Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Transportation

Autobraking Tech Will Be Standard In Cars By 2022 (cbsnews.com) 127

Posted by BeauHD from the life-saving-tech dept.
pgmrdlm shares a report from CBS News: Automatic emergency braking will be standard in most cars in 2022. The technology is expected to cut the number of rear-end crashes in half, but hundreds of drivers say sometimes the system slams on the brakes -- apparently for no reason. CBS News found reports of several accidents and injuries that drivers blamed on false activations of emergency automatic braking systems. Safety advocates and carmakers say in the vast majority of cases it works, but it is not perfect.

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) said autobraking is making driving safer, estimating the technology could cut rear end collisions in half, preventing 28,000 crashes and 12,000 injuries by 2025. "These autonomous emergency braking systems, they are effective. They are working in the real world. But there is definitely room for improvement," said David Aylor, IIHS' manager of active safety testing. Since 2015 there have been seven recalls for auto-braking issues, affecting nearly 180,000 vehicles. There are more than half a million Nissan Rogues subject to the NHTSA investigation. The regulator has also received hundreds of complaints about so-called "phantom braking" in vehicles from a number of automakers. Automakers insist the technology will save lives and continues to improve. But there is no federal standard, so each system is a little different. Carmakers have at least 49 different names for the technology. For those interested, CBS News has included statements in their report from several automakers who have had complaints of phantom autobraking reported to the NHTSA.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Autobraking Tech Will Be Standard In Cars By 2022 More

Autobraking Tech Will Be Standard In Cars By 2022

Comments Filter:

  • Causes might not be the right word (Score:3, Insightful)

    by chuckugly ( 2030942 ) on Thursday October 24, 2019 @05:44PM (#59344244)

    If it's 'causing' crashes by braking unexpectedly and people are rear-ending the auto-braking car then no, what's actually causing the crash is people following too close. That the auto-braking is sometimes making bad choices is certainly a malfunction but that's not the cause of someone rear ending another car.

    • Re:Causes might not be the right word (Score:4, Insightful)

      by 110010001000 ( 697113 ) on Thursday October 24, 2019 @06:11PM (#59344358) Homepage Journal

      Realistically you cannot just slam your brakes on a highway and not expect to get rear ended. Life doesn't work that way.

      • If you assume all the cars have similar emergency brakes and computer vision enabled reaction time, yeah sure, brake at will anywhere willy nilly.

        There is no guarantee the car behind has such a system. But the bureaucrat mandating is not sitting in that car, he is in DC.

        • It takes more than similar emergency brakes. Different car models have different stopping differences, different tires have different stopping differences; tire pressure, tire wear, and road condition all matter. If you're 6 inches to the right of the car in front of you, you could be on ice when he's on clean road.

          • Cars are basically the same in terms of braking. Trucks and heavier vehicles are not.
            It really doesn't matter where from 1 to 3 tons your car is on the scale, its pretty snappy. But the truck from 4 to 30 tons? Oh well, thats a completely different story.

            Cars are limited in terms of rear ending, if the driver reacts accordingly. Trucks however enforce themselves to a extremely defensive driving style to avoid hitting random objects when hauling 30tons, or even more with carriages and heavier vehicles.
            Cars

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jezwel ( 2451108 )
        Road rules stipulate a safe following distance be kept. If you get hit the following car was breaking the law. Sure, that may not be realistic, but all that regulation is enacted to provide a safe environment.

        Yes this includes if you stop on a highway.

        One issue is lack of visibility, there are many roads where curvature due to hills prevent sight lines that give sufficient stopping distance. You are expected to reduce speed in these circumstances until you can safely stop of needed.

        Of course, no one does

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by mjwx ( 966435 )

        Realistically you cannot just slam your brakes on a highway and not expect to get rear ended. Life doesn't work that way.

        Actually that is exactly what you shouldn't expect and life does work that way... it's just that you live in a nation of shit drivers.

        I dont. if a Hart (deer) were to bound across the M4 for whatever reason here in the UK, I expect to be able to mash my stop pedal and not have the driver behind implant himself where my MR2's engine is*. Keeping a safe distance behind the vehincle in front so that you can stop in the event that he slams his brakes on (for whatever reason) is expected of every driver here

      • Realistically you cannot just slam your brakes on a highway and not expect to get rear ended. Life doesn't work that way.

        Yes you can in many countries. Not every nation is made up of habitual tailgaters like the Netherlands (I assume from your post that people in the USA also failed basic driver safety training).

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Cylix ( 55374 )

      Yeah that isn’t a wide spread issue if it happens. There is more then one sensor at play initiating the autobrake and it can be overridden by the driver. It’s fantastic and a bit expensive. I really doubt the 5k tech package will be auto include in such a short time.

