4 ms·

How is this different from a human slamming on the breaks to avoid the accident? Or a human crashing into the truck. These situations can also lead to a rear en

How is this different from a human slamming on the breaks to avoid the accident? Or a human crashing into the truck. These situations can also lead to a rear end collision the same was as AEB would.

u801e 7y ago
A lot of drivers also look ahead of the vehicle directly ahead of them, so they have some sense of when the vehicle in front of them is likely to slow down so that they can be better prepared to slow down themselves. If the AEB has a false positive and suddenly slows the vehicle, it would likely catch drivers following that vehicle off guard.
- brewdad 7y ago
  True but spotting a pedestrian through the windows of the car in front of you is much more challenging than spotting a lineup of brake lights from cars ahead. Keeping a safe following distance is by far the more influential factor in a collision occuring or being avoided.
- Johnny555 7y ago
  If the AEB has a false positive and suddenly slows the vehicle, it would likely catch drivers following that vehicle off guard Then stop following so closely. Problem solved. Don't tell me not to have a safety feature in my car because another driver isn't driving safely.
  - tremon 7y ago
    Really? You've never had a car cut in front of you from the inside lane because they just had to pass three cars before making this exit? I see this happen way too often. Please stop assuming every rear-end collision is the fault of the rear driver.
    - ghaff 7y ago
      From an insurance "at fault" perspective it's basically always going to be the fault of the following driver. However, I can pretty much guarantee that, if you go out on the road and randomly slam on your brakes, you'll get someone to hit your vehicle in pretty much no time flat.
      - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
        >From an insurance "at fault" perspective it's basically always going to be the fault of the following driver. It is a quick simple rule that avoids dealing with he said she said situations in the days before dashcams and the inaccuracy of this approach would roughly balance out across the insurers. Sure it screws the people who aren't actually at fault but they can't (or couldn't, before dashcams) prove that anyway. This kind of thing will probably go away in the future because everybody will just have dashcams.
    - Johnny555 7y ago
      That's not the situation the parent post was talking about "If the AEB has a false positive and suddenly slows the vehicle" The case you're describing is exactly what AEB is designed to protect you from and if the car behind you couldn't react as fast as your AEB and he rear-ends you, then he was following you too closely.

How is this different from a human slamming on the breaks to avoid the accident? Or a human crashing into the truck. These situations can also lead to a rear end collision the same was as AEB would.

u801e 7y ago

A lot of drivers also look ahead of the vehicle directly ahead of them, so they have some sense of when the vehicle in front of them is likely to slow down so that they can be better prepared to slow down themselves. If the AEB has a false positive and suddenly slows the vehicle, it would likely catch drivers following that vehicle off guard.

brewdad 7y ago
True but spotting a pedestrian through the windows of the car in front of you is much more challenging than spotting a lineup of brake lights from cars ahead. Keeping a safe following distance is by far the more influential factor in a collision occuring or being avoided.
Johnny555 7y ago
If the AEB has a false positive and suddenly slows the vehicle, it would likely catch drivers following that vehicle off guard Then stop following so closely. Problem solved. Don't tell me not to have a safety feature in my car because another driver isn't driving safely.
- tremon 7y ago
  Really? You've never had a car cut in front of you from the inside lane because they just had to pass three cars before making this exit? I see this happen way too often. Please stop assuming every rear-end collision is the fault of the rear driver.
  - ghaff 7y ago
    From an insurance "at fault" perspective it's basically always going to be the fault of the following driver. However, I can pretty much guarantee that, if you go out on the road and randomly slam on your brakes, you'll get someone to hit your vehicle in pretty much no time flat.
    - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
      >From an insurance "at fault" perspective it's basically always going to be the fault of the following driver. It is a quick simple rule that avoids dealing with he said she said situations in the days before dashcams and the inaccuracy of this approach would roughly balance out across the insurers. Sure it screws the people who aren't actually at fault but they can't (or couldn't, before dashcams) prove that anyway. This kind of thing will probably go away in the future because everybody will just have dashcams.
  - Johnny555 7y ago
    That's not the situation the parent post was talking about "If the AEB has a false positive and suddenly slows the vehicle" The case you're describing is exactly what AEB is designed to protect you from and if the car behind you couldn't react as fast as your AEB and he rear-ends you, then he was following you too closely.