Government Recommends Cars With Smarter Brakes 304
mrspoonsi writes The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is adding crash imminent braking and dynamic braking support to its list of recommended advanced safety features for new cars. The former uses sensors to activate the brakes if a crash is imminent and the driver already hasn't. Dynamic braking support, on the other hand, increases stopping power if you haven't put enough pressure on the brake pedal. Like lane-departure and front collision warning systems, these features are available on some models already — this move gives them high-profile attention, though. And for good reason: As the NHSTA tells it, a third of 2013's police-reported car accidents were the rear-end crashes and a "large number" of the drivers either didn't apply the brakes at all (what?!) or fully before impact.
I have an even better idea (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's just enforce existing laws and get dangerous drivers off the road. THERE IS NO RIGHT TO DRIVE. If you are a dangerous driver you can and should be taken off the road.
A coworker of mine was hit a couple of weeks ago by a woman who, after fleeing the scene, was discovered to have had caused FOUR injury accidents in the trailing 12 months, had been dropped from her insurance two months prior, and who, despite all of that, had not had her license suspended, and was not even ticketed for leaving the scene of the accident she caused with my coworker.
It's our complete unwillingness to hold people accountable for their actions that has created the need for EVAN M0AR government regulation to "protect us from ourselves."
People who are incapable of driving shouldn't be driving. Period.
Re:I have an even better idea (Score:4, Insightful)
There's a right to freedom of movement, though.
I'd be fine with only a small driving or needing to drive. I live in a major city in the UK. I can walk or get the bus or train almost anywhere I'm interested in going, both for excursions and my daily life.
You'll find it's the same around most of the world.
Sadly, though, the USA has a large number of places that basically have no infrastructure whatsoever. The only way to get about, to live your life, is to own and use a car. In these places, not only are dangerous drivers tolerated, but so are dangerous cars (clunkers) -- because the alternative is to deprive most of your citizens the ability to get about.
This could've been fixed in the past (avoid urban sprawl), but it's too late now, and people have a right to get about the place. Banning them from driving in a place where there's 20 miles between where anyone lives and where any food is sold or any places of employment are, and there's no public transport whatsoever, is basically a death sentence.
What are you going to do about this?
Re:I have an even better idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Driving isn't a right, it's a privilege. I've paid for that privilege my entire adult life, maintaining my registration, my insurance, and my license despite having no at-fault accidents. I expect others to do the same.
Re:I have an even better idea (Score:4, Insightful)
That's more or less how it is. So they drive even worse clunkers as they know they will lose them every time they talk to a cop.
Then the cops stop doing anything out of frustration, leaving the laws selectively enforced.
Re:I have an even better idea (Score:4, Informative)
No, it's not. Like the parent said, it's a necessity. Banning people from doing whatever they must to survive is neither effective nor reasonable.
So no-one can ever be stopped from driving where you live? In the UK there are quite a few classes of people not allowed to drive. Children, people banned for the more serious traffic offences, the blind and poor sighted, and older people who fail the driving re-test they must take periodically. How they get around is their own problem. One solution is not to live somewhere they can only reach by driving a car. I live in a remote area and I accept that one day, when I get old, I might have to move into a city.
Re: (Score:2)
Another country that has driving peculiarities is France where you can buy licence-less car (voitures sans permis). Small cars that you can drive without license, or with a suspended license. They legally top out to 60km/h but I've seen some beefed up to go
Re:I have an even better idea (Score:4, Interesting)
An easy, partial solution - scooters and motorbikes. I've met several people who adopted them after losing their license. They can be far cheaper to both own and operate than a car, and when you reduce the total mass by an order of magnitude you reduce the potential damage to others in a collision by the same factor. Of course that proportionally *increases* the risk to the driver as well, but why shouldn't reckless drivers be faced with bearing the bulk of the damage from future collisions? With luck it will even improve their situational awareness when they are once again allowed to operate a car.
Re: (Score:3)
A vehicle with two or three wheels, fully functional pedals, no more than a 1hp (750W) motor, and a top speed of 20mph for a 170lb rider is legally classified as a bicycle in the US, and doesn't require a motor vehicle license. That's an incredibly versatile vehicle right there. 1hp on a normal bicycle is scary powerful - horsepower is literally named, and you and a bike are far lighter than the horse would be.
Re: (Score:3)
Bus: Doesn't exist many places. If it does, there may not be a bus stop within walking distance of your house, place of work, or a food store.