      • I also don't like mandatory requirements every few years that keep adding additional $5K worth of upgrades to be on every car out there (base models up to top of line). It's fine as options, that's great, but until the tech is so cheap, that it can be added for hardly any cost (like radios, or alarm/keyless entry), then it should remain optional.

        Base model cars prices keep climbing up and up, to the point that you can't hardly buy a base model car for less than $25K already, and adding more to it are go

      • The cost is not $5K. The tech actually already is mandatory in Europe and it adds a few hundred bucks to the car at most.

        It's mostly an issue for entry level cars, as somebody else already pointed out. More expensive cars typically already have the necessary hardware on board anyway. All you need is a camera, a radar and an actuator for the brakes.

        Over here in Europe technologies like this do mean the end for small light vehicles. They get too expensive. For instance auto emergency calling is also mandatory

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Euler ( 31942 )

      I would normally support the tailgater-at-fault argument. Particularly when people use the argument that red-light cameras cause rear-end crashes. However, in this case it may not be a simple rear-end at stake.
      Instead substitute "auto-braking" with the phrase: "engine stall", and now you can start to imagine more critical moments in driving where a collision would be unavoidable such as pulling onto a main road, turning across traffic, etc.
      My personal experience is that the Honda Odyssey with driver assist

  • LKA (Score:3)

    by RickyShade ( 5419186 ) on Thursday October 24, 2019 @05:45PM (#59344250)

    I love my Lane Keep Assist... but there has definitely been a time where it tried to steer me directly into the side of another car. I was like "YO THAT'S NOT WHERE THE ROAD IS GOING DUMMY!" The technology is definitely in its youth and has much to learn yet.

    • AEB is a lot easier than lane keeping. It does require LIDAR to do gracefully, though.

    • Personally I love my heated seats. I mean it has as much to do with AEB as LKA does, but since we're all taking about what we like I'm putting it out there, heated seats are da shit!

      • it has as much to do with AEB as LKA does

        ... they're both computer-controlled automated systems that interfere with the drivers handling, you complete fucking moron. Now fuck off.

  • Only if you can disable it. (Score:4)

    by Rick Schumann ( 4662797 ) on Thursday October 24, 2019 @05:54PM (#59344296) Journal
    Even if you have to disable it every time you start the vehicle, I want to be able to disable it, even if it means I have to pull a fuse.

    • Re:Only if you can disable it. (Score:4)

      by zm ( 257549 ) on Thursday October 24, 2019 @06:04PM (#59344322) Homepage

      Even if you have to disable it every time you start the vehicle, I want to be able to disable it, even if it means I have to pull a fuse.

      Your insurance company may not appreciate disabling an important safety mechanism of the vehicle, so please think twice before doing that.

    • I want to be able to disable it

      I want you to not be able to, because you have no reason to make a safety feature optional on a public road. You do not have freedom to do whatever the heck you want while driving in public.

  • Not good enough yet (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mschuyler ( 197441 ) on Thursday October 24, 2019 @05:59PM (#59344306) Homepage Journal

    My car has this technology. It will brake if it thinks you're about to crash. Just prior to braking it flashes a huge red warning sign across the dash very much like a "yellow before red light" function of a traffic light. Picture when this happens. You are rolling down a highway at 50 mph, the actual speed limit. The road curves to the right where there is also a left-hand turn lane. You're not quite at the curve so the car THINKS you are headed straight for the cars waiting in the left turn lane. The red light flashes--and you curve to the right in plenty of time. The car doesn't see the curve ahead and does not know you actually know what you are doing, so it panics. Fortunately it has not yet braked, but it has demonstrated that it can. For example, if you are in reverse in a parking lot it will brake if it sees someone about to walk behind your car. That's a good thing. Braking on a curve is not. Needs work

    • If it turns out the problems it causes are much less costly than the problems it prevents, then it's a good tradeoff even if the technology is not yet perfect. The same argument was made against seat belts - that they could trap you inside the car in a fire or if the car were sinking in water. But the number of times that happens is so vanishingly small compared to the number of cases where seat belt saves lives, that you can pretty much ignore them when deciding whether or not to buckle up.

      The main is

      • If it turns out the problems it causes are much less costly than the problems it prevents, then it's a good tradeoff even if the technology is not yet perfect. The same argument was made against seat belts - that they could trap you inside the car in a fire or if the car were sinking in water. But the number of times that happens is so vanishingly small compared to the number of cases where seat belt saves lives, that you can pretty much ignore them when deciding whether or not to buckle up.

