Watchdog calls for automatic braking to be standard in cars

To help cut down on car crashes and road deaths, the US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is proposing a rule that would mandate automated emergency braking (AEB) technology in all new vehicles.  The tech, which can already be found in a variety of vehicles alongside other automated driver assist …

[Headley_Grange]

RTFM!

I didn't even realize my car had it until it saved my front bumper when someone did an emergency stop in front of me for no reason that I could see. Scared the crap out of me, but it did make me read the manual to see what other features the car's got that I might want to enable, disable or set up.

[John Brown (no body)]

Re: RTFM!

Glad it saved you, but seriously? A major "feature" like that and you didn't know about it until it kicked in for the first time? Maybe it's just me that reads manuals BEFORE I get surprised by a new feature :-) I'd expect there to be some sort of indicator on the dash showing it as enabled or disabled, probably using an icon/symbol I've not seen before, which would immediately trigger my curiosity to find out what it means.

[captain veg]

Re: RTFM!

> but seriously? A major "feature" like that and you didn't know about it until it kicked in for the first time?

My brother fairly recently bought a new car not realising for some months that it was a (mild) hybrid.

Mine's got some features that I have never used and never intend to (cruise control, Android Auto), but I do know that they're there.

-A.

[jvf]

Wake up

Forget the manual. Sounds like you were not paying attention. The sad fact is that due to lack of “real” driver’s ed. at least 80% of drivers should actually be passengers. But, that ship has sailed. Driver’s ed is being replaced by this (soon to be AI generated?) crap. One more reason (besides price) to never buy a new car. If I want to hit the brakes, I’ll do it myself.

[alain williams]

Cars kill about the same number as guns

In the USA about 12 per 100,000 but they do not seem able (or willing) to control deaths due to guns - which should be an easier problem.

[Zack Mollusc]

Re: Cars kill about the same number as guns

UK gun deaths are consistantly around fiftieth of the US rate, which seems odd when the yanks get 2 free guns with every box of cornflakes and we ban everything including pepper spray. Anyone know why?

[Graham Dawson]

Re: Cars kill about the same number as guns

UK gun deaths are somewhat higher now, per capita, than when the last major ban was enacted. The fact of the matter is, UK gun crime had always been low and has little correlation to the various gun control measures enacted here. The issue is clearly cultural.

[CowHorseFrog]

Re: Cars kill about the same number as guns

American culture promotes and brainwashes individuals to lie and hype about everything especially themselves.

Just look at Megan a perfect example of a useless person who think they are special for i dont know what exactly and this continues in all aspects of American Culture. THe primary leaders in American industry today by value, are of course platforms that promote bullshit, eg Facebook and Google.

Ask any American and they all think they are a hero and perfect with a gun, they are too lame to realise that also means others could be using a gun against them when they arent looking or ready.

[John Brown (no body)]

Re: Cars kill about the same number as guns

Curiously, Harry and Meghan have completely disappeared from the news in the last week. Clearly it's because they were NEVER important to start with because now we have Philip Schofield dominating the headlines with another non-story. Schofield will not be important next week/month when the next story du jour appears.

Anyway, summer is hear, governments will be going on holiday soon so it's time for "dead donkey" stories to appear.

[katrinab]

Re: Cars kill about the same number as guns

0.24 per 100,000 in the UK, vs 10.89 in the USA.

In Ireland, where gun laws are less strict but the culture is very similar, it is 0.57.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Cars kill about the same number as guns

I think a lot of the US numbers are suicides, not sure if UK et all track that separately or not.

[katrinab]

Re: Cars kill about the same number as guns

Gun suicides in England are about 0.13 per 100,000 population.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Cars kill about the same number as guns

When you compare rates of gun ownership against rates of gun death for Western countries, you get a really strong correlation.

