Automatic emergency braking should become mandatory, feds say
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
There is a lot of blame to pass around.
Road Designs -> You addressed this
Driver Licenses -> Other nations have much higher standards
Policing -> Back when I initially started to drive policing was pretty tight where if you didn't keep within 5-10mph over the limit you'd likely get a ticket. These days the average speeds without traffic seems to be higher than 10 over. Reckless speeding is what really drove up the fatality rates.
Individuals -> Maybe its just my own feeling, but it seems like other people on the roads simply don't care about the safety of others. Things like weaving in and out of a lane while texting, or being completely ignorant of the fact that the left lane on a freeway is the passing lane.
Taxation -> Oddly I don't pay any RTA tax on my Rivian R1T. Why is this? It's too heavy to qualify for the Regional transit tax. I didn't actually know about this before I bought the vehicle, but I find it rather ridiculous despite being joyful that I don't have to pay it. If I did it would be at least $1K a year which goes to much more sustainable forms of transportation than 1 person in a 7K+ pound vehicle.
Upvote
15
(20
/
-5)
might be just me but I feel this article would benefit from describing what automatic emergency braking is
Upvote
15
(17
/
-2)
The warnings are explicitly there to go off before the vehicle is to the point where AEB would trigger. Given the fact it can take a human most of a second to start reacting, they need to give you several seconds to take corrective action.
If your car has AEB, it likely wouldn't be going off in these scenarios, unless you're driving extremely aggressively and coming to hard stops just inches off of other people's bumpers.
Upvote
28
(29
/
-1)
Great. Now we grow less dependent on our own skills (and grow ever more complacent), and news cars go form $8 billion to $9 billion, precluding even more lower income people from the possibility of getting a step up by car ownership.
Upvote
-3
(15
/
-18)
I get the feeling the owner would be very upset if I told him how homoerotic that bumper sticker message is.
Upvote
24
(26
/
-2)
My point is if we are trying to save lives, the bigger, easier gains are elsewhere. Also, I question the 360 figure. In 2022, we had 43,000 driving deaths. 360 lives seems a little low or really ineffective.
Upvote
1
(12
/
-11)
They consider the cost of systems into the rule making process. There were backup cameras invented back in the 1950's. These didn't become mandatory until the last decade when it probably costs automakers far less than $100 to have the system in their cars.
Upvote
17
(17
/
0)
Just a note that automatic braking systems are either already required or becoming required for new vehicles introduced in the EU.
https://spectrum.ieee.org/europe-mandates-automatic-emergency-braking
https://spectrum.ieee.org/europe-mandates-automatic-emergency-braking
Upvote
18
(19
/
-1)
I hope my Volvo saves my life or somebody else's some day, but all it does right now is slam on the brakes while I am parallel parking because it doesn't understand that the cars driving by at 25mph aren't going to hit me, nor I them.
Upvote
33
(34
/
-1)
I actually think this is a pretty small lift. Most cars already have AEB standard, and nearly all at least have it as an option. A base model Corolla has it, so the cost of these systems has to be very low.
Upvote
17
(17
/
0)
These are two entirely different things with different design intents.
I believe the warning you're getting is forward collision warning (FCW) and if I was you I'd look at seeing what it's set to, and see if you can change it. These are purposely designed to be okay with false warnings in exchange for having fewer false negatives. If they're annoying then try setting it to late.
The fact that you have FCW probably means you have AEB (automatic emergency braking) as well, but the intent with that one is to have as close to zero false positives where the trade off is having more false negatives.
Upvote
17
(17
/
0)
Okay, so where's the bigger, easier gain? Unless you have a time machine it's not COVID.
Like other comments have pointed out this is a system that's already in a lot of vehicles, and required or soon to be required in other parts of the world. It's not a big ask from the auto manufacturers.
Upvote
7
(9
/
-2)
How about automatic headlights and automatic high beams that CAN be overridden, but if they are, they reset the next time the car is started?
So fucking sick of assholes with either high beams on in traffic or no lights on at all in the dark.
So fucking sick of assholes with either high beams on in traffic or no lights on at all in the dark.
Upvote
22
(23
/
-1)
Somewhat ninja'd but in Europe (EU/UK) we've had AEB for several years now and nobody considers it a problem. Yes I have had a few false forward collision warnings but if the driver is paying attention they can deal with these.
Just view a few recent NCAP tests on YouTube,
Upvote
4
(9
/
-5)
All I can say is the braking better work more reliably that what’s on my Honda CRV. I am tired of my car hitting the brakes whenever there’s a large shadow across a sunny road. Damn near caused an accident at 70 mph on a freeway last year.
Upvote
16
(18
/
-2)
Fine, so long as they also mandate:
1. No component of this system may cost more than $200 (indexed for inflation) to replace, including labor.
2. Controllers must share an electrical/logic interface, size, shape, and mounting specifications, so that they are compatible across all car manufacturers. Ditto for sensors.