        The main issue I see is legal. The legal system is too focused on placing blame, so can actively work against sensible trade-offs like this. With current accidents, the people involved in the crashes bear complete responsibility. With an auto-braking system, the legal system will make the automaker partially responsible even if the accident was precipitated by dangerous or negligent behavior by the drivers.

        One of the things I never fully understood about the quest for fully autonomous vehicles: Why are car companies so hell bent on assuming the responsibility in auto accident?

        Also, while i'm here. Often times when i need to break suddenly in traffic, especially on the highway, I use the swerve and brake technique where I cut off into the shoulder and brake (when possible). This serves two purposes, it allows the car behind me more time to brake, and it allows them to see why they need to brake immediately.

        Do

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Livius ( 318358 )

      I have mixed feelings. It does sound like something that might never be perfect but could be a net gain in terms of safety.

      Though... I recently drove a rental car with this feature (which I did not know it had) and it gave me the big warning when I came close to the car ahead, even though I was *already* applying the brakes, and this at the absolute worse moment for the car to unexpectedly distract the driver.

    • Braking on a curve is not. Needs workM.

      Don't worry, cars can't spin out while braking in a corner when they have Torque Vectoring. At least, that's what the marketing department told us.

      There's no problem that can't be solved with ever more technology.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      That sounds like an incorrect implementation.

      At 50 MPH it should be discarding stationary objects. It's not designed to prevent you hitting something stationary at that speed, and in fact most of those systems disable themselves over 30 MPH anyway.

      The most common issue is when pulling out on to roundabouts. The car thinks you are going to hit the person in front until you turn and start following it round. People often accelerate quite hard to get into a small gap in the traffic.

      • It's not designed to prevent you hitting something stationary at that speed,
        Yes it is, otherwise it would be pretty pointless.

        and in fact most of those systems disable themselves over 30 MPH anyway.
        No they don't, then they would pretty pointless, too.

    • The car doesn't see the curve ahead and does not know you actually know what you are doing, so it panics.

      If you are in a situation where this system activates on a curve, then you the driver have already fucked up and the car panicking would only cause a different kind of accident than the one you're already in the process of causing.

  • Solving the problem of tailgaters running into cars that brake for yellow lights will remove one objection against red light cameras.

    Now if they could also eliminate the right angle crashes that red light cameras actually reduced!

  • These legacy car companies are so far behind Tesla. Tesla will have Full Self Driving as a feature complete by 2020! Tesla Robotaxis will soon follow.

    • Here's the state of the art on murder machines. 2 out of 4 systems tested couldn't stop from 20mph before hitting a pedestrian, Tesla being one of the two. On average it managed to slow down by 2 whole mph before smashing into the dummy. The GM knew the dummy was there, but didn't bother slowing down.

      https://www.aaa.com/AAA/common... [aaa.com]

      Camry was the only one that completely achieved this rather undemanding task.

      I am frankly astonished. GM is usually the poster boy for safety, releasing (and no doubt charging f

  • Put down the fucking phone (Score:3)

    by DogDude ( 805747 ) on Thursday October 24, 2019 @06:08PM (#59344348)
    If I had to guess, I'd guess that 95% of all rear end accidents are because people are on their fucking gadgets.

    • Re:Put down the fucking phone (Score:5, Interesting)

      by CrimsonAvenger ( 580665 ) on Thursday October 24, 2019 @08:18PM (#59344668)

      If I had to guess, I'd guess that 95% of all rear end accidents are because people are on their fucking gadgets.

      Unlikely. The number of rear-end accidents has not gone up by a factor of 20+ since 2000 or so....

      • Please tell me this was sarcasm and you realize the correlation? (Smartphones <=> rear-endings)

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by cb88 ( 1410145 )
        People drove distractedly back then too... different times different distractions. But yeah today the distraction is the smartphone.

      • Unlikely. The number of rear-end accidents has not gone up by a factor of 20+ since 2000 or so....

        It doesn't need to. The ability to respond has improved dramatically since 2000 or so with ABS as a standard feature on all vehicles, and tires and suspension generally improved, if the number of rear-end accidents even has stayed the same it's a good indication that fiddling with gadgets is primarily to blame.

  • I do not want another piece of shitty software dictating how I drive. Nor do I want shitty software created by people who don't how to drive failing at any moment and causing damage
    to my vehicle, injury to myself, and possibly death depending on the situation.

    This incessant need to automate everything is the very reason people think we need this crap. Because people are becoming too stupid to do anything for themselves, it's why there are now proposals to have warnings you left something in the back seat [cnn.com].

    • "Considering I have decades to live"
       
      Er, yeah..about that....