The US has 120.5 guns per 100 people and a gun death rate of 10.89 per 100k population. If you express countries as percentages of these rates you get:

US - 100%, 100%

Canada - 29%, 21%

Finland - 27%, 27%

Austria - 25%, 24%

Switzlerland - 23%, 25%

New Zealand - 22%, 8% ***

Portugal - 18%, 19%

Germany - 16%, 11%

Luxembourg - 16%, 11%

Australia - 12%, 8%

Denmark - 8%, 10%

Spain - 6%, 6%

Ireland - 6%, 5%

UK - 4%, 2%

Romania - 2%, 1%

Poland - 2%, 3%

Both rates are within a few points of each other for most countries, showing the powerful correlation between gun ownership and death. The real outlier in the figures is New Zealand, which should have a higher gun death rate than they do based on rates of ownership.

Switzerland, which many pro gun people hold up as a country with high gun ownership without the associated violence follows the trend. About a quarter the rate of gun ownership and quarter the rate of gun death compared to the US.

All stats are taken from worldpopulationreview.com.

[fredds]

Re: Cars kill about the same number as guns

In Australia, the majority of gun deaths are due to members one criminal family murdering members of a competing criminal family, usually with an unregistered/stolen handgun. Years ago, after a couple of massacres, we decided that nobody needed a machine gun, or even a self loading rifle.

[43300]

Re: Cars kill about the same number as guns

UK gun deaths are mostly members of gangs killing members of other gangs.

[MiguelC]

Re: Cars kill about the same number as guns

You got a downvote - maybe from someone who doesn't like facts and statistics?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Cars kill about the same number as guns

They're statistics that don't account for changes over time. Australia and UK gun deaths were just as low before any bans, when gun ownership was much higher.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Cars kill about the same number as guns

Ignoring that makes people feel happier.

Sadly in the USA the majority of gun homicide is committed with illegal handguns and by members of a minority race. Gun control doesn't work against illegally owned guns or gang members who do not care for laws.

If you're shot with a legal gun it is likely you were in the process of committing a crime.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Cars kill about the same number as guns

Seems to me it's much harder to get hold of a an illegal gun in countries where gun ownership is low.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Cars kill about the same number as guns

Doesn't seem that hard in the UK.

The US really didn't help themselves by sending lots of guns to Mexico that have now reappeared in the hands of criminals.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Cars kill about the same number as guns

Correct. Less legal guns in circulation means less illegal guns in circulation as most illegal guns are stolen guns that were held legally. Having laws requiring secure storage and ammunition held separately also makes it far less likely that guns will be stolen in a home break in.

Having a lower shooting rate also makes criminals less likely to actually use a firearm they may have, as the police will put massive effort into finding them. Where you have many routine shootings daily, police don't have the resources to investigate them all, so people will use guns with relative impunity.

It also makes interactions with police far less risky. If a police officer in a country like the UK or Australia pulls a motorist over, it is very unlikely that the person will be armed. In the US, police will probably assume the person is armed, making them far more likely to react badly leading to so many unarmed people being shot for no reason.

[John Brown (no body)]

Re: Cars kill about the same number as guns

"If you're shot with a legal gun it is likely you were in the process of committing a crime."

Maybe, but I'll just leave this here;

https://www.advisory.com/daily-briefing/2018/12/21/child-death

"For the study, researchers sorted through CDC and World Health Organization data on 20,360 deaths of children and adolescents in the United States in 2016.

The researchers found that motor vehicle crashes were the leading cause of child deaths in the United States, comprising about 20% of all deaths among children in 2016. The chief reason for the crashes was cell phone use by drivers and pedestrians, the researchers found.

Firearms were the second leading cause of deaths among children and adolescents in 2016"

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Cars kill about the same number as guns

You need to look into the stats behind the headlines.

https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/data-download/alarming-rise-youth-gun-deaths-breaks-differently-race-rcna79916

"Among African American children, the rate of gun deaths per 100,000 people was 11.8. That was more than five times the figure for other racial and ethnic groups. For white children and Hispanics, the figure was 2.3 per 100,000, and for Asian children, it was even lower, at 0.9. "

"For Black youths, the numbers were driven, heavily, by homicides. Among young African Americans, more than 8 in 10 gun deaths were homicides, while fewer than 10% were suicides. "

This is primarily driven by black kids being killed in gang shootings, either by direct involvement or as collateral damage, by other black men/kids. Similar to the shootings and stabbings on London. Primarily one group is involved.