Taxi: Too expensive. Try taking the taxi to work every day and you'll go fucking broke in a month.
Train: (I think you mean subway). There are two places in the USA that even have those. One is Washington DC, the other is New York. The rest of the country has less subway rail *combined* than either one of th
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Well let's see, lose your license in the USA and it's an automatic felony conviction for not having a driver's license. Then you can't drive anywhere, you get fired from your job, and you'll never find another job as a convicted felon, so your life is already over. It would be more merciful just to execute dangerous drivers, don't you think?
Re: (Score:2)
Screw that, we need airbag poisoned face spikes to be required on proven dangerous drivers cars. If that doesn't make them focus then the problem solves itself.
Re:I have an even better idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's just enforce existing laws and get dangerous drivers off the road.
That is not a better idea, just a different idea. There is no reason we can't do both. But for every accident avoided, the cost of improving brakes is likely to be far, far less than the economic cost of excluding millions of people from driving, in a society where driving is nearly essential for daily life. Also, the brake improvement can actually happen, while the probability of politicians banning a significant number of people from driving is about zero.
Re: (Score:2)
Or taking bad drivers off the road would create better drivers and help free ourselves from an overdependence on a single mode of travel (a single point of failure), one that consumes massive amounts of land for roads and parking [strongtowns.org], drains similarly massive amounts of money to overseas oil and car companies, and creates re
Re: (Score:2)
That is not a better idea, just a different idea.
No, it is a better idea because it reduces highway deaths (in the US) without a significant increase in the cost of driving.
than the economic cost of excluding millions of people from driving
Many tens of millions of people are already banned from driving in the US due to age, driving history, or current state of impairment. What's known about the US situation is that a considerable fraction of accidents in the US come from drivers who are already banned from driving either by not having a license or insurance or by driving while impaired. Something like half of all US acci
Re:I have an even better idea (Score:4, Insightful)
This.
No mod points left, but I agree. We ae trying everything to get people out of private cars and onto public transportation with little effect. Just pull the licences from the worst drivers and hand them a transit pass. Reduce traffic volume and save money by postponing expansion projects. And do so by getting the crappiest drivers off the road.
Re: (Score:3)
Just pull the licences from the worst drivers and hand them a transit pass.
The economic impact of doing this would make shifting to renewables look like redeeming a coupon for a few cents off of pot noodles.
Re:I have an even better idea (Score:5, Interesting)
Let's just enforce existing laws and get dangerous drivers off the road. THERE IS NO RIGHT TO DRIVE. If you are a dangerous driver you can and should be taken off the road.
I was a safe driver for 11 years; no tickets, no accidents, no "close calls", no complaints. Then one day I was driving to the airport early in the morning, got distracted by my radio, didn't notice that the traffic light was red, and ran right into a car that was (legally) crossing the intersection.
My question: should I have been driving for those previous 11 years? If not, why not? What kind of test would you have had me take to show that I was a dangerous driver? Or, if I was a safe driver except on that one morning, how would your plan have prevented my accident?
The fact is, most people are safe drivers most of the time. Except for when they're not.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
But, its hard to have any hope of good drivers overall when it seems that 20% of people seem to stupid to how to use a passing lane properly.
Re: (Score:3)
I do observe that is a song I like comes on followed by some tricky driving I will find I missed the song completely while I concentrated on driving.
Re:I have an even better idea (Score:4, Insightful)
I do not approve of any system that will arbitrarily override my basic controls of the vehicle, it's a bad idea. Why should I or anyone relinquish control of braking to some anonymous software writer(s) that may or may not have covered all possible contingencies properly? Just one more system to fail in your vehicle. No, I propose we educate, train, and test drivers more rigorously, and if they're not truly competent, then they don't get to drive.
Re: (Score:2)
I do not approve of any system that will arbitrarily override my basic controls of the vehicle,
You do realize that most cars sold in the last couple of decades have computers that can override your inputs and monkey around with your brakes whenever you're trying to speed up or slow down the vehicle?
Re:I have an even better idea (Score:4, Insightful)
This government regulation isn't about protecting you from idiot drivers. It's about protecting you from the long tail of accidents that happen in spite of everyone following the rules. People aren't infallible. Occasionally, we make mistakes even with the best of training. Unless you're a race driver, your driver "training" is nowhere near the amount of training the olympic athletes receive. Yet, invariably enough, in every olympics there's a bunch of snafus committed by the best trained people. That should be the only thing you need to see to realize that, once again, no matter how well prepared you are, you will make mistakes even if your weally, weally wish not to. I mean fuck, these people are fucking competing for olympic medals. They are the best of the best worldwide. And they do mess up. So yes, no matter how good you think you are, you will commit random errors on the road that may prove deadly. The regulations and the technical means here are to make those random things less deadly. That's all.
