4 ms·

> acc and lane centering is kinda.... I'm already driving and have hands and feet on controls, I don't need that automated in the first place. Anecdotally: I a

> acc and lane centering is kinda.... I'm already driving and have hands and feet on controls, I don't need that automated in the first place. Anecdotally: I and a number of friends have held this same opinion for years, but recently it has changed. Not because of lane marker following, but because of this situation: “idiot in front of me slammed on their brakes at the last second while I was scanning left or right”; the system kicked in and legitimately prevented an accident. If there was some way to just enable that feature I’d be pretty happy.

lelanthran 4y ago
> “idiot in front of me slammed on their brakes at the last second while I was scanning left or right”; the system kicked in and legitimately prevented an accident. How many accidents have you had of that type in the past, say, 300000km of driving? Because you say it legitimately prevented an accident, but this is a routine thing that happens (drivers slam on brakes at the last second) and if you aren't routinely driving into the rear of cars who brake at the last minute, then ... no, the accident wouldn't have happened anyway.
- shortstuffsushi 4y ago
  I haven't looked into it, but I'm sure studies have and/or are being done on this. I wonder if the rate of incidence of rear-end type accidents has changed noticeably with these systems becoming standard. A quick Google suggestions around 30% of accidents are rear-end, accounting for something like 1.75 million accidents annually. What % reduction in these would make it make sense to "require" this? I'm not sure, I personally can't stand currently implementations, but it does seem like an easy thing to target for reduction. As an aside, trying to quickly search for these sorts of statistics leads to an awful lot of law firm websites.
  - lelanthran 4y ago
    > A quick Google suggestions around 30% of accidents are rear-end, accounting for something like 1.75 million accidents annually. But that number is not relevant. What is relevant is the ratio of humans avoiding these accidents to humans not avoiding these accidents. Like I said, having to avoid the car in front which braked hard is routine. It happens all the time. It's why the blame and culpability for a rear-end accident is always on the rear driver by default - safe driving distance and all that. Which is why I phrased my question to the GP the way I did - if he managed to go 300000km without rear-ending someone even though unpredictable braking happens so routinely ... > What % reduction in these would make it make sense to "require" this? I doubt there'll be a decrease, if any. A better system that beeps if a safe minimum following distance is not adhered to will almost certainly prevent more accidents than auto-braking, because the auto-braking system will sometimes get it wrong and cause the jackass tailing you to rear-end you. An alert won't cause any accidents.
    - shortstuffsushi 4y ago
      I'm not entirely sure I follow your argument. 1.75MM rear endings occur yearly. Decreasing that number does seem relevant. Could / do these auto-brakes decrease that number? You seem to think no, per your second quote comment - I'm not sure, I haven't done any further research to see if there's a trend. I wouldn't be surprised in either direction, honestly. The ratio of accidents to "near miss" is probably hundred(s?) to one, but could this make it more? I don't know. Fwiw - I'm anti-auto-brake as a rule, but I'm just curious if the data would be in their favor or not. I don't have an auto-brake feature, only ridden with people who do. I believe that most of them do have some sort of warn prior to brake - but to your point, there are so many situations where this could falsely trigger that it would likely end up being tuned out, at least as I imagine it. Actually, my truck has one of the "warning" things, and I ultimately turned it off for this reason. The number of "immediate danger" warnings that would flash when I was driving, e.g. alone on a country road at night, made it not worthwhile to me. I can imagine an auto-brake would be even worse that way though, lol.
- infotogivenm 4y ago
  Anecdotally one (only been in one accident ever), but regrettably in that case I was the idiot braking at the last moment, and the driver behind me was distracted and rear ended me. Gave me a concussion that would have been nice to avoid.
VBprogrammer 4y ago
People blaming the "idiot" in front of them for braking is the reason we need these features. The sooner they are mandatory the better IMHO.

lelanthran 4y ago

> “idiot in front of me slammed on their brakes at the last second while I was scanning left or right”; the system kicked in and legitimately prevented an accident. How many accidents have you had of that type in the past, say, 300000km of driving? Because you say it legitimately prevented an accident, but this is a routine thing that happens (drivers slam on brakes at the last second) and if you aren't routinely driving into the rear of cars who brake at the last minute, then ... no, the accident wouldn't have happened anyway.

shortstuffsushi 4y ago
I haven't looked into it, but I'm sure studies have and/or are being done on this. I wonder if the rate of incidence of rear-end type accidents has changed noticeably with these systems becoming standard. A quick Google suggestions around 30% of accidents are rear-end, accounting for something like 1.75 million accidents annually. What % reduction in these would make it make sense to "require" this? I'm not sure, I personally can't stand currently implementations, but it does seem like an easy thing to target for reduction. As an aside, trying to quickly search for these sorts of statistics leads to an awful lot of law firm websites.
- lelanthran 4y ago
  > A quick Google suggestions around 30% of accidents are rear-end, accounting for something like 1.75 million accidents annually. But that number is not relevant. What is relevant is the ratio of humans avoiding these accidents to humans not avoiding these accidents. Like I said, having to avoid the car in front which braked hard is routine. It happens all the time. It's why the blame and culpability for a rear-end accident is always on the rear driver by default - safe driving distance and all that. Which is why I phrased my question to the GP the way I did - if he managed to go 300000km without rear-ending someone even though unpredictable braking happens so routinely ... > What % reduction in these would make it make sense to "require" this? I doubt there'll be a decrease, if any. A better system that beeps if a safe minimum following distance is not adhered to will almost certainly prevent more accidents than auto-braking, because the auto-braking system will sometimes get it wrong and cause the jackass tailing you to rear-end you. An alert won't cause any accidents.
  - shortstuffsushi 4y ago
    I'm not entirely sure I follow your argument. 1.75MM rear endings occur yearly. Decreasing that number does seem relevant. Could / do these auto-brakes decrease that number? You seem to think no, per your second quote comment - I'm not sure, I haven't done any further research to see if there's a trend. I wouldn't be surprised in either direction, honestly. The ratio of accidents to "near miss" is probably hundred(s?) to one, but could this make it more? I don't know. Fwiw - I'm anti-auto-brake as a rule, but I'm just curious if the data would be in their favor or not. I don't have an auto-brake feature, only ridden with people who do. I believe that most of them do have some sort of warn prior to brake - but to your point, there are so many situations where this could falsely trigger that it would likely end up being tuned out, at least as I imagine it. Actually, my truck has one of the "warning" things, and I ultimately turned it off for this reason. The number of "immediate danger" warnings that would flash when I was driving, e.g. alone on a country road at night, made it not worthwhile to me. I can imagine an auto-brake would be even worse that way though, lol.
infotogivenm 4y ago
Anecdotally one (only been in one accident ever), but regrettably in that case I was the idiot braking at the last moment, and the driver behind me was distracted and rear ended me. Gave me a concussion that would have been nice to avoid.

VBprogrammer 4y ago

People blaming the "idiot" in front of them for braking is the reason we need these features. The sooner they are mandatory the better IMHO.