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: Cars kill about the same number as guns

>If you're shot with a legal gun it is likely you were in the process of committing a crime.

Or were a child who knocked on a neighbors door to ask for your ball back

Or opened the wrong car door in a supermarket parking lot

Or were a delivery driver who pulled into the wrong address

Or were a person or unfortunate albedo walking through a suburb with an armed security guard

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Cars kill about the same number as guns

Or were shot dead by your dog.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/man-shot-dead-after-dog-steps-hunting-rifles/story?id=96688192

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Cars kill about the same number as guns

Many of the worst mass shootings were carried out with legally held weapons.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Cars kill about the same number as guns

No they were not.

In the 15 years up to 1996 when the laws changed after the Port Arthur Massacre, there were 15 mass shootings where 4 or more victims died. So average of one a year, killing 116 & wounding 90.

In the 15 years after the laws changed there were zero mass shootings. There have been two mass (4+ dead victims) shootings since. One family murder suicide and one spree shooting in my home city of Darwin. So average now of one every ~14 years. Big difference.

It is estimated that there are more guns in private hands now than before the laws changed. However, rapid fire high capacity weapons are heavily restricted, shooters have to be trained and licensed and weapons must be stored securely, unloaded and separate from ammunition. Sensible gun laws that work.

Most shootings in Australia are gang related violence. Since there are so few shootings, the police can put huge resources into investigating them, which makes criminal less likely to use weapons as they know there is a high likelihood of being caught.

What we don't have is routine massacres, armed holdups, toddlers shooting themselves or their friends, or people being shot for knocking on the wrong door.

Schools don't need metal detectors, armed security and kids doing active shooter drills. I also don't ever recall anyone being shot dead by a dog here either.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/man-shot-dead-after-dog-steps-hunting-rifles/story?id=96688192

[CrackedNoggin]

Re: Cars kill about the same number as guns

I'm generally in favor of gun control, combined with crime control. However, I am disappointed that distracted driving, which kills about 3K while injuring 100K per year, receives so little attention while all it takes is awareness and willingness to concentrate on driving. I see people all the time driving while looking down. Never seen a protest about, it's almost never in the news.

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: Cars kill about the same number as guns

Guns are their only defence against the dangerous Kinder Surprise

[CowHorseFrog]

Re: Cars kill about the same number as guns

Need a gun is a self admission that America is full of murdering arseholes and the average American doesnt trust the average American.

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: Cars kill about the same number as guns

>Need a gun is a self admission that America is full of murdering arseholes and the average American doesnt trust the average American.

Shit I've just realised I need a gun.

In fact I probably need something a bit bigger, are there still all those bureaucratic hurdles to owning nukes for personal use ?

[David Hicklin]

Re: Cars kill about the same number as guns

> people all the time driving while looking down

They are glued on the speedometer as the message in the UK has been "speed, speed, speed, speed" for a long time now.

[43300]

Re: Cars kill about the same number as guns

Indeed - the two main roads I travel on most often normally have a camera van lurking somewhere every day, especially this time of year with light evenings. Of course they always choose the places where they are most likely to get people (i.e. sections which aren't dangerous but where they can remain out of sight until the last minute). Rarely see them on the sections which are actually dangerous! Many drivers who use these roads a lot are therefore very careful about not straying over the limit.

Saw them last year on a road right up in the hills - presumably fancied a skive that day, as the limit is 60 there but anyone who tried to go at close to that would rapidly end up in a field!

[Anonymous Coward]

And if the car behind you hasn't got ABS ?

#jujstsaying

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: And if the car behind you hasn't got ABS? (sucks to be their insurance company)

Rear collisions tend to do less damage than frontals, and they shouldn't normally be following that close, but that will be faint solace if you get hit by a dump truck. So there are certainly a few angles there.

Phantom Braking claims will of course skyrocket.

[Henry Wertz 1]

Re: And if the car behind you hasn't got ABS ?

