9 ms·

Looking at the comments here I need to double check if I'm on some gearhead forum where automatic transmission is considered appropriate exclusively for teenage

Looking at the comments here I need to double check if I'm on some gearhead forum where automatic transmission is considered appropriate exclusively for teenagers and geriatric patients. Anyway, I'll add my anecdote when my Toyota surprised me with a panic brake in a blind corner which probably saved my life by not ending up under a stopped bus. But the kicker is that my insurer gave me quite a steep discount when I originally bought the car, specifically due to the emergency brake feature. They may have more data comparing collisions for cars with/without this feature than anons on internet forums, who knows?

jacquesm 3y ago
Insurance companies are run by people that are good at statistics, and there is a fair chance that statistically this works out well but that does not mean anything for any particular individual. Chances are that EAB will cause some accidents and prevents a whole lot more, and that's enough for the insurers.
- peter422 3y ago
  Every possible change to a car’s safety system will cause some deaths and save others… look at airbags. The aggregate stats are the most important things to look at, especially for something like AEB which has the ability to save pedestrians, which as of late are getting mowed down more and more frequently.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    Agreed that overall it can be an improvement. But I've clocked up a good 40K km since I got rid of the car that was equipped with defunct EAB and I'm fairly sure (but of course can not prove it) that I would have been in an accident by now on account of it triggering falsely. Conversely, I've never had a problem with airbags deploying without cause and my seatbelt is on just to move the car 10 meters because it is deeply ingrained and I refuse to drive - or be in - a car without it. But faulty EAB caused more trouble for me than any other safety feature to date and I really wonder what caused Mercedes Benz to release this feature in such a horrific functional state. It is beyond belief how broken it is and I would love to see their internal stats for how often their EAB caused - not prevented - single vehicle accidents.
    - IanCal 3y ago
      At the very least it sounds like people will benefit from actual tests and requirements about how the braking system must act.
    - Olreich 3y ago
      Those would be good stats to mandate sharing with the proposed rules. Would likely cause them to rework the system if they started losing sales over it.
  - ghostpepper 3y ago
    There needs to be a tiered license then - if you pass the more rigorous exam you can drive cars without the extra "safety" features. Making AEB mandatory would increase the survival rate of poor drivers and punish people who actually pay attention on the road.
    - IanCal 3y ago
      > and punish people who actually pay attention on the road. It can benefit people who have reaction times slower than silicon.
      - ghostpepper 3y ago
        It can also cause accidents, and some people go their whole lives without getting in an accident.
        IanCal 3y ago
        Including those that drive cars with aeb.
- sidewndr46 3y ago
  Wasn't AIG an insurance company? They don't seem to be good at math, much less statistics.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    Exceptions, rules and all that.
- caconym_ 3y ago
  > EAB will cause some accidents and prevents a whole lot more, and that's enough for the insurers. It should be enough for everybody on the road. People always say "don't be a statistic" but we are all part of these statistics whether we like it or not. AEB can also protect occupants of other vehicles, so using it or not is not a choice whose consequences only affect the individual making it.
- rad_gruchalski 3y ago
  Which is funny considering the explanation that was presented to me about why is it legal in the US to ride a motorcycle without a crash helmet. The explanation is: in case of an accident, the motorcycle driver has a lower chance to survive without the helmet. From the insurer’s perspective paying out a one time death insurance might be cheaper than paying someone money every month for the rest of their life. No idea how much truth is in that, though.
  - drivebycomment 3y ago
    > why is it legal in the US to ride a motorcycle without a crash helmet. This depends on the state: https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/calculator/factsheet/mchelmet.html https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/calculator/factshee... > As of 2021, 18 states and the District of Columbia had universal motorcycle helmet laws, 29 states had laws requiring helmets for certain riders, and three states did not have any motorcycle helmet laws.
    - rad_gruchalski 3y ago
      Well, forgive me then. That’s the discussion I had back in 2016, when visiting the US the last time. Good to see there’s progress.
peter422 3y ago
Yes everybody here seems to be ignoring that car accidents are the leading cause of deaths for children and young adults… car safety is not a solved problem!
dabluecaboose 3y ago
It's not exclusively a "gearhead" opinion to not want a system in your car that can violently take control away from you unexpectedly Statistics are meaningless to the individual. Sure, emergency braking might be safer across the board, but that means little compared to an individual who already drives safely without it.
- maximinus_thrax 3y ago
  > but that means little compared to an individual who already drives safely without it. https://udayton.edu/blogs/erma/2022/06/lakewobegon.php https://udayton.edu/blogs/erma/2022/06/lakewobegon.php My 'boomer' relatives refuse to wear a seatbelt, regardless of how many fines they've incurred, exactly because they already drive safely.
  - dabluecaboose 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - enkid 3y ago
      You don't know how statistics work.
      - dabluecaboose 3y ago
        Yes, that was the point of the comment. That isn't how statistics work.
    - maximinus_thrax 3y ago
      Same reason a considerable percentage of smokers die of old age instead of heart attacks or cancers. Doesn't mean it's a good idea to start smoking.
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  > Statistics are meaningless to the individual. This is just blatantly untrue. > means little compared to an individual who already drives safely without it Until emergency breaking stops a bad driver from T-boning you in an intersection as they run a red light. “I’ll just drive safely” was the argument against seatbelts, airbags, and antilock brakes. Motorcycle helmets, too.
matheusmoreira 3y ago
Wanting to have control over the vehicle is not some "gearhead forum" thing at all. I barely care about cars and I still care about this. I'm the driver, I should be in control and there's literally no need to justify it any further. Anything that forcibly takes away control is automatically wrong from a basic human dignity perspective. I couldn't care less what governments or insurers think, I'm the goddamn human and I should have total control over this machine. I'm driving, not being driven.
- gjs278 3y ago
  [dead]
- AlotOfReading 3y ago
  I'm baffled by this comment. For one thing, this is literally not how vehicle regulation has worked in any western country for at least half a century, probably longer. There are already legally mandated systems that take away driver control in certain circumstances, notably ABS. For another, the NPRM being discussed assumes that essentially 100% of new vehicles will eventually come with AEB systems in the near future. The proposed rulemaking is just formalizing that situation and setting performance standards.
  - mouse_ 3y ago
    ABS does what I tell it I want to do, giving me greater control of the vehicle. When I press the brake all the way down, it means I want to stop as fast as possible, which I can't easily do without ABS. AEB does whatever it wants, without any input from me, leading to "surprises". ABS is user engaged, AEB takes control away from the user. Stop being disingenuous.
  - matheusmoreira 3y ago
    Huh? ABS doesn't take away my control, it improves my control by preventing conditions that would reduce traction. This system is always engaged by brake pedal input from my foot. It's not something that cars just do out of nowhere. The emergency braking system will automatically stop the car without your input whenever it wants. Judging from this thread, that could be due to anything. False positives have been reported. People should absolutely be able to turn this thing off if they don't trust it.
LazyMans 3y ago
Afaik, insurance rates are heavily influenced by collision data.