Re:I have an even better idea (Score:4, Informative)
I have an even better idea: let's find a way to fix human beings so that they're perfectly consistent in their behavior.
While certainly taking demonstrably bad drivers off the road is a no-brainer, even good drivers have lapses. My teenaged son is learning to drive, and whenever someone does something like cut us off I make a point of saying we can't assume the driver did it on purpose, or did it because he was an inconsiderate or bad person. Even conscientious and courteous drivers make mistakes or have lapses of attention.
It's the law of large numbers. If you spend a few hours on the road, you'll encounter thousands of drivers. A few of them will be really horrible drivers who shouldn't be on the road. But a few will be conscientious drivers having a bad day, or even a bad 1500 milliseconds.
Re:I have an even better idea (Score:4, Funny)
And daily test drivers under 26
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Any tests should be based on competence , not experience or age.
FTFY.
I don't care how much "experience" you have behind the wheel, or how old you are - prove that you are competent to operate the vehicle safely, and you can drive. Fail to prove that, and get your license revoked.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't be absurd. The right to travel does not have anything to do with the method used for transportation. Your road is missing? So sad for you, catch a bus, a train, a taxi, ride a horse through the bush, or if you're not landlocked use a boat or any one of the many other things you can do to exercise your right to "travel".
People most definitely do NOT have any protected right what so ever, in any law or any country or even international regulations, recommendations or otherwise to operate a motor vehicle
Re: (Score:3)
Not that I disagree with the premise, but it's important to note that some people don't have access to busses nor horses (which, take it from the voice of experience, are really hard to park without being hassled), and cabs are too expensive... but they do own a car.
If we had kick-ass, Euro style public transit all over America, I would agree with you wholeheartedly. But we don't.
Re:I have an even better idea (Score:4, Insightful)
You don't have a right to be able to afford anything. At least in any society beyond pure communism - which has never existed in groups of more than say, 100.
It would be a nice societal benefit to allow persons without much economic means to freely travel - but nothing on the order of a mandate. Now, most societies agree that people should be allowed to travel freely without undo government interference but there is nothing that says somebody else has to pay for it or allow an individual to put others at risk for economic or any other reason.
Re: (Score:2)
We did have that right early on, the anti car people (aka buggy whip association) pushed to get that snowball rolling to put ever increasing restrictions and idiotic ordinances in place.
You do not have an effective freedom to associate if you do not have the freedom to travel one requires the other to be effective.
As to how to fix it I do not have a good answer but right now the balance is off.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't be absurd. The right to travel does not have anything to do with the method used for transportation. Your road is missing? So sad for you, catch a bus, a train, a taxi, ride a horse through the bush, or if you're not landlocked use a boat or any one of the many other things you can do to exercise your right to "travel".
LET THEM EAT CAKE!
Historical accuracy of quote aside, your argument basically boils down to "it is not a problem for me, so fuck you" and that is not a compelling argument in any situation, so perhaps you might want to consider rolling it up into a small cylinder and taking it rectally.
People most definitely do NOT have any protected right what so ever, in any law or any country or even international regulations, recommendations or otherwise to operate a motor vehicle.
Yes, and when you combine that with the fact that at least here in the USA, the automobile companies deliberately attacked and all but destroyed the public transportation system to the extent that being forced to use it is li
Re: (Score:2)
Not a fan (Score:5, Interesting)
During icy conditions, when I'd rather kill that deer instead of my family, or when a piece of black plastic blows across the roadway, are three that come to mind.
Re:Not a fan (Score:5, Insightful)
it takes away the driver's discretion during the times braking is not advisable.
Real life involves tradeoffs. For almost any safety feature, there will be some corner cases where it is detrimental, but it is still a big win overall. Even airbags kill people occasionally, and about an extra dozen infants die every year in hot cars because their car seats are in the back instead of the front. But airbags save thousands of lives overall, so the cost is worth it.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems like inattentive drivers are already breeding at an alarming rate.
Re:Not a fan (Score:4, Informative)
Interesting you should say that, since the number of automobile accidents of all kinds has been declining steadily for the last 30 years, at least.