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Cylix ( 55374 )

      You seem like the kind of person who would say abs on a motorcycle is a bad idea and you should learn to ride better. Yeah, fools the lot of you, it pays for itself if it prevents one collision. Unfortunately, most people are too poor to have the newer versions of this. It’s fantastic.

    • The problem is, that they act, like people are entitled to being lazy and stupid. While non-retarded people have to put up with layer after layer of rubber cell padding and warning sticker and cumbersome oversimplified UI and missing features and downright dangerous bullshit like this here.

      Frankly, I think that if one enables stupid behavior, one should go to prison. It is harmful to all of us.

      • There is absolutely nothing dangerous about automatic emergency breaking, unless you want to dream up absurd scenarios.

        When wake up in hospital after your next heart attack you probably wished you have had one.

    • People involved in such software usually know how to drive.
      During test driving they have to provoke the system, and handle the car if the system fails.

  • What about in harsh weather conditions? Sometimes when you're driving in heavy snow/ice, it's better to steer to the side rather than slam on the breaks.

    This sounds like a disaster waiting to happen in northern regions.

    • Dunno. But my car has the feature and I haven't noticed any issu

    • I'm sure they also have anti-lock brakes and anti-skid. At least my Prius has all three (no breaks so far, just brakes).

      • Re:Harsh weather conditions? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Voyager529 ( 1363959 ) <voyager529@yahoo. c o m> on Thursday October 24, 2019 @11:05PM (#59345070)

        I'm sure they also have anti-lock brakes and anti-skid. At least my Prius has all three (no breaks so far, just brakes).

        Based on what's written here, it seems a safe bet that your Prius has never driven on several inches of snow with a refrozen bottom layer of ice. I say this because in such circumstances, one must basically assume that their brakes don't exist. The coefficient of friction between asphalt and car tires is approximately 0.72, while car tires on ice are closer to 0.15. Your fancy anti-skid is a bullet point on a window sticker, nothing more.

        Avoiding accidents under those conditions is performed by shifting the direction of one's momentum. You're not stopping your car, so you move the steering wheel slightly to one side or the other and hope you don't end up having your momentum absorbed by a telephone pole. Turn too fast, your car spins out and you still hit the guy in front of you. Jam on your brakes, fishtail and hit the guy next to you.

        This is why auto-braking needs to be able to be suppressed by drivers. It is entirely possible for this tech to cause accidents when a driver makes a decision to turn instead of brake, and that assumes that the system is itself doesn't end up with false positives due to equipment failing.

        • Yeah, I 'spect you're right about that situation. I grew up in Illinois, where the situation you describe happens, but my car back then was a Volkswagen Beetle. (IMO, Illinois is a nice place to be from, as long as I'm a long ways from it.)

          For the record, I believe the Prius automatic braking is only engaged when cruise control is on. I've had it flash a warning at me when I didn't have the cruise control on, but it didn't apply the brakes, as far as I remember. So I guess the moral of the story (for Pr

          • NEVER use cruise control on snow/ice, period. The key to driving on snow/ice is to never try to do anything suddenly, including braking, accelerating, or turning. Because you won't be able to.

            Most important is SLOW DOWN. Second most important is leave plenty of room between you and the car in front of you.

    • Then you obviously are driving to fast.
      And as the car knows the road conditions, probably better than you, it will break long before you come to the idea that you should avoid a collision.

  • I have a BWM X5. While it doesn't have auto braking, it does have a warning that appears when it determines that you are going to crash into something ahead. This warning frequently appears due to shadows across the road while *at highway speeds*. Thank god it doesn't perform an emergency brake in these instances. Some of these times there has been a transport truck behind me. I will drive my car, thank you very much. Cram all your auto driving features.

  • The thing is, there are a lot of minor accidents caused by people who just cannot pay attention. I knew one co-worker that had at least five rear-end collisions she caused, that I knew of...

    So yes some false positives will happen, and annoyingly they will probably happen to people who wouldn't have had trouble anyway. But they could well prevent someone else from running into you, so I say it's probably better all car makers introduce this ASAP to at least do some last moment speed reduction before impact

    • Broken window fallacy!

      You are saying that if somebody is so utterly retarded, that he fails at such a basic thing, we should *not* fix that, and actually make things better, but apply a quirk to correct a quirk, and terrorize and place under disability everyone who is not retarded with a stream of false positives?

      Jesus fucking Christ, SuperKendall, why do you always take the worst possible side? It's people like you, who breed those retards on the first place, with that attitude!

  • I want car that is more reliable and last longer, and this tech will make it more expensive to fix any car as it ages.

