12 ms·
U.S. to require automatic emergency braking on new vehicles in 5 years
- marssaxman 3y agoHaving driven a vehicle with automatic braking, I find myself experiencing no positive feelings about this proposal.
- infinghxsg 3y ago[dead]
- WarOnPrivacy 3y ago> Having driven a vehicle with automatic braking, I find myself experiencing no positive feelings about this proposal. This post seems useful. As in - there are really important experiences behind it that we should know about. Or better yet, experiences that lawmakers should know about. Or worse yet, experiences do know about and disregard because it's an election year.
- tommiegannert 3y agoDon't know about GP, but the Mercedes A Class I drove a week ago had the fun idea that on narrow roads with oncoming traffic, it decided to break really hard and sway slightly onto the shoulder. Luckily it realized there was no shoulder, but a steel railing, before it hit it. One time, I was taken over by a car, and the car suddenly hits the breaks. Same thing there: it breaks harder on the right side, so it feels like it's pulling onto the shoulder. It made me feel really uncomfortable with the car. Sure, it was a narrow road and passing, but as a human I never had a problem with the distances.
- tommiegannert 3y ago(Ugh, FTR, I just realized it was a GLA, not A Class.)
- marssaxman 3y ago> there are really important experiences behind it that we should know about It was exactly what anyone with experience developing new automation might predict. The system seemed to do basically what it was designed to, and if we were ever about to rear-end someone it would likely have helped us do so less violently, but its false-positives were frequent enough and caused enough problems that I'm not convinced the driving experience was safer overall. It was certainly not less stressful! One must continue watching the road, watching the other drivers, and trying to predict their behavior, as before - but one must also try to predict what the half-blind paranoid moron attached to one's brake pedal might do, so you can quickly react to its erratic spasms of deceleration and avoid causing a different sort of crash, after you find your car abruptly going somewhat the wrong direction or getting in someone else's way. If I owned the car, perhaps, and had months to get acquainted with the robot's quirks, I might learn to anticipate its misunderstandings and compensate for them. In the rental I was driving, however, automatic braking was pure distraction. Would the roads be safer if everyone used this technology? Well... there might be fewer rear-end collisions; but there would be more ambient chaos, vehicles abruptly braking for no apparent reason, leaving other drivers to react and compensate. The same quantity of danger, perhaps, only smeared out more broadly and thinly? Maybe that's a kind of an improvement, I suppose, but it does not seem like a better future so much as a messier one.
- uejfiweun 3y agoI sure hope this works better than the "automatic collision warning" system that ships in most modern cars. Fortunately my actual car doesn't have this. But every time I drive a rental car the damn thing is constantly beeping at me in completely safe scenarios. Last thing I need is for the government to mandate that those beeps instead become emergency full stops.
- melling 3y agoProbably a user setting? Our car gives us a visual warning. I think it’s a nice to have.
- beardyw 3y agoWell, you should hope the vehicle behind has it too.
- okdood64 3y agoIs that not what would happen over time?
- beardyw 3y agoThat would be a comfort to the bereaved.
- tekla 3y agoIncentive to stop tailgating
- acdha 3y agoIf you’re inattentive while going so fast and so close that it’s a fatality rather than a fender bender, you’re already making a big gamble with your safety. Remember that the background here is 40k dead and hundreds of thousands injured, and costs estimated at close to a trillion dollars annually (what we pay for car insurance is so low that driving is effectively subsidized by the medical system and people’s well-being and productivity[1]). The question has to be whether there are significantly fewer crashes with these systems than without. 1. https://www.economist.com/united-states/2024/01/18/why-car-insurance-in-america-is-actually-too-cheap https://www.economist.com/united-states/2024/01/18/why-car-i...
- eimrine 3y agoDo U.S. people really benefit from this kind of restriction from the Government? Seems like they are pawing their way into our property to empower themselves with all kinds of precedents.
- consumer451 3y agoLike seat belts?
- eimrine 3y agoSeat belts is user's responsibility, so not like that. Like requirement to have a display, requirement to be able of stopping if the Government wants, anything like the covid restrictions. The government in 60s was not able to insist on any restrictions for drivers which are working willy-nilly.
