4 ms·
The 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 neve
by rascul 2y ago
The 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 2y 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 2y 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 2y agoThat’s fine as long as it’s opt in at the individual level.
- tristor 2y 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.
- alphabettsy 2y agoThis hasn’t been my experience. And like anything else, turn it off if you don’t like it and don’t buy the vehicle with poorly implemented technology.
- DontchaKnowit 2y agoYou are saying "if yoy dont like it dont participate" in response to a conversation about a feature that will be mandated. Use your noggin
- rascul 2y agoIn the truck we had with it, it couldn't be disabled. We tried pulling the fuse but then the truck wouldn't start.
- alphabettsy 2y agoWhat truck?
- rascul 2y agoIt was a 26 foot International box truck.
- alphabettsy 2y agoThat’s a commercial vehicle.
- ckdarby 2y agoI am very skeptical of the claim. A driver glance down to change the station, going 110 kms, with less than 15 meters and the car in front of you full stop breaks, you are going to crash, but yet folks still continue to do it and still they believe they'd be able to stop in time even with all the experience of driving. I don't believe most drivers today would be able to pass the present driver test successfully the first time due to formed bad habits.
- DontchaKnowit 2y agoYou are also atill going to crash if you break automatically in that scenario... i dont get your point
- ckdarby 2y agoNo, the system could always maintain the correct distance to be able to break given your speed and the speed of the car in front of you or maintain that the crash will never exceed X speed based upon stats of the vehicle of survival rates. As another commenter said, even reducing 10km more than a human will reduce the consequences.
- Retric 2y agoNot all collisions are equivalent. Suppose you and the car in front of you collided a fraction of a second later when both are doing 10MPH less, that alone removes a great deal of energy and thus risk. You may avoid whatever the first person was trying to avoid hitting or spinning into the next lain etc.
- DontchaKnowit 2y agoOkay fine, but youve now introduced a whole class of accidents (false positive caused wrecks) that didnt exist before.
- Retric 2y agoYou also eliminate an accidents where the system prevents a collision. Insurance companies pay attention to the total risk and it’s a clear benefit.
- matthewfelgate 2y agoThis technology is already in 99% of all new cars sold. Are you one of those nutters who claim its safer not to wear a seatbelt?
- DontchaKnowit 2y agoAre you a nutter who has never hydroplaned before? Breaking during a turn is fucking dangerous especially if you dont know its gonna happen. I really dont understand how anyone cluld think its a good idea
- flerchin 2y agoNo it's not. Not as described in the article.
- shrimp_emoji 2y ago> It seems older cars will keep their value for quite some time. I am actively beginning to hate all new development in cars s/cars/things/g
- thrixton 2y agoMy wife’s car has this and it’s not perfect but good enough. It has known (not published maybe) failure modes such as driving into a roundabout where the car is initially pointing towards the keep left sign (Australia) but then the road turns left. This is easy to remember and compensate for and while unnerving, not generally a problem. I’m totally in favour of it, especially since rear end crashes are the most prevalent, accounting for 31% of crashes [0], this would avoid a large percentage of them I’d guess. [0] https://www.dinggo.com.au/blog/car-crash-statistics-australia https://www.dinggo.com.au/blog/car-crash-statistics-australi...
- a_bonobo 2y agoI have it in my Subaru Forrester and it's... OK? It has saved me from near collision twice, but also triggered false positives a few times. The false positives never led to actual breaking, just to the loud peeping before the breaking starts: usually triggered by a going too fast into sharp curve with a warning sign next to the curve.
- rascul 2y ago> The false positives never led to actual breaking, just to the loud peeping before the breaking starts Interesting. The one we had would not give any warning until it slammed on the brakes. I suspect it sometimes triggered on trees and signs but I don't really know what it detected in most cases.