As has the number of fatal accidents.
And all this while the number of vehicles on the road has been increasing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Note I used the word "accidents" as well as "fatalities". The number of "accidents" has been declining.
Increasing numbers of pedestrian fatalities coupled with a decreasing number of accidents makes me think the problem is pedestrians texting, not drivers doing same....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is the tradeoff in favor of this kind of system yet? I have it one my car, and the part that I have found useful is the flashing warning -- not the braking. Among other flaws, it tends to have false alarms on certain stretches of road (I'm not sure whether it is picking up signs or fences or something else, but it is almost a given at one spot on my commute home from work), and it gets close to the auto-braking threshold when a car in front of me is turning into a parking lot. (The system in my car has t
Re: (Score:2)
Switch to decaf.
Re: (Score:2)
Airline pilots are rather better trained than the average driver. Things also tend to happen more slowly in the air. If you're ever in a collision situation that requires action as quick as you're probably used to on a daily basis in your car, you've screwed up royally.
Re:Not a fan (Score:5, Interesting)
Real world example: My car has traction control. It also is relatively light, has front wheel drive, and has an anti-roll bar on the rear suspension.
So here's what happens; when I go into a long left hander (like a freeway interchange), the weight transfers to the right and the body rolls. The outside (right) rear wheel suspension compresses, and the anti-roll bar lifts the left rear wheel off the ground. It is a stable driving configuration, they just overbuilt the anti-roll bar for the vehicle weight. The inside rear wheel would be unweighted and providing negligible traction even if it were touching the ground, so it is not a risk.
But here's what happens next: The inside wheel is not being driven, nor is it touching the ground. Air friction slows the wheel, and the traction control system kicks in. It sees that I have three wheels going 60 MPH and one wheel going 20 MPH, and assumes that I am in an aggressive spin. It brakes the three fast wheels; aggressively. And the vehicles bucks like a horse that just saw a rattlesnake. That does cause a very real risk of losing control.
Sensor-based driving assist is a fine option. It's great for people who want the freedom to text while driving, because it keeps them from killing me. Making it the norm may reduce accidents overall, and we may reach a day when it is superior to any human. But we have not yet reached the point where economy-priced driving assist is less dangerous than an attentive and skilled driver.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Real world example: My car has traction control. It also is relatively light, has front wheel drive, and has an anti-roll bar on the rear suspension.
So here's what happens; when I go into a long left hander (like a freeway interchange), the weight transfers to the right and the body rolls. The outside (right) rear wheel suspension compresses, and the anti-roll bar lifts the left rear wheel off the ground. It is a stable driving configuration, they just overbuilt the anti-roll bar for the vehicle weight. The inside rear wheel would be unweighted and providing negligible traction even if it were touching the ground, so it is not a risk.
But here's what happens next: The inside wheel is not being driven, nor is it touching the ground. Air friction slows the wheel, and the traction control system kicks in. It sees that I have three wheels going 60 MPH and one wheel going 20 MPH, and assumes that I am in an aggressive spin. It brakes the three fast wheels; aggressively. And the vehicles bucks like a horse that just saw a rattlesnake. That does cause a very real risk of losing control.
Sensor-based driving assist is a fine option. It's great for people who want the freedom to text while driving, because it keeps them from killing me. Making it the norm may reduce accidents overall, and we may reach a day when it is superior to any human. But we have not yet reached the point where economy-priced driving assist is less dangerous than an attentive and skilled driver.
This and things like my traction control (that freaks out when there is slush on the ground and needs to be turned off so that I'm not stalled in an intersection) and pre-emptive braking systems that are so paranoid that people now complain that they cannot get into a parking garage because the gate is triggering the braking system before they can get close enough to swipe their card or hit the ticket button are why I laugh whenever someone claims that we'll have self-driving cars by 2020 or some other unre
Re:Not a fan (Score:5, Insightful)
Real world example: My car has traction control. It also is relatively light, has front wheel drive, and has an anti-roll bar on the rear suspension.
So here's what happens
You seem to be arguing that automated driving aids tend to interfere with real-world situations, while describing a real-world situation that is actually a glaring example of a horrible design defect with your car. You should have four wheels on the ground in all "real world" situations, end-of.
Your car is broken. And that's a piss-poor reason to be against automated driving aids.
Re: (Score:2)
Why are not specifying year of said models? Sciorro is either ancient, or 2008.