- lm28469 3y agoI don't get the downvotes, it's a valid question imho. For example in France in 2012 they made it mandatory for every car to have 2 alcohol tests (the dumb ones, you blow in it changes color if you're above a certain threshold). A good idea right ? it's pretty cheap too no ? It turned out that the lobbyists who pushed for it were also invested in the company manufacturing 90% the alcohol tests for the french market. https://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-france/2012/06/27/01016-20120627ARTFIG00496-soupcons-de-conflits-d-interets-sur-le-marche-des-ethylotests.php https://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-france/2012/06/27/01016-20...
- acdha 3y agoIt’s the weird conspiratorial tone (see their other comments). There’s a century of precedent for safety equipment and from a privacy perspective this is a non-issue – I’d be far more concerned with data from things like OnStar which actually connect to a network or LPRs. There could be a good conversation about privacy and costs but I doubt it can start from that point. I would also note that you can find the same general comments, almost word for word except the stuff about COVID restrictions, said about antilock brakes, seatbelts, daytime running lights, airbags, etc. Some people have an instinctive reaction to oppose any new requirement.
- pjc50 3y agoAll this technology has the effect of pushing up the cost of vehicles, often for questionable minor safety improvements. Is there a good analysis of why the road safety trend has gone the wrong way in the US lately?
- willcipriano 3y agoThis is protectionism for the voting block in Detroit. You'll see this sort of thing every 4 years. I'm guessing patents and the like have already decided who the winner of this rule is and it probably isn't automobile buyers in the US.
- acdha 3y agoIt’s matching European standards after years of American roads becoming deadlier while the rest of the world is getting safer. I wouldn’t read anything more into it than “we’d like fewer dead people on our roads”.
- drawkward 3y agoEven if true, who cares, if it means fewer preventable fatalities?
- willcipriano 3y ago"If we can save one life, it's worth it" is part of the reason everything is so expensive in the US. People forget that poverty is also deadly and don't factor that into the calculation.
- t0mas88 3y agoThis is already mandatory for cars sold in Europe for some years, it's really no big deal. Before that it wasn't mandatory, but I think it was required the be able to get a 5 star safety rating (which all brands want) so it was very common even before it was mandatory.
- TacticalCoder 3y ago[flagged]
- izacus 3y agoCould you please not post rants that are unrelated and unsupported to the topic at hand?
- Rinzler89 3y agoHe's out of line but he's right though. EU economic growth keeps falling further and further behind the US since the post 2008 crash. Sure, we have higher quality of life, but all those social services that make that still require a growing performant economy to keep up with their rising costs, otherwise they'll have to be cut (and a lot are) or we'll have to go into a spiraling taxation and debt trap.
- izacus 3y agoI'm sure the parents and family of dead people on US roads are happy because the economy has been doing well. Especially with all the hard proof available it's the lack of automated braking that's been driving their economic happiness.
- Rinzler89 3y agoPeople die on the roads everywhere regardless of their nation's economy. Maybe the US should restrict those Monster Pickup Trucks with shit pedestrian safety off the road, and make the tests for driver's licenses more stricter instead of handing them out like candy.
- rascul 3y agoThe only experience I have with automatic emergency braking was with a large box truck several years ago. It was quite horrible, false positives often, and never was necessary. Once it braked for no apparent reason while going downhill around a turn and almost caused us to wreck since the truck didn't turn as well under heavy braking. I hope better implementations exist.
- jajko 3y agoYeah this technology ain't mature in any way, 99% or 99,9% is simply not good enough to deploy anywhere en masse. Lane assists, braking, collision recognition - I've seen false positives, I've seen no reaction where there should be one. By far the safest driving for me is simply having experience and no assistants enabled, ever. I know this begs question how to get to that level, these flawed helpers can maybe statistically help, but they shouldn't be forced upon everybody. It seems older cars will keep their value for quite some time. I am actively beginning to hate all new development in cars, when all everybody wants is simply full autopilot. If we are not there (and we are not), then just wait and help companies get there.
- drawkward 3y agoYet, those 1% or 0.1% false positives, even if they kill the car's occupants, may still reduce the aggregate number of deaths. I expect government to make choices that are best for society at large, rather than for any individual.
- kyleee 3y agoThat’s fine as long as it’s opt in at the individual level.