jacquesm 3y ago

Insurance companies are run by people that are good at statistics, and there is a fair chance that statistically this works out well but that does not mean anything for any particular individual. Chances are that EAB will cause some accidents and prevents a whole lot more, and that's enough for the insurers.

peter422 3y ago
Every possible change to a car’s safety system will cause some deaths and save others… look at airbags. The aggregate stats are the most important things to look at, especially for something like AEB which has the ability to save pedestrians, which as of late are getting mowed down more and more frequently.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  Agreed that overall it can be an improvement. But I've clocked up a good 40K km since I got rid of the car that was equipped with defunct EAB and I'm fairly sure (but of course can not prove it) that I would have been in an accident by now on account of it triggering falsely. Conversely, I've never had a problem with airbags deploying without cause and my seatbelt is on just to move the car 10 meters because it is deeply ingrained and I refuse to drive - or be in - a car without it. But faulty EAB caused more trouble for me than any other safety feature to date and I really wonder what caused Mercedes Benz to release this feature in such a horrific functional state. It is beyond belief how broken it is and I would love to see their internal stats for how often their EAB caused - not prevented - single vehicle accidents.
  - IanCal 3y ago
    At the very least it sounds like people will benefit from actual tests and requirements about how the braking system must act.
  - Olreich 3y ago
    Those would be good stats to mandate sharing with the proposed rules. Would likely cause them to rework the system if they started losing sales over it.
- ghostpepper 3y ago
  There needs to be a tiered license then - if you pass the more rigorous exam you can drive cars without the extra "safety" features. Making AEB mandatory would increase the survival rate of poor drivers and punish people who actually pay attention on the road.
  - IanCal 3y ago
    > and punish people who actually pay attention on the road. It can benefit people who have reaction times slower than silicon.
    - ghostpepper 3y ago
      It can also cause accidents, and some people go their whole lives without getting in an accident.
      - IanCal 3y ago
        Including those that drive cars with aeb.
sidewndr46 3y ago
Wasn't AIG an insurance company? They don't seem to be good at math, much less statistics.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  Exceptions, rules and all that.
caconym_ 3y ago
> EAB will cause some accidents and prevents a whole lot more, and that's enough for the insurers. It should be enough for everybody on the road. People always say "don't be a statistic" but we are all part of these statistics whether we like it or not. AEB can also protect occupants of other vehicles, so using it or not is not a choice whose consequences only affect the individual making it.
rad_gruchalski 3y ago
Which is funny considering the explanation that was presented to me about why is it legal in the US to ride a motorcycle without a crash helmet. The explanation is: in case of an accident, the motorcycle driver has a lower chance to survive without the helmet. From the insurer’s perspective paying out a one time death insurance might be cheaper than paying someone money every month for the rest of their life. No idea how much truth is in that, though.
- drivebycomment 3y ago
  > why is it legal in the US to ride a motorcycle without a crash helmet. This depends on the state: https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/calculator/factsheet/mchelmet.html https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/calculator/factshee... > As of 2021, 18 states and the District of Columbia had universal motorcycle helmet laws, 29 states had laws requiring helmets for certain riders, and three states did not have any motorcycle helmet laws.
  - rad_gruchalski 3y ago
    Well, forgive me then. That’s the discussion I had back in 2016, when visiting the US the last time. Good to see there’s progress.