Rabbit is a long lasting series. 1990 != 2000 != 2001, especially in how the features work. All depending on when the parts evolved.
And again: Mazda 2 is not a year model.
We can not google each cars safety feature evolution, drive system, and then start arguing for each span of those.
Re: (Score:2)
My Honda S2000 will often hit the rev limiter when turning and accelerating hard because it has an open differential and Honda designed it to lift the inside rear wheel.
Wow, did they really? That's a RWD car, if they designed it to do that, then they designed it poorly. I had a high opinion of the S2000 until I read this.
Re: (Score:3)
Sounds like your suspension is broken or you're idea of a safe speed on such a long left-hander is not in line with reality.
Re: (Score:2)
Your car is trying to tell you that you're about to roll it.
Re: (Score:3)
You need to go watch a local SCCA race. Lifting the inside rear wheel is normal.
Normal in a race.
Several makers, like VW and Mazda, even show their cars doing that in their ads.
"Closed course. Professional driver. Do not attempt."
On my Honda [yadda yadda rant rant]
Looks like you need to get a bumper sticker with Calvin pissing on a Honda.
Re: (Score:2)
Traction control on a non driven wheel? Maybe stability control.
You should only lift your inside rear wheel under very hard braking and cornering. Not a highway interchange at steady speed. There is nothing transferring weight forward.
I'm going to have to call bullshit.
Re:Not a fan (Score:5, Insightful)
If the safety feature enables the brakes when a crash is 'imminent', it takes away the driver's discretion during the times braking is not advisable.
And if you look at the stats, about 1/3 of crashes are rear end accidents, and within that group a significant number of drivers didn't even attempt to apply the brakes. That last part was even in TFS!
You can't take away something that doesn't exist.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure pre-emptive braking systems are designed to use the ABS system, not lock the brakes. So go ahead and swerve with controlled braking.
Re:Not a fan (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, yes, I'm sure you can imagine any number of situations where your lightning reflexes, superb judgement, and superhuman driving skill will produce a better outcome than some dumb automated system.
But even if you are much more skilled than the average driver -- and it does seem like 80-90% of drivers are quite convinced that they're "better than average" -- you're still likely to do dumb things behind the wheel more frequently than you do brilliant things behind the wheel. If you have a human brain, you're kind of stuck with that. There are a million things that can distract you, impair you, or confuse you, and any one of them will knock you down from that pinnacle of performance.
There will certainly be times when an automated system produces a worse outcome than a skilled human driver. But those times will be overwhelmingly outnumbered by the times when it's the other way around. It's really, really hard to reason objectively about risks like this, especially when there's a perceived loss of control involved. But if you don't let objective reasoning drive policy, you're going to end up with more dead and injured people.
When I was a kid, the debate was over seat-belt laws. There were an amazing number of people who absolutely refused to wear them. "I remember this person who was trapped in a burning (or sinking) car because they couldn't get out of the seat belt!" "I'm too good a driver to get into an accident where I'd need a seat belt to save me!" "If I'm wearing a seat belt, I can't be thrown to safety, so I'll be trapped in the collision!" Yes, I'm quite sure that some people have died because of seat belts. But that number is absolutely dwarfed by the number of people saved by them. It's cold consolation to the handful of seat-belt victims, I know, but you're still an utter fool if you let those few tragedies convince you not to use the belt.
Please don't let fear of a few extremely unlikely scenarios block a robust solution for an entire class of common problems.
Re: (Score:2)
If the safety feature enables the brakes when a crash is 'imminent', it takes away the driver's discretion during the times braking is not advisable.
During icy conditions, when I'd rather kill that deer instead of my family, or when a piece of black plastic blows across the roadway, are three that come to mind.
I have lived in 15 years in an area with a lot of deer, some elk, and some moose. Usually there are about 200 deer kills per years in the county. And there are notoriously icy and snowy roads in the wintertime.
About five years ago I hit a deer going about 45mph just outside of town. The deer came from the passenger side, hit the right front corner panel, and bounced up and left a basketball-sized hole with the deer head sticking through right in front of my face. The county sheriff said (and I agree) th
Re: (Score:2)
Yep because a car will have advanced computers to be able to intelligently apply breaks but won't be sold with traction control, abs, and the many other things that cars already have that effectively prevent you locking up tyres.
A modern car with all its safety bells and whistles basically will in no way be worse off if you plant your foot as hard as you can on the break as if you don't. It will still steer as good or better, and it will definitely stop as good or better than any other situation.