Just an FYI, ABS doesn't magically shorten stopping distances* -- it prevents brake lockup. If you brake hard but don't just stand on the brakes so they lock up, compared to standing on them and letting the ABS do it, the braking distance is going to be very close to the same. This place I worked at as a student studied the effect of ABS on accident rates, they found it was a big positive but the one negative was (at least here in the US) was people assuming ABS made their cars stop shorter so they'd tailgate that much closer and brake that much later on the assumption that their random economy car (or even pickup truck!) would have sportscar-like braking in emergency stops due to ABS.

On gravel roads with loose gravel, I found some ABS-equipped vehicles (like 1990s-early 2000s so the car makers might all have this fixed now), that the loose gravel would "confuse" the system (since the gravel probably makes the wheel speeds a bit uneven even in regular conditions) and it'd let up on the brakes far more than it should, like you'd stomp on the brakes and get probably double the stopping distance you would if you braked hard but without full lockup. Probably fixed on newer systems though.

*A good ABS system can shorten it up a bit if you're on like patchy ice, where some wheels are on ice and some dry pavement, something like that, since it can individually vary the wheels while obviously your foot on the brake pedal can't.

[KittenHuffer]

Re: And if the car behind you hasn't got ABS ?

I used to think that. But I've recently been reeducated by my nephew (a mechanic) that modern ABS is so good that it will outperform 99.9% of Joe public.

Modern systems adjust so quickly, and to each wheel independently, that humans just can't keep up.

[MJI]

Re: And if the car behind you hasn't got ABS ?

Those white lines coming up to a roundabout. I had one car which was upset by them and the ABS would constantly trigger, basically no brakes, may as well been ice.

Fix was coast up to the end then slam on hard AFTER all of the white lines just before the roundabout.

Was only that one place which had the issue.

[Mr Dogshit]

Re: And if the car behind you hasn't got ABS ?

ABS has bugger all to do with it, you dodo.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: And if the car behind you hasn't got ABS ?

Seems team thick were on shift last night.

"ABS" in the context of the article and the PPs comment refers to "Automatic Braking System" not "Antilock Braking System".

I don't mind El Reg going all US on us (see what I did there) but I would hate to see the average commentard IQ slip.

[Ian Mason]

Unintended consequences

There's an unintended consequence to these automatic collision avoidance mechanisms and that's when someone cuts too close in front of a vehicle that's equipped with it, it can cause the vehicle to brake and then get hit from behind.

I haven't yet personally seen any collisions caused like this, but I have seen some near misses with following cars nearly hitting a vehicle that had been provoked into automatic braking by some idiot cutting in "hard and fast".

[Phil O'Sophical]

Re: Unintended consequences

Doesn't even need a cut-in. I was on the M6 last week, saw a sudden sea of brake lights ahead. I braked firmly, enough to come to a safe stop behind the car in front, without getting rear-ended.

As soon as I began easing off on the pedal, the asinine AEB system decided that I wasn't slowing enough and slammed the brakes on again, leaving me unable to do anything but look in the rear mirror and hope that the following driver was awake. Fortunately he was.

These systems might help drivers who are asleep at the wheel, but they are far from perfect. I'd like to turn mine off permanently, but that's not allowed. All I can do it switch them off each time I start the car.

No wonder there's such a demand for older used cars without these "aids".

[captain veg]

Re: Unintended consequences

"All I can do it switch them off each time I start the car."

Well, you could buy a different car.

Or, since this is a tech website, strategically deploy sidecutters.

-A.

[zuckzuckgo]

Re: Unintended consequences

Seems like a AEB design issue.

My car disengages automatic braking as soon as I manually apply the brakes or the accelerator. The automatic system does not reengage until I tap the accelerator or press a button on the steering wheel. The downside is when the AEB is aggressively braking but I decide to take over by applying the brakes, but to to lightly, it feels like the car surges forward. I have learned that when I want to take over braking I must do so aggressively.

[swm]

Re: Unintended consequences

Our car has automatic braking when on cruise control. It is not very smooth and sometimes when the car ahead changes out of my lane the system brakes anyway. If the car ahead slows down (smoothly) the system gets right behind the car and brakes suddenly.