- tristor 3y ago> I expect government to make choices that are best for society at large, rather than for any individual. I expect the government to ensure the market contains accurate information and leave me alone to make choices for myself, not kill me to save 20 other people without my input or consent.
- millzlane 3y agoI wonder when or if they will ever require drunk driving detectors or breathalyzers?
- chomp 3y agoThey already did, they’re just deciding on what exactly to use. https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/us-agency-opens-push-mandate-anti-drunk-driving-technology-2023-12-12/ https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/us-age...
- eesmith 3y agoNote the "if the technology is ready." As I recall from the discussion here 5 months ago, the actual text includes says the decision might be delayed for up to 10 years, and if that happens then they need to make a special report to Congress about why it's taking so long.
- notaustinpowers 3y agoStarting in 2026 all new cars must come with passive alcohol detection systems.
- eesmith 3y agoIf you are referring to the "ADVANCED IMPAIRED DRIVING TECHNOLOGY" section of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act at https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3684/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3684... then I think you've misread the bill. First, it does not require passive alcohol detection. The text allows a system which can "passively monitor the performance of a driver of a motor vehicle to accurately identify whether that driver may be impaired". I think this is meant to allow systems like the one in Volvo’s EX90 electric SUV described at https://www.theverge.com/2022/9/21/23363673/volvo-ex90-electric-suv-lidar-sensors-drunk-driving https://www.theverge.com/2022/9/21/23363673/volvo-ex90-elect... ("two cameras inside the vehicle will monitor the driver’s eye behavior to determine whether they are paying attention or even perhaps impaired"). Second, 2026 is the absolute minimum. It requires first a final rule: "Subject to subsection (e) and not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall issue a final rule prescribing a Federal motor vehicle safety standard under section 30111 of title 49, United States Code, that requires passenger motor vehicles manufactured after the effective date of that standard to be equipped with advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology." and then (assuming it is not delayed - the bill says it can be delayed for up to 10 years before sending a report to Congress): "shall be not earlier than 2 years and not more than 3 years after the date on which that rule is issued" Has that final rule been prescribed? Last I heard they were still testing the various options.
- technotarek 3y agoBreaking news
- dayofthedaleks 3y agoPerhaps knowing the car ahead of you may brake suddenly outside of human control will break the habit of tailgating!
- WarOnPrivacy 3y ago> Perhaps knowing the car ahead of you may brake suddenly outside of human control will break the habit of tailgating! But tailgating is how you know a cop is unhappy with you.
- matthewfelgate 3y agoWhy are people commenting on Hacker News so negative? This is a progressive, good idea. It will save 24,000 injuries a year. I think if Hacker News was around when seat-belts were invented there would be some looney tunes claiming it's an abuse of first amendment rights or some rubbish. The next thing should be mandatory lane keeping.
- WarOnPrivacy 3y ago> This is a progressive, good idea. It will save 24,000 injuries a year. This is what it is promised it will do. What it will do is what it can, with the resources that are left over for development and safety - once shareholders and execs are satisfied (per scotus: Dodge vs Ford).
- matthewfelgate 3y agoSorry but your comment makes no sense.
- err4nt 3y agoI think the person is saying there may be a vast difference between what's marketed and promised, and how projects like these have historically under-delivered or failed.
- WarOnPrivacy 3y agoYeah. Sorry for the wording. Not a lot of people are eager to converse with my 6am head.
- RhysU 3y agoI misjudged a tight pass on the highway this past weekend. It was stupid on my part but I will faux righteously blame the clown camping in the passing lane. My car's warning system lost its mind as I approached the car in the right lane. I accelerated through the situation and into the left lane because I knew speeding up was contextually appropriate. Had the car possessed an automatic braking system, the car disastrously would have jammed on the brakes with me mid-lane-change. That would not have been pretty in heavy highway traffic.
- WarOnPrivacy 3y agoConsumers: We want our cars to stop spying on us, stop conspiring w/ our insurance companies, stop distracting us with awful touch screens+controls, stop blinding other drivers, stop taking away features we bought and stop introducing endless new points of failure. Lawmakers: ...and soon we're going to have your car start braking w/o your consent. You're welcome. Remember to vote!
- foxyv 3y agoThere is one safety feature that would universally make cars safer and not require radar or computers. Just simple speed governors based on geo-fencing and radio speed limit signs. It would be trivially easy to install on existing vehicles and much less expensive on new vehicles. In addition it would increase pedestrian safety by leaps and bounds. We do it for electric bicycles and scooters. Why not cars?