Plus you're
Re: (Score:3)
Which do you think is more likely to occur - injury to your family from incorrect braking by an automated system in strange outlier conditions, or injury to your family from incorrect braking when some texting jackass doesn't notice that traffic has slowed or stopped? Your logic is similar to people who argue against seat belt use because in some possible but very unlikely situations it could cause a problem, while ignoring the fact that the vast majority of the time it helps.
Re: (Score:2)
The automatic breaking systems only work at low speed (typically max 30 mph), and are very conservative. Unless you are doing less then about 10 mph they won't even stop you hitting the object, just lessen the impact. They use antilock braking and if the car skids or the driver reacts by turning the wheel, braking or accelerating they instantly disengage.
There are probably a few real edge cases were they might make things slightly worse, but it's hard to imagine a situation where they could cause someone to
Don't apply compression gently (Score:2)
a third of ... accidents were the rear-end crashes and a "large number" of the drivers either didn't apply the brakes at all (what?!) ... before impact.
Because Russian [youtube.com]
Smarter Brakes? (Score:2, Funny)
I recommend cars with smarter drivers.
didn't apply the brakes at all (what?!) (Score:2)
this is not a surprise. i have good 3d visual modelling ability, which allowed me to assess gaps between vehicles and drive at 30mph near curbs or bollards in width-restricted areas with an inch to spare either side, for example. i remember one day, a former partner and i, driving along a motorway. approximately fifty times throughout an hour-long journey, she would drive in the middle lane directly up to the back of a car in front at more than 15mph faster than the other vehicle, *apply the brakes* when
Re: (Score:2)
I would say that your modelling experience has given you a good spatial sense, rather.
I'm kind of in the same boat. I keep track of who's around me and where they are moving. It's rare (but it does happen) that I see a car in a space I didn't expect, and that's usually because something else was masking it (larger car, etc) and I do keep that in mind).
Didn't hit "Send" yet (Score:3)
a third of 2013's police-reported car accidents were the rear-end crashes and a "large number" of the drivers either didn't apply the brakes at all (what?!)
That is because they didn't hit send yet. They were still staring at their phone and not concerned whatsoever with the innocents in the car with them, or the innocents in the car in front of them.
Another poster said that texters have worse response time than drunks. That is probably not true, because drunks at least have a response time. You can't respond to something when all of your sensory input is focused on something else. For texters, the response comes after the crash.
I have noticed a trend for years that rear end collisions have been getting more prevalent and the damage more severe. It was like people weren't even hitting the brakes. I blamed it on texting while driving. Now the statistics are saying the same thing.
However, I am NOT in favor of the new devices to apply the brakes when the driver doesn't. Automation in the cockpit will only lead to stupid people becoming MORE complacent in the car and will increase their irresponsible behaviors. Instead of looking up every other character to see what is going on, they will just stare continuously at their phone until they have finished their message.
Perhaps I could see having such a braking system if, after a single auto-braking incident, the car disabled itself except for low speed travel so it could pull over to the shoulder, and then, travel over 10 mph was disabled until the car was reset by a qualified driving instructor.
A realy cost/benefit analysis would be nice... (Score:2)
Would it be too much to ask for them to explicitly discuss cost/benefit of something like this?
Example: Our car has some "smart" routine for detecting glare ice on the road. I don't know if it has ever been right - but there have been literally hundreds of false posltives over the years. Thankfully, it doesn't do anything but beep annoyingly.
Imagine if your car foes into full emergency braking, whenever it thinks an accident is imminent. What level of false positives is acceptable? What level of false negat
Ticket for Tailgating? (Score:2)
Lot's of rear end crashes, you say? How about people get nailed for tailgating more often?
Where I live in the north east, people routinely travel 70+ mph with as little as 4-5 feet between them. It's like the automatic driving car caravans of the future minus the automatic and future part. NO WONDER there are so many huge pileups month after month when most people do not see to even attempt to maintain a reasonable minimum distance between themselves are other cars at speed.
We really don't *need* more autom
Re: (Score:2)
I predict the majority of people buying braking assist now assume they don't have to worry about distance because "the computer" will "hit the brakes for them".
If they use the speed-adaptive cruise control that comes with it, then they're right, too.
Re: (Score:2)
If you are driving close to vehicles in front of you
You either don't know what speed-adaptive cruise control is, or you can't read English. Either way, you are not qualified to participate in this discussion.