Taking the car out of cruise control disables this feature.

It also beeps when backing up and a pedestrian walks around or a car sneaks up. This is good.

Mandating AEB might be good but the technology isn't quite there yet.

[Sudosu]

Re: Unintended consequences

I had an early 2000's FWD Volvo with STS (I think that is what it was) that was great for correcting lateral slips.

The problem was, I always had to remember to disable it for left hand turns at intersections as it would essentially drop the car to a walking pace if there was any slight wheel spin due to gravel, dampness or ice.

It almost made me say hi to a tractor trailer the first time it happened crossing four lanes of oncoming traffic when I would normally have had plenty of time to clear the intersection.

[molletts]

Re: Unintended consequences

I had a hire car a few years ago that had a similar problem. One of the roads I was using at the time to get to work is quite bendy but also quite busy. Every time I approached a bend as something was coming around it the other way, the car would detect another vehicle directly ahead and slam on the brakes, much to my annoyance (and that of the person who was following me in a BMW, who retaliated after the third incident by overtaking me then slamming on his own brakes as he cut in). If I'd had the car for more than a day, I'd have worked out how to disable the auto-brake system.

[nijam]

Re: Unintended consequences

> ... much to my annoyance (and that of the person who was following me in a BMW ...

If they were following you in a BMW, they'd already be enraged by you being in front of them.

[M.V. Lipvig]

Re: Unintended consequences

What's really bad is when the systems speak to each other. I was driving a moving truck that had GPS connected to the autobrake, and in a construction zone with narrowed lanes the GPS noticed me drifting into an exit lane on a 65MPH road with a 25mph exit speed. I was in rush hour traffic at the time, and the GPS decided I was taking the exit when I wasn't and the truck slammed on the brakes hard. I was almost rear ended by a line of impatient traffic as a result. As far as I'm concerned those systems should be banned as a road hazard.

[ArrZarr]

Re: Unintended consequences

While I wouldn't go that far, I'm firmly of the opinion that since I'll be dealing with any crashes that could be considered "my fault", then they had damn well better be my fault rather than my car deciding it knows better than me how to deal with the situation I'm in.

[CrackedNoggin]

Didn't a German newspaper just get hold of some Tesla internal documents revealing many complaints about phantom braking, including resulting accidents?

How will the quality be when they are being put into low price models?

[zuckzuckgo]

They removed the radar system for some recent vehicles and are relying on AI and camera images, which I suspect is the issue. They are bringing back radar in newer products. I would not trust a camera only system.

[Anonymous Coward]

How will the quality be when they are being put into low price models?

You seem to be confusing price with quality. Tesla's are simply overpriced, they don't have a better quality. I'd even argue their quality is often worse than other cars.

[M.V. Lipvig]

It is. Pick your poison.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=consumer+reports+tesla&t=brave&ia=web

[Nifty]

Next up, automatic contraception.

[Detective Emil]

This is not the solution

The US' road fatalities figures are pretty appalling compared to other "first world" nations: substitute the nation of you choice into this Wolfram Alpha query to check. This measure addresses maybe 5% of the total. Fixing the problem will require a lot more money and education (which also costs money).

[DS999]

Re: This is not the solution

The US uses trucks to transport goods far more than most countries that use rail, which is probably responsible for a good chunk of that. The rest probably due to US consumers love of heavy vehicles like SUVs and pickups versus the far smaller cars common in much of the rest of the world. Heavy vehicles carry more momentum so they take longer to stop and apply more force to whatever they hit.

I don't think "education" is going to magically build millions of miles of additional rail lines or make people here stop buying SUVs.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: This is not the solution

> I don't think "education" is going to magically ...

Well I don't think intentional ignorance is going to make the situation any better either, although that appears to be the policy in some American states. I expect Florida kids can only be taught about how safe cars are for fear of upsetting them with to much reality.

[veti]

Re: This is not the solution

Per figures given in the article, this measure will at best save about 0.7% of lives currently lost on roads.

