improvements. [1] https://group.volvocars.com/company/vision https://group.volvocars.com/company/vision

jnsaff2 9y ago

My relative owns one. The Adaptive cruise control only picks up moving cars in front of you and tries to kill you when there’s a stopped car in front of you, say at a red traffic light. I’ve never been brave (or stupid) enough to see whether the AEB would counter that especially in marginal road conditions.

alkonaut 9y ago

Isn't autonomous braking standard in most new premium-ish cars? My not-so-premium VW has it. Any car that has a distance-sensing cruise control should have it.

oldgradstudent 9y ago

It's a weird piece. The describe the XC90 as the safest car they ever tested, and that it hadn't had a fatality since 2002. Then it attributes it to AEB. The problem is that the XC90 got its AEB in 2015. This cannot be the reason for the impressive safety levels since 2002.

Sammi 9y ago
Yeah. The Volvo XC90 is a big car and most of the excellent safety record for it can be attributed to the inherent higher safety of larger cars: https://www.edmunds.com/car-safety/are-smaller-cars-as-safe-as-large-cars.html https://www.edmunds.com/car-safety/are-smaller-cars-as-safe-... https://www.technologyreview.com/s/413018/laws-of-physics-persist-in-crashes-big-cars-win/ https://www.technologyreview.com/s/413018/laws-of-physics-pe... It's just physics. When large a object meets a small object then the large object wins because it has more energy and ends up pushing the small object backwards.
- userbinator 9y ago
  Also the fact that it's a Volvo, which among other things will introduce a lot of selection bias. For several years, there were no deaths in a Volvo 240 either: http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19941022&slug=1937339 http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=199...
  - oldgradstudent 9y ago
    Fatalities are quite rare. 2011-era midsize luxury SUVs have 13-15[1] driver deaths per million registered vehicle years in the US (UK has half the death rate per km, vehicle or inhabitants). It is not that improbable that midsize luxury SUV that sold just 50,000 cars in the UK since 2002 had no driver deaths. AEB was first installed in the 2015 model year. If we assume[2] that the same number of cars were sold each year, the XC90 had 20,000 registered vehicle years with AEB. We should expect 0.03 deaths. It would be more surprising if there was a driver death in a Volvo XC90 equipped with AEB in the UK. [1] http://www.iihs.org/iihs/sr/statusreport/article/50/1/1 http://www.iihs.org/iihs/sr/statusreport/article/50/1/1 (first table) [2] It's probably false, adjust with your favorite fudge factor.

alphadevx 9y ago

There has been a similar system on Mercedes cars (Collision Prevent Assist) for years: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5ia5e07BqU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5ia5e07BqU

oldgradstudent 9y ago
Aren't all of them just using Mobileye?
pmontra 9y ago
Don't use that if you're leading a bicycle race. It happened in the Dubai Tour earlier this year: the organizers car (a Mercedes) autobraked and the bunch crashed into it. They disabled the sensor after that. Obviously it's not a normal use case. http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/abu-dhabi-tour-organisers-blame-automatic-brake-sensor-for-cavendish-crash/ http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/abu-dhabi-tour-organisers-bl...

tristanj 9y ago

Volvo's automatic collision braking sure has improved since 2010 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNi17YLnZpg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNi17YLnZpg

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

harel 9y ago

This feature is also available in "cheaper" cars. My Kia Niro has is, and although I didn't get a chance to make "full" use of this (thankfully), I did incur the "too close" beep which prompted me to break one time I was not paying the road the attention it deserved. As a side note, with auto distance keeping cruise control, lane assist that actually moves the wheel to keep me in lane, side radar that alerts if a car is coming as I try to switch lanes and the AEB, this is great entry into autonomous driving (as far as some core systems that are actually in commercial use already).

Tade0 9y ago

I had this engage in my car once. It was the first time I was driving with glasses on - I must have misjudged the distance between me and the next car. Scared me, but not as much as the guy following me a little too closely in his E46. It does beep randomly sometimes - usually in heavy rain. But that one time it turned on pretty late, so it's a good last resort.

Bromskloss 9y ago

Still, I can't help but feeling sad, as a human, to be taken out of the equation and not be needed anymore.

contravariant 9y ago
As a programmer becoming obsolete is the greatest possible achievement.

jbms 9y ago

I'd like to see more variable brake lights to go with this: i.e. a strip of light across the rear of the vehicle, that progressively lights up according to how hard the vehicle is braking (or anticipates braking, if it's autonomous). Some cars have a flash-brake-lights-under-heavy-braking, but I think it would help traffic flow if you can more easily distinguish a touch of the brakes from a press of the brakes.

veritas3241 9y ago
I've thought this would make sense too and I feel like I'm missing something as to why it hasn't been implemented. Complexity perhaps? Interesting to note, though, that we do have weak forms of braking that don't light up the tail lights - heavy engine braking in the case of manual transmissions, lighter engine-braking for automatics, and in the case of electric vehicles (at least a Tesla in my experience) the lights don't kick on from regen unless it's passed a certain deceleration level.
- arbitrage 9y ago
  There's no tangible benefit big enough for the added complexity and maintenance cost. What exactly do you get from incremental brake lights?
  - jbms 9y ago
    You get clearer communication from the car in front of its actions and intentions, in an intuitive way. This assists traffic flow and might enhance safety.
enraged_camel 9y ago
I dunno. I personally like the non-variable brake lights because I can gently tap on my brakes to make tailgaters give me space.
mstade 9y ago
I think some sort of variable lighting would be nifty, but in my book it's the wrong solution to what is really a problem of keeping distance. For highway driving the answer for me there has been adaptive cruise control – it's amazing! What I'm missing though is for a way to have the car keep distance, but still leave control over the gas to me. This would be very useful in high traffic situations where setting a cruise control speed isn't really usable, since you'll likely be disengaging it now and then due to braking because someone is cutting in. I put a lot more faith in sensors to judge the distance to the car in front of me, than my visual perception of brake lights. At a certain medium distance, I'm sure I wouldn't be able to judge the difference between 25% brake and 75% anyway, but my car's sensors would be able to detect that I'm on a collision course, and could adjust gas/braking accordingly.

gmiller123456 9y ago

Anybody know how well these handle water? I imagine a situation after/during heavy rain with giant puddles of water. A car in the lane next to me hits a puddle at high speed throwing a lot of water in the air in front of my car. Does the car slam on its breaks?

dingo_bat 9y ago
If the splash is large enough to cause visibility issues, I'd say it must slam the brakes.