3. If the system fails it must either disable itself or be easily disabled by a driver so that the vehicle remains operable (with a lit warning light).
Why?
Because it would cost ~$2000 to replace the antilock braking system on our Prius, which for "reasons" is incompatible with all the other Toyota models. AFAIK none of the models share that part with another model. This makes sourcing a used one from a wreck artificially expensive, since it must be from the same model, rather than just from "a car of the same size" or " a car of the same size from the same manufacturer". (The list price for a new OEM one is $2566, but some dealers sell it for less.) It cannot be disabled if it fails, in fact, it can fail in such a way that the brakes stop working. Similarly, if a TPMS sending unit goes out it would run at least $100 to replace it since the electronics are inside the tire. Had the TPMS been screwed onto the stem, and supported by the rim, it would have been nearly as easy to replace as a tire cap. Instead significant labor and specialized tools ( I don't have them but a tire shop does) are needed. So even though a replacement part can be had for not too much money, the labor makes the job expensive.
Safety and efficiency are laudable goals. Mandating either with no regard to the cost and inconvenience to the consumer is just bad governance.
It isn't just cars in this regard. When CFC propellants were phased out under a government order (for a good reason) the law did not take consumer needs into account, which created an opening for drug companies to grossly jack up the price of albuterol inhalers.
1. No component of this system may cost more than $200 (indexed for inflation) to replace, including labor.
2. Controllers must share an electrical/logic interface, size, shape, and mounting specifications, so that they are compatible across all car manufacturers. Ditto for sensors.
3. If the system fails it must either disable itself or be easily disabled by a driver so that the vehicle remains operable (with a lit warning light).
Why?
Because it would cost ~$2000 to replace the antilock braking system on our Prius, which for "reasons" is incompatible with all the other Toyota models. AFAIK none of the models share that part with another model. This makes sourcing a used one from a wreck artificially expensive, since it must be from the same model, rather than just from "a car of the same size" or " a car of the same size from the same manufacturer". (The list price for a new OEM one is $2566, but some dealers sell it for less.) It cannot be disabled if it fails, in fact, it can fail in such a way that the brakes stop working. Similarly, if a TPMS sending unit goes out it would run at least $100 to replace it since the electronics are inside the tire. Had the TPMS been screwed onto the stem, and supported by the rim, it would have been nearly as easy to replace as a tire cap. Instead significant labor and specialized tools ( I don't have them but a tire shop does) are needed. So even though a replacement part can be had for not too much money, the labor makes the job expensive.
Safety and efficiency are laudable goals. Mandating either with no regard to the cost and inconvenience to the consumer is just bad governance.
It isn't just cars in this regard. When CFC propellants were phased out under a government order (for a good reason) the law did not take consumer needs into account, which created an opening for drug companies to grossly jack up the price of albuterol inhalers.
Upvote
-2
(23
/
-25)
For anyone wondering (and who didn't click through to the prior articles listing the various complying companies), the list of automotive companies included in the automatic braking pledge include:
I'm not sure what the largest automobile company with a presence in the US is who isn't on this list... Suzuki maybe?
- Audi
- BMW
- Ford
- General Motors
- Honda
- Hyundai
- Jaguar Land Rover
- Kia
- Maserati
- Mazda
- Mercedes Benz
- Mitsubishi
- Nissan
- Porsche
- Stellantis
- Subaru
- Tesla
- Toyota
- Volkswagen
- Volvo
I'm not sure what the largest automobile company with a presence in the US is who isn't on this list... Suzuki maybe?
Upvote
13
(15
/
-2)
Upvote
16
(16
/
0)
Assuming arguendo the technology works and the cost on a new car is nominal relative to the cost of the new car, the cost to repair the system can easily be 10x the cost of providing it on a new car -- technician labor rate vs assembler labor rate to both take it apart and put it back together again -- and braking systems typically require new parts not junkyard/salvage parts. What happens down the road when the car is older and this system needs to be fixed and the car is owned by someone who doesn't have good cash flow? Are they going to bypass the technology to drive the car? If they can't fix it or bypass it, will that lower the used car value meaning the original buyer will have to eat the difference making the car more expensive to own, like the difference between leasing a car that holds its value vs one that doesn't?
Upvote
-14
(3
/
-17)
Sometimes running over/hitting what's in front of you is the better option. I don't want to be in a car that doesn't allow for that choice. Hard pass.
Upvote
-18
(8
/
-26)
Suzuki hasn't sold cars in the US for about a decade now. I think that list covers all of the corporate conglomerates that sell in the US.
Upvote
15
(15
/
0)
In this sort of safety issue, unintended consequences show up all the time. When Texas was considering rescinding the motorcycle helmet law, medical statistics showed that head injuries had indeed dropped considerably with required helmets. It also showed that neck injuries had shot up in number.