Compare that (360 per year) with seatbelts (estimated to save about 14,000 lives per year), or airbags (about 1000 per year).

This is just stealth protectionism. US carmakers are all fitting these things? - great, let's make 'em mandatory, maybe the Japs and Koreans will take a few years to catch up.

[PRR]

Re: This is not the solution

> This is just stealth protectionism. US carmakers are all fitting these things? - great, let's make 'em mandatory, maybe the Japs and Koreans will take a few years to catch up.

Toyota (still a Japanese brand?) puts a very good radar avoidance system in nearly all their cars. I don't think it is "US led" or "protectionism".

> Have a Honda product with this feature and I'm trying to figure out how to disable it.

My 2023 RAV4 will sometimes slow for a bicycle. On narrow Maine roads, that's actually the correct thing to do. Maybe with enough complaints about dang bicyclists, Maine will move to full-width roadways PLUS a proper bicycle lane.

FWIW, Toyota's lane-finder suite (several apps) is totally useless here. Roads too narrow, and lane-paint bitten by frost and snowplows so even I have to guess. It is time to cut grooves and lay guide-wires.

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: This is not the solution

>Maybe with enough complaints about dang bicyclists, Maine will move to full-width roadways PLUS a proper bicycle lane.

Isn't Maine in the United States ?

They will simply ban bicycles

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: This is not the solution

> They will simply ban bicycles

But my new bicycle design has front and rear guns integrated into the frame for personal defence (think spitfire on 2 wheels), so the constitution prevents them from banning it. :{)

[steelpillow]

The law of unintended consequences

And in other news, Joe Soap was mugged in identical fashion for the seventh time in three months when a kid jumped out in front of his car yet again, the AEB system braked it to a halt and the kid's mates smashed a window in with a brick.

[Malcolm Weir]

Re: The law of unintended consequences

One wonders why this technique isn't in widespread use today. One suspects 93.7% of drivers who expressed an opinion would stop regardless of AEB...

[steelpillow]

Re: The law of unintended consequences

"Where's Ricky?"

"She jumped in front of the 6.3%"

"OK, let's give that one a miss, then. There's only three of us left now."

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: The law of unintended consequences

But the 6.3% will just sue for compensation - or their families will, at least in the US. Now if the car could automatically shoot them rather then hit them you could probably use a stand-your-ground defense.

[Timo]

Does this mean they'll make it work first?

Have a Honda product with this feature and I'm trying to figure out how to disable it. Anytime we're following a car in front making a right turn the car will jam on the brakes. It's so predictable and so undesired.

I can't wait for every car to have this capability.

[bertkaye]

ripple effect in a dynamic system

One side effect of this will be enormous issues with waves in jammed freeways. Los Angeles' Santa Monica freeway will become even more of a parking lot at times.

[hayzoos]

About as effective as TPMS

Where I live, the annual safety inspection requires all safety systems to be functional. Nearly any warning light on the dash should prevent the vehicle from passing inspection. The more complex the automotive system becomes, the more possibilities of failures.

[Fred Daggy]

Re: About as effective as TPMS

Ever thought about just disabling the warning light (snipping wires, if that is even possible)? A good permanent marker should do the job.

[hayzoos]

Re: About as effective as TPMS

Excellent idea, but the warning lights have been designed to overcome that mole whack. Observe when you turn the key to the "run" position, the lights will illuminate for a set duration then go out. Then as you start the vehicle they may illuminate again briefly and go out. This is describing "normal" operation when all monitored systems are within operating parameters. If any system is outside of "normal" operating parameters the lights will not go out.

I feel like a combination of Mr. Spock and Mr. Scott in describing this behavior.

Of course you can do as I and ignore (sort of) the light and it will eventually burn out (incandescent) and the inspection mechanic never notices the light does not illuminate initially as it should. I do know the cause and it involves a discontinued part only used on the 1996 model year F-150 inline 6 cylinder, AKA sort of rare even for scrapyard parts.

[CowHorseFrog]

DO you know what would save even more road accident lives ?

Not driving for everything and anything.

this is just another example how one bad idea has a multitiude of bad consequences, where the simple solution to avoid saves a problems both personal and environmental.