Love collision avoidance in my Volvo (Score:4, Interesting)
If I had bought my car new and was looking at features to add or avoid, I would have put the collision avoidance system on my "meh" list and would not have paid extra for it.
As it turns out, I really like it. I have the control setup for maximum distance, which means more false alerts. But although most alerts seem "false" they're only false because I'm really paying attention and have anticipated the traffic in front of me. About 25% of the time I think it's actually valuable and there was some risk of either a really quick stop or maybe even a fender bender.
The feature that goes along with it (they share the same radar system), distance sensing cruise control, I REALLY like. I wish it would beep or something when you get behind a vehicle driving 3+ MPH slower than your set point. On the Interstate its kind of easy to get in traffic going slower than I want to by small amounts and not noticing it because the car just matches pace with the vehicle in front.
Love collision avoidance in my Volvo (Score:2, Informative)
Bought a car with early warning collision detection. Was grumbling that I spent $1500 above sticker for the car. Thought the purchase was stupid and I just had a fancy piece of tech that I would never use (i'm a good driver remember?). Then the day came when my girlfriend at the time rushed into the front door panting for air telling me she was trying to adjust the stereo (i will call this a huge influencing factor, we have a touch screen display) and didn't see a car nearly stopped on an onramp to the h
Re: (Score:3)
she was trying to adjust the stereo (i will call this a huge influencing factor, we have a touch screen display)
That is the actual problem. Whoever thought having a touch screen display as the user interface in a car should be banned from working in the auto industry.
Including (Score:2)
agree totally (Score:2)
Who's liable when it fails or backfires? (Score:2)
When making something safer, we can expect more lawsuits, not less, as we might naively expect. It doesn't matter if we can statistically show that a new technology saves lives. If auto manufacturers put this feature into their vehicles, suddenly it is their fault when the feature fails to prevent an accident, or causes causes an accident where one would not have occurred. Previously, the driver would be liable.
technology resulting in lax behavior (Score:2)
background information: I own and personally drive both ends of the spectrum, a 2014 model car and a 1970 model year truck. The 2014 has all the available electronics features. The 1970... the only electronic device in that vehicle is the ignition module; and, that was an upgrade (I hate setting points). The 1970 truck doesn't even have power brakes. I'm not a luddite. Hell, I make a living as an engineer working for a company that designs and manufactures sensors; I'm not going to argue against tec
I saved someone from a rear ender the other day (Score:2)
It ain't rocket science (Score:4, Interesting)
It's frickin tailgaters. Even if you're being very attentive, there's a delay between the time you see brake lights on the car in front of you, and the time you hit the brakes. Throw in texting and other distractions, and if you're traveling too close you're eating bumper before you can hit the brake pedal. And half the drivers on the road are following too close. I say bring on the auto-braking systems to protect me from these idiots.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I drive about 150mi per week on highways, not freeways, and watch as dozens and dozens of people text. They're easy to spot.
Were we to apply the emphasis towards keeping your eyes on the road, rather than improving brakes-- which were probably ok as they DON'T DO FORENSICS on such accidents, better money would be spent.
How do you get people to stop fooling with their devices? Enable motion detection, which keeps the cam on in the phone. Might not work for many, but I'd like to see texting and driving fined
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Erratic isn't a useful measure. Voluntarily removing your focus from driving, e.g. taking a call, removing your eyes from the road for more than a second every 20sec, there'll be something that could be a viable measure that puts people's eyes back on the road, and not the latest tweet or instagram pic.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Stop making a law for every possible way you can not focus on driving (e.g. law against texting and driving, law against talking on phone and driving, etc.). Just make driving erratic a crime commensurate with a DUI and be done with it.
I've heard this complaint more times than I can count, especially from the slashdot crowd. I used to agree with the sentiment, even. After all, why have 17 laws when you can have one that abstractly covers all the cases?
I'll tell you why: Because legal code is not computer code, and code size is not one of the factors being optimized. The seventeen laws aren't there for the sake of efficiency. The seventeen laws are there to remind people in very explicit terms (rather than abstract ones) that the thing the
Re: (Score:2)
So how about one law against reckless driving, augmented by a non-binding, non-comprehensive list of example behaviors that will get you busted.
Intoxication, texting, talking on the phone, leaning into the back seat to get your baby's toy off the floor, etc.