Will be interesting to see the statistics from European sources on braking issues, since they are apparently volunteering as test subjects.
Will be interesting to see the statistics from European sources on braking issues, since they are apparently volunteering as test subjects.
Upvote
-17
(5
/
-22)
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
Every car with this technology will almost certainly work fine if the camera and/or radar module fail. Some moron hit the left front bumper of my car which displaced the radar sensor (luckily it popped back in place once I figured out what happened), but the car otherwise worked fine. It just displayed a warning message on the dash saying that most driver assistance features were disabled.
Upvote
4
(5
/
-1)
My MDX randomly detects events, luckily it’s not set up to automatically apply brakes.
That said, if it worked perfectly I’d have no real issue, but I’m not excited about all the people who will have rear end collisions since everyone in my state does 85 bumper to bumper on the turnpike.
I’d bet Massachusetts drivers will kill well over 360 people a year if this goes through, so it’ll have to be paired with something like automatic tailgater braking if they have any chance of reducing accidents and fatalities.
That said, if it worked perfectly I’d have no real issue, but I’m not excited about all the people who will have rear end collisions since everyone in my state does 85 bumper to bumper on the turnpike.
I’d bet Massachusetts drivers will kill well over 360 people a year if this goes through, so it’ll have to be paired with something like automatic tailgater braking if they have any chance of reducing accidents and fatalities.
Upvote
-6
(3
/
-9)
Are they? As I note in this article, almost every car maker that sells cars in the US made AEB standard equipment a few years ago. It's quite hard to buy a new car in 2023 that doesn't include the feature. And with the exception of substandard systems from Tesla, Honda, and Subaru, no one else is experiencing an epidemic of false positives.
Now, Tesla, Honda/Acura, and Subaru drivers can be forgiven for thinking the tech doesn't work. it does, just not the implementations in their particular vehicles.
Upvote
27
(30
/
-3)
This is more so because the Prius is a hybrid and its braking system is different from a plain ICE system. Its not like it was different for the fun of it. I'd bet on the current model year the Prius system is probably shared directly with the Corolla Hybrid for instance.
Upvote
16
(16
/
0)
Agree. I had to go to Houston last month and I tried in vain to maintain a safe distance on I-45. Every time I tried to increase the distance to the car in front, someone ALWAYS cut in and there I was now at less than half the distance I was originally following.
Upvote
20
(23
/
-3)
Would be nice to sneak in a rider making COVID vaccinations mandatory as well.
Upvote
-4
(2
/
-6)
Yeah, that's bullshit.
Here's a recent one...
https://www.med.wisc.edu/news-and-e...destroys-myth-motorcycle-helmets-break-necks/
...and here's a whole lot more from NHTSA going back years.
https://one.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/pedbimot/motorcycle/safebike/endnotes.html
Upvote
42
(43
/
-1)
micktransit
Ars Scholae Palatinae
When it becomes common, people will take advantage of it.
Pedestrians, and other drivers cutting in.
Pedestrians, and other drivers cutting in.
Upvote
-19
(4
/
-23)
Does that include motorcycles? Not sure if those are included in the mandate/proposal, though (probably not).
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
Yeah, lets blame the pedestrians and ignore the problem.
You're probably opposed to every single safety improvement ever in automobiles.
Upvote
9
(18
/
-9)
Even if it wasn't bullshit, I'd rather risk having a neck injury and be alive than be dead from the head injury.
Upvote
25
(27
/
-2)
A, is any of that even within NHTSA's purview? They set safety requirements and outcomes; they don't to my knowledge dictate pricing, design, modularity, or any of that - and if they tried to they'd probably be sued and lose.
B, I'd be very curious to know more specifics like the model year of your car because not only is that not how modern auto design works, what you're describing is something every auto manufacturer I know of actively tries to avoid. Unless there's a compelling design reason something like AEB is going to be common across vehicle platforms if not the entire company because otherwise you're increasing cost and complexity for no reason.
Upvote
16
(17
/
-1)
The comment section makes me feel like I've been transported back to a couple of decades ago, when ABS mandates loomed.
Upvote
24
(28
/
-4)
In the US at least, Lamborghini outsold Ferrari 3 to 1 in 2022, according to CarBuzz.com (never landed on that site before, so take the claim with a grain of salt): https://carbuzz.com/news/ferrari-and-lamborghini-both-posted-record-sales-in-2022
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
I'd wager $20 it is because the car is a hybrid and there were no other cars in Toyota's line up that it could share the system with at the time it was designed. Something that likely has been resolved due to the fact Toyota has hybrid versions of most of their models now.
Aka, the braking system in a hybrid is different from an ICE vehicle. On top of that, would similar repairs on a Corolla been much cheaper? After all, its not like the Prius has not been a high production vehicle.
Upvote
12
(12
/
0)