[Henry Wertz 1]

"Didn't a German newspaper just get hold of some Tesla internal documents revealing many complaints about phantom braking, including resulting accidents?"

Don't know but a friend of mine has a Tesla, they said like one day they're going down the road it's fine.. the next day, going down the same road, the thing had gotten an update overnight and every time they approached this bridge it would slam on the brakes, it somehow decided the bridge 20 feet or whatever overhead was lying on the road. I guess whatever was doing this there was an option to turn it off on there so they did but sheesh.

Anyway, I don't have automatic braking on my car but it sounds like a good idea. I do wonder why they decided on 37MPH for the pedestrian feature though, many roads in towns here have a 25MPH speed limit and I really can't imagine why they couldn't have a pedestrian detection system kick on at even 10 or 15MPH.

[Anonymous Coward]

The 37mph to 62mph range is suspiciously round in metric: 60-100km/h

I suspect they've found that the best systems come out of Germany (or some other metric country, but I would guess Germany) so have written standards to match.

[John Brown (no body)]

Yeah, those numbers looked strange to me too as I read the article, so I also converted them to kp/h to check, and yeah, absolutely they are metric to imperial conversion. I bet that sticks in their craw :-)

What's weird is that it's all software, so it would be a doddle to set the limits to 35mph and 65mph without going for "odd" limits.

[SonofRojBlake]

"virtually all light vehicles of 10,000 pounds or under"

The cheapest Dacia Sandero costs over twelve thousand pounds. It would be more sensible to mandate it's use in all cars weighing less than, say, 4,000kg.

[Spanners]

Re: "virtually all light vehicles of 10,000 pounds or under"

10,000 pounds is a fine weight that would be familiar to Henry VIII. That is about the weight of a very small jousting horse for learners.

If he had stuck to one that size, he might not have had his nasty "accident". He would then not have killed so many of his people and perhaps even wives!

If we get down to more reasonably sized cars, say under 3,500kg, who knows what horrid history we might avoid!

[nijam]

Re: "virtually all light vehicles of 10,000 pounds or under"

> That is about the weight of a very small jousting horse for learners.

No, 10,000lb is the weight of about 5 draught horses. You might want such a heavy horse for carrying a heavily-armoured knight into battle, but not for jousting, I suspect.

[Sudosu]

Re: "virtually all light vehicles of 10,000 pounds or under"

Did they joust with overweight elephants?

[SonofRojBlake]

Re: "virtually all light vehicles of 10,000 pounds or under"

I might add - if you accept the outdated weight unit, ten thousand pounds is over four times the kerb weight of a Dacia Sandero. Only in America would this seem "light".

[Anonymous Coward]

No, no, no and no

No lane detection steering

No auto braking

No radar, lidar or crapdar

No buzzers, bleeps and bongs!

Old cars rock.

[TimMaher]

Re: Old cars rock.

They do indeed. Which is one of their many dangers.

See “Unsafe at any speed”, for examples.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Old cars rock.

I think Nader is no great fan of “FSD”

https://nader.org/2022/08/10/statement-by-ralph-nader-on-tesla-full-self-driving-fsd-technology/

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Old cars rock.

"See “Unsafe at any speed”, for examples."

Which was all bullshit, pure marketing to get fame and money. It's *only* an example of how you made yourself famous by bullshitting people.

[Binraider]

The implementation in my Scooby-doo is reasonable. I've never had the automatic brake actually trigger, though if it detects something that it considers a threat and you don't take action it will apparently do so.

On lane change, it detects and warns about moving over lines if you don't signal, but won't intervene under that circumstance. The whole system can be disabled entirely by one physical button push too (as opposed to it being hidden behind 5 rows of menus on the touchscreen).

The radars on the car are handy for e.g. reversing round blind bends and give both audible and visual warnings - useful when I cannot guarantee being in a place where I can get someone to observe.

Some other implementations I've seen actively interfere with steering on lane change without a signal; which I personally find wholly inappropriate. There are many circumstances where moving over a line without a signal is correct (either, complete lack of presence of other traffic, or bad road markings on roadworks).