No, steering with your feet while juggling angry cats blindfolded is not explicitly on the list - but a reasonable person can look at the list and say it probably qualifies, so let a jury decide on the particulars. That's their job after all - not just t
Re: (Score:2)
I drive about 150mi per week on highways, not freeways, and watch as dozens and dozens of people text. They're easy to spot.
2 weeks ago I followed a local cop for several miles and counted 7 times that he made lane changes and merged onto and off the freeway without using his indicators. He was also slowly weaving from side to side to just outside the left and right sides of his lane. All classic symptoms of distracted driving. This cop suffered no penalty, yet I bet if the cop was following me and I exhibited the same behavior then I would have been pulled over (assuming of course that the cop would actually have been paying
Re: (Score:2)
Statistically, cops have far fewer accidents that they caused. Should they be cited? Sure. Will they? Never, as the fraternity of enforcers exempts themselves, and given human behavior, you're not going to easily change that, even with cop-cams. I understand your fears, I doubt that you'll be able to change the behavior of public safety officers. Good luck.
Re: (Score:2)
Statistically, cops have far fewer accidents that they caused.
Who collects the data points for the statistics?
Re: (Score:2)
Insurance companies, nationwide. In terms of accident-free miles, only truck drivers are better.
Re: (Score:2)
Insurance companies
Insurance companies don't show up at accident scenes. Cops do and they fill out the reports that insurance companies compile into statistics.
Re: (Score:2)
Helps that they get to decide who caused the accident.
Cops are a good reason to install a dash cam.
Re: (Score:2)
Can find the data for death only
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L... [wikipedia.org]
They have dropped by about a third.
Bert
Re: (Score:2)
How about this one of a driver driving off an overpass [youtube.com]? Or this one? [pnj.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Crashes have been getting much more survivable, but the number of collisions per car-kilometre has also been flat or dropping. Texting in North America took off in a fairly short period of time. If it were actually responsible for as many crashes as it gets blamed for there would have been a big spike in the collision rate. There wasn't. That supports the idea that the ultimate cause is bad drivers, and texting is just the latest thing they can be distracted by. Texting while driving is undoubtedly dan
Re: (Score:3)
Reaction time isn't a problem if you drive at a speed and keep a following distance appropriate for your reaction time. This is why elderly people drive slowly.
Drunks are still (at least sometimes) looking at the road. Texters, not so much. When you're not looking at the road, doesn't matter what your reaction time is, because you just won't see the accident about to happen.
Re: (Score:2)
simply were not aware of imminent danger like a big fuckoff lump of iron in front of them... BAM! 70+mph right up some poor bastard's arse.
Last week there was an accident in Virginia where a minivan ran off the freeway. Several firetrucks attended the scene, and camped out in the lane next to where the car ran off the road. Some idiot managed to run himself into the back of one of the firetrucks at speed and kill himself. I still can't understand how you can't see the lights of a firetruck in the middle of the lane you are driving in, and not think to slow down or change lanes. And with this accident occurring on a freeway, its not as if t
Re: (Score:2)
It's amazing how few people still know to pump their brakes when they fail. It doesn't always help, but is always better then leaving your foot down.
Re: The government needs to stay out of car design (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is not the technology.
Like everything wrong with the article, the problem is crappy drivers.
Rear/side lights are there TO BE SEEN.
Headlights are there to SEE BY.
If you have a driver who doesn't know they have no rear-lights, they may not be seen by you. But if you have them without headlights IN THE FUCKING DARK, they are bad, stupid, dangerous drivers. This is not affected by whether they are running on DRL or sidelights or no lights at all. They are fucking dangerous and can't see where the
Re: (Score:2)
Rear/side lights are there TO BE SEEN.
Headlights are there to SEE BY.
Well, to be fair, headlights are also to be seen with. The apparent color of the lights and reflectors on a vehicle tells you which direction it is facing, especially here in the USA where we mandate orange reflectors on the front corners.
Re: (Score:2)
On dry clean pavement, but with a couple of potholes, the wheel speeds can differ enough to activate the abs system.
You know you're supposed to dodge the potholes, right?
Re: (Score:3)
" A vehicle changed to my lane on the highway, then had to do a panic stop from 70mph to stopped."
Why weren't you looking well ahead and slowing down already for the obstacle which caused the panic stop?
Far too many drivers only look 2-3 seconds ahead. You need to be looking and planning based on what's happening AT LEAST 12 seconds ahead, preferably 18-20
There's zero excuse for distracted driving. Your first task is to drive, everything else is secondary. I've gone as far as to tell passengers to shut the