- delecti 3y agoRealistically, because politicians drive cars, and like to speed. If you read any articles on the subject, you can almost feel the author resisting the urge to say that outright.
- lesuorac 3y agoJudging by how my car shows a speed limit change from 55 to 25 as I go under bridges that could get real dangerous real fast if there's a poor implementation. Aren't all the scooters just a flat 20/25 mph cap with no dynamic changing? I think drones are the things you're looking for where they avoid flying near airfields.
- foxyv 3y agoMost rental scooters are geo-fenced so people don't zip around walking paths at 20+mph. Edit: Here is a quick link https://www.li.me/blog/lime-introduces-new-geofencing-technology-setting-industry-standards-for-scooters https://www.li.me/blog/lime-introduces-new-geofencing-techno...
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- dymk 3y ago> not require radar or computers > speed governors based on geo-fencing and radio speed limit signs sounds like that requires computers > We do it for electric bicycles and scooters I've never seen a scooter nor e-bike for sale that includes such a feature. Unless you're talking about rental scooters, which doesn't make sense to compare an owned car against.
- josefresco 3y agoToo bad the existing systems suck: https://www.thedrive.com/news/most-small-suvs-are-bad-at-automatic-emergency-braking-iihs-says https://www.thedrive.com/news/most-small-suvs-are-bad-at-aut... "The SUVs that participated in the test were the Subaru Forester, Honda CR-V, Toyota RAV4, Ford Escape, Mazda CX-5, Hyundai Tucson, Jeep Compass, Mitsubishi Outlander, Chevy Equinox, and the Volkswagen Taos. Of those ten SUVs only one (!) received the IIHS' "Good" rating—the Subaru Forester. After that, only two were rated as "Acceptable," the Honda CR-V and Toyota RAV4. The Ford, Hyundai, and Jeep were rated "Marginal," while the rest were sent home with "Poor" ratings and their heads hanging low."
- acdha 3y agoIt sounds like they made the test harder because the market has matured: > The old test was done at 12 and 25 mph. Now that automakers' tech has improved dramatically since the first test was designed, the IIHS bumped the speeds up to 31, 37, and 43 mph. > The vast majority of new vehicles now come with automatic emergency braking, and our research shows the technology prevents as many as half of all front-to-rear crashes. This new, tougher evaluation targets some of the most dangerous front-to-rear crashes that are still happening," said IIHS President David Harkey. Making this a required feature seems like a great way to get manufacturers not to skimp on development.
- tonymet 3y agoLooks like i'll be keeping my 17 y/o car another 17 years
- notfed 3y ago> "up to 62mph" Placing the dividing line at 62mph is interesting because many areas (in the US) fluctuate between 55mph and 65mph speed limits. What was once a seemingly arbitrary difference in speed will now carry more implications.
- hroa 3y agoWe have a 2017 Highlander, and the automatic emergency breaking has avoided accidents at least 3 times. One time, my wife was at an intersection turning right. She was looking left for an opening, and a teenager saw the same opening and tried to run across the street as she accelerated into the right turn. The automatic breaking saved him and my wife from a sad situation.
- throwworhtthrow 3y agoThat's horrific. You would hit another car or person every two years if not for automatic braking? Also, it's inexcusable to turn in front of a pedestrian without even looking where you're going. I know it's common driving behavior but it's simply selfish to endanger someone on foot because you want to squeeze into cross traffic ASAP.
- mharig 3y agoA good strategy: treating people more and more like idiots make them for sure less idiotic.
- tristor 3y agoThis system was the first thing I turned off in my new (2024) car because it was triggered by road debris and almost got me rear-ended on the Interstate by a semi doing 75mph. This technology is too error prone to be mandatory. All I want are less huge vehicles on the road and a return to normal cars and all the improvements in handling and dynamic performance we have gained over the decades. As long as I can see far ahead and my view isn’t blocked by some blocky shitbox SUV, and my vehicle handles well, I can avoid nearly any possible collision.
- bsza 3y agoThey should also come with shock collars that give the driver a little zap whenever this feature has to be activated. Just so they get some feedback for doing a no-no.