peter422 3y ago

Yes everybody here seems to be ignoring that car accidents are the leading cause of deaths for children and young adults… car safety is not a solved problem!

dabluecaboose 3y ago

It's not exclusively a "gearhead" opinion to not want a system in your car that can violently take control away from you unexpectedly Statistics are meaningless to the individual. Sure, emergency braking might be safer across the board, but that means little compared to an individual who already drives safely without it.

maximinus_thrax 3y ago
> but that means little compared to an individual who already drives safely without it. https://udayton.edu/blogs/erma/2022/06/lakewobegon.php https://udayton.edu/blogs/erma/2022/06/lakewobegon.php My 'boomer' relatives refuse to wear a seatbelt, regardless of how many fines they've incurred, exactly because they already drive safely.
- dabluecaboose 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - enkid 3y ago
    You don't know how statistics work.
    - dabluecaboose 3y ago
      Yes, that was the point of the comment. That isn't how statistics work.
  - maximinus_thrax 3y ago
    Same reason a considerable percentage of smokers die of old age instead of heart attacks or cancers. Doesn't mean it's a good idea to start smoking.
ceejayoz 3y ago
> Statistics are meaningless to the individual. This is just blatantly untrue. > means little compared to an individual who already drives safely without it Until emergency breaking stops a bad driver from T-boning you in an intersection as they run a red light. “I’ll just drive safely” was the argument against seatbelts, airbags, and antilock brakes. Motorcycle helmets, too.

matheusmoreira 3y ago

Wanting to have control over the vehicle is not some "gearhead forum" thing at all. I barely care about cars and I still care about this. I'm the driver, I should be in control and there's literally no need to justify it any further. Anything that forcibly takes away control is automatically wrong from a basic human dignity perspective. I couldn't care less what governments or insurers think, I'm the goddamn human and I should have total control over this machine. I'm driving, not being driven.

gjs278 3y ago
[dead]
AlotOfReading 3y ago
I'm baffled by this comment. For one thing, this is literally not how vehicle regulation has worked in any western country for at least half a century, probably longer. There are already legally mandated systems that take away driver control in certain circumstances, notably ABS. For another, the NPRM being discussed assumes that essentially 100% of new vehicles will eventually come with AEB systems in the near future. The proposed rulemaking is just formalizing that situation and setting performance standards.
- mouse_ 3y ago
  ABS does what I tell it I want to do, giving me greater control of the vehicle. When I press the brake all the way down, it means I want to stop as fast as possible, which I can't easily do without ABS. AEB does whatever it wants, without any input from me, leading to "surprises". ABS is user engaged, AEB takes control away from the user. Stop being disingenuous.
- matheusmoreira 3y ago
  Huh? ABS doesn't take away my control, it improves my control by preventing conditions that would reduce traction. This system is always engaged by brake pedal input from my foot. It's not something that cars just do out of nowhere. The emergency braking system will automatically stop the car without your input whenever it wants. Judging from this thread, that could be due to anything. False positives have been reported. People should absolutely be able to turn this thing off if they don't trust it.

LazyMans 3y ago

Afaik, insurance rates are heavily influenced by collision data.