There probably needs to be some co-ordination between those responsible for maintaining the roads in order to set appropriate rulesets for driver aids rather than the (near) free-for-all on how-to execute that there is at the moment.

[Gomez Adams]

No arguments against it? What about when driving happily along on with nothing in front of you and the sensor is triggered by a phantom fly or speck of dust and you get tail-ended by an HGV?

This happens regularly on our work vans - happily just the first bit and in this case all the seosor does is flash up a red warning light with a beep. I would *not* want it touching the brakes!

[Headley_Grange]

Have you tried cleaning the vans?

[M.V. Lipvig]

Yes, because bugs only ever hit cars when they're parked, and never on the highway.

[EricB123]

Say What?

Just one more thing to take the driver out of responsibility for their actions and add still more to the price of a new car.

Most cars are already not affordable to many Americans. Wasn't it Henry Ford who thought an average American family SHOULD be able to afford a basic car? Now the supercomputers on wheels are a luxury for many.

[nijam]

My car has AEB and associated sensors - and it is sometimes triggered whilst stationary in an (also stationary) line of traffic.

Does this give me confidence? Not so much.

Still, at least it means even more fun for the kids playing chicken on a nearby dual carriageway.

[John Brown (no body)]

That sounds like a really poor implementation since it's not only pretty useless at such low speeds, it really should not even be active in those conditions. Are you prepared to name and shame at least the manufacturer if not the specific model?

[Anonymous Coward]

"That sounds like a really poor implementation"

Not "poor" but "cheap". Good luck on getting anything else, ever. Actually working software in car? When was the last time you saw that?

[Big_Boomer]

Yet another waste of time and money

They NEVER address the core problem which is almost always inattention. If you are driving a car then driving should get 100% of your attention. If you can't deal with that take the ****ing bus or call a taxi. I keep hearing peoples excuses where they had to discipline the kid acting up in the back seat, or they just HAD to take that important business call, or even once someone said that they didn't think that checking their social media whilst driving was dangerous. 1st offence = 12 month ban. 2nd offence = lifetime ban. That might wake some of these morons up. Roll on having only self-driving cars on our roads, not that it'll happen in my lifetime.

[John Brown (no body)]

Re: Yet another waste of time and money

"Roll on having only self-driving cars on our roads, not that it'll happen in my lifetime."

I was with you right up to that last bit. I still gave you an upvote, since I agreed with you far more than I disagreed with :-)

[M.V. Lipvig]

Re: Yet another waste of time and money

You forgot,, make it a primary offense, not secondary. Let the plod pull you over if they see you fiddling with your phone.

[tiggity]

Re: Yet another waste of time and money

@M.V. Lipvig

In the UK you can be pulled over for holding phone / tablet when driving

[captain veg]

sometimes triggered whilst stationary

Reminds me of one occasion when I visited my bank branch and decided to cycle there. Wasn't completely sure about the route, so I had the sat-nav program running on my phone.

While queueing inside the bank, a voice loudly demanded from inside my back pack "OBSERVE THE SPEED LIMIT!".

-A.

[John Brown (no body)]

Re: sometimes triggered whilst stationary

LOL! Clearly it worked out where you were from the GPS and decided the queue was moving far too fast for a bank :-)

[captain veg]

Re: sometimes triggered whilst stationary

Good point.

The first time I heard that instruction was (inevitably) while driving.

OBSERVE THE SPEED LIMIT!

My initial reaction was "why, what's it going to do?"

-A.

[Anonymous Coward]

"r. And the proposal would require pedestrian AEB, including requiring that AEB recognize and avoid pedestrians at night," said NHTSA chief counsel Ann Carlson. "

She's a moron who decides to murder car drivers in order to "save" imaginary pedestrians.

Every one of these automated braking systems are already doing unnecessary emergency stops on highways and literally causing more crashes they allegedly prevent. This person here knows it,. but doesn't care as one pedestrian saved is more important than ten drivers killed.

As usual, drivers' life isn't worth anything.