    • I want car that is more reliable and last longer, and this tech will make it more expensive to fix any car as it ages.

      That is one of the things that makes me laugh when people point out how simple and maintenance free EVs are. Sure, mechanically they are simpler, but all of the associated sensors and computer modules are far more complicated, and even the shiniest new technology does age.

      Anyone who can turn a wrench can keep a current 20 or 30 year old car running. I'm not sure as many of today's cars will be around a few decades from now. And once self driving cars are a couple decades old and sensors and bus wiring st

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dcw3 ( 649211 )

      Cars are much more reliable and last longer than they did just a couple decades ago. 100k miles was a typical end of life back in the 60s-70s. It's uncommon for one not to make it well beyond that now.

  • Police Make Little Effort to Stop Tailgating (Score:4, Insightful)

    by BrendaEM ( 871664 ) on Thursday October 24, 2019 @07:06PM (#59344468) Homepage
    Ever hear of anyone ticketed for following too close--before they caused and accident?
  • The radar auto-braking on my Civic seems to get fooled by a metal plate in the road thats on a slight incline. So it gets a false reflection and wants to stop. It happens every time on the same street so I have learned to deal with it.

  • The ones with braking are braking for phantoms. Iâ(TM)ve driven several models of cars over the last decade with this feature. It has gotten better but itâ(TM)s down to their processing times. Subaru has eyesight. A car can pass in front of you and it will slam on its brakes because itâ(TM)s not tracking in real time. Which implies itâ(TM)s processing is too slow. Honda has similar issues as itâ(TM)s vision based. Hyundai is radar based so the issue is less common but can still hap

  • The Brake!!! warning goes off in my care whenever I take an entrance ramp a little fast. If it's too stupid to handle that, it's not ready for real time.

  • Automated asshole driving. Nice. Phantom braking. Sooper.

    I have no illusions regarding how dangerous it is to move about at such high rates of speed as we regularly do. I'll cede my control when "Stop driving like an asshole" comes standard for everybody else. Until that day, I'll trust my own experience, respect for the road, and reaction times. Thanks but no thanks.

    As if cars are not already crazy expensive... I have an idea.... How about me mandate that every driver comes with "Personal responsibility" a

  • Like smoke detectors, this is a textbook example of stupid people plus pseudo-social people working together, to ruin life for everyone.

    By adding "safety" features, that are only ever necessary, if the user is mentally retarded (not to be confused with disabled people), and in the vast majority of cases just terrorizes non-retarded people with unnecessary false positives. "Justified" with tiny potential possibilities of being useful in saving (retard) lives (like that is a good thing...), that approach the

  • Don't want (Score:3)

    by WaffleMonster ( 969671 ) on Friday October 25, 2019 @04:59AM (#59345518)

    Nearly every time I can remember testing the breaks in earnest there was a preceding change in direction necessary to avoid trouble.

    Even with benefit of computerized reflexes you can't commit to both breaking and changing direction at the same time without a massive loss of traction.

    I can see how this tech would benefit people who care about their phones more than their lives or who don't believe in maintaining following distance but personally no way in hell would I ever use AEB unless it was attached to a superhuman level 5 system with authority over my driving.

    • People don't use AEB. AEB is used for them. If it's been triggered then you've already missed your opportunity for a thought out evasive maneuver.
      I get it, people are apprehensive about safety technology in general. Don't worry you're not alone. People used to think seatbelts would kill them. Then they thought airbags were death traps. Then they thought they could in an emergency break better without ABS, or recover from loss of traction better than electronic traction control.

      You share something in common

  • How do these things work; does it use radio waves or sound waves? I don't want millions of cars constantly spraying their own "radar" in the back of every driver's head, forever.

  • I have a 2019 Honda Pilot. It came standard with this technology. There are a number of conditions where it drives me crazy.

    * Curves in a road. There's times when it just flashes a warming on my dashboard, but there's times when it beeps and flashes. This alarms my passengers. I've taken to talking down to my car and attempting to verbally "sooth" it because that seems to put my passengers at ease that my car has false alarms. My kids actually think it's funny at this point. My coworkers less so.

    * Cars tur

  • I think the overall affect will be positive, but there are definitely situations (in my experience) where the autobrake feature has problems.

    1. While driving in the left lane of a two lane road, the traffic in my lane had stopped up ahead, but was moving in the right lane. As I approached the stopped traffic, I started to move to the right lane. There was a car behind me in the right lane, but I had plenty of room to merge over. However, as I approached the stopped traffic and was merging over, the aut

Slashdot Top Deals

Solutions are obvious if one only has the optical power to observe them over the horizon. -- K.A. Arsdall

Close