Autonomous braking system to be required

Page 1 of 5  
In Europe, so says Popular Science.
"Cars in Europe may soon become very much more robotic whether drivers want them to or not. New rules coming down from the European Commission will require all commercial vehicles to be fitted with autonomous emergency braking (AEB) technology by November 2013, and passenger vehicles could soon follow suit."
http://www.popsci.com/cars/article/2012-08/europe-requires-autonomous-braking-technology-all-commercial-vehicles-sold-next-year
You can probably expect the U.S. to mimic Europe if the "It's for the children" politicians are in power.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 08/02/2012 05:57 PM, HeyBub wrote:

http://www.popsci.com/cars/article/2012-08/europe-requires-autonomous-braking-technology-all-commercial-vehicles-sold-next-year
Considering that most "drivers" are busy texting, sexting, blogging, twittering, chatting, updating Fecesbook or applying makeup, maybe this is actually a good idea.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Most? Citation needed for that story, mommy.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 08/02/2012 08:54 PM, snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

Pull your head out of your ass and look around...you'll see what I mean.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I repeat, most? You're going to need some proof for such a wild assertion.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Screw the "assertion". The real issue is, what else will that AEB system be doing. You can bet yer ass it will also be an Event Data Recorder (EDR) that will be recording yer driving history, like how fast you were going when you hit the brakes, etc. And who do you think is behind this? The insurance companies, so they can use yer own car's event data against you should you be in an accident in which they might have to settle. In short, yer own car will be ratting you out to the insurance companies. Most new cars already include one or more EDRs in yer car, specially if you have ABS brakes. You think it's not gonna get worse? This AEB thing is jes another pretense to get even more sophisticated EDR mechanisms into yer car. Believe that!
nb
--
"Do you recognize me? No!
...cuz I don't work here"
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
notbob wrote:

I think you put the cart before the horse.
Auto makers put the EDR's in cars for their own purposes, not because such was legislated and certainly not at the behest of the insurance companies. It was the trial/plaintiff legal community that glommed on to the EDR data.
As for EDR's being a tool of the insurance companies, I suspect that an EDR helps an insurance company about as often as it hurts. In a collision, for example, a State Farm policy holder may be at fault when he hits an Allstate policy holder. In the next accident, the blame is reversed. In the big picture, the contents of an EDR is proabably a wash as far as insurance goes.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

deductible from both parties. If they can pin some responsibility on each, they get the deductible.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

You've got a good point. Still, I think the expense of subpoenaing the device, removing it from the wrecked car, having it read and decoded by an expert, and so on, would be more expensive than a $500 or $1000 deductable...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

both; "prove us wrong". I had that happen in a parking lot a few years ago. Both of us were at fault, which was fine with me. My truck bumper hit her fender (both backing up). No damage at all to my bumper.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

So your driving is so poor you don't want it recorded...got it.
Harry K
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 08/02/2012 09:38 PM, snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

LOL, you're an amusing dumbass!
If you hear rain on your roof and you look out the window and see that it is in fact raining, do you still need to go to www.weather.gov for proof?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

You changed your nym again, DumbShit? It would be good if you changed your panties as often.

When it's a lie, sure, I want proof. ...but liars like lies, don't you, DumbShit.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Statistically, the average motorist is involved in a crash every 10 years...

So I got that goin' for me... which is nice.

Always the other guy's fault, huh?
It didn't seem that much of a rant to me. I think your panties are all wadded up over nothing more than an omitted ", etc."... maybe...

I slid the goal post to "not fully engaged in the driving task" yesterday.
This includes those platooning at 77 in a 55 maintaining 1 car length between themselves while intermittently changing lanes each time the bumper of the forward vehicle in the next lane inches ahead of the bumper to the front... until the inexplicable! braking wave brings them all to screeching halts.
I would never argue those motorists aren't mostly "fully engaged", but what they are engaged in does not very much resemble "the driving task". -----
- gpsman
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Exactly my point. The "average motorist isn't crashing".

Most people don't consider the lack of logic anything to brag about. In your case...

More of your famous "logic".

More of your famous "logic". Try "most". If the moron had said "too many", or even "many", I'd agree. As it was written it's just another "big brother come save me" rant. <spit>

I noticed the attempted 100 mile goal post shift. So what? Driving doesn't, indeed can't, require 100% concentration. You'd never get to work.

More strawmen. Set 'em up and knock 'em down. Nice technique.

So you admit that your argument is irrelevant.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

"Not crashing" ≠ "driving".

"Your logic isn't" isn't even a complete sentence. In context you could only have meant to imply my logic isn't crashing.

Nice dodge.

Reading doesn't appear to be your strong suit. Here is the comment in its entirety:
"Considering that most "drivers" are busy texting, sexting, blogging, twittering, chatting, updating Fecesbook or applying makeup, maybe this is actually a good idea." http://groups.google.com/group/alt.home.repair/msg/b4f39550fc9e2fdf?hl=en&dmode=source

So your rebuttal is irrelevant, a straw man.

How would concentrating on driving prevent arrival at a destination... ?

There are no straw men in that paragraph. A straw man is an fallacious argument based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.

I admit you seem to understand little of what you read.
If the gross incompetence of ***the vast majority*** of motorists escapes your detection you haven't even noticed how infrequently they can be bothered to signal their turns and lane changes. -----
- gpsman
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It's hard for me to understand how as written it's another "big brother come save me rant". But if instead of "most" the poster had said "too many", then it drastically changes it into something else.
The statement as written is an exageration, but I got their point and I don't think substituting "too many" changes the essential point. I see an unaceptable number of people driving distracted on a regular basis. And those are just the ones I see. It also gets down at some point to your definition of distracted.
Here's some data from an actual poll:
"Whether it's talking on cellphones, fiddling with food and drink or doing some last-minute grooming, a large majority of adult drivers in the United States admit to being dangerously distracted while behind the wheel, a new poll shows.
Bob Riha, Jr., USA TODAY Most adults who drive on a regular basis admitted to having at some point engaged in distracting behaviors, be it eating/drinking, talking on a non-hands-free cellphone, texting or applying makeup. EnlargeClose Bob Riha, Jr., USA TODAY Most adults who drive on a regular basis admitted to having at some point engaged in distracting behaviors, be it eating/drinking, talking on a non-hands-free cellphone, texting or applying makeup.
Sponsored LinksAccording to the new Harris Interactive/HealthDay poll, most adults who drive on a regular basis admitted to having at some point engaged in distracting behaviors, be it eating/drinking (86 percent), talking on a non-hands-free cellphone (59 percent), setting their GPS device (41 percent), texting (37 percent) or applying makeup (14 percent)."
Now that is some actual data. So, whether you take the poster's exageration or some actual data, it's still pretty bad and I don't think materially changes a thing.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

It isn't exaggeration.

"Not fully engaged in the driving task".
The subject of driver distraction is almost entirely misunderstood because it is invariably limited to intentional distractions when simply being distracted by one's internal monologue is also a major factor in driver inattention.
Motorists learn themselves the wrong things. Operating a motor vehicle w/o full attention rarely results in a crash. The obviously wrong conclusion is it doesn't take full attention. The problem is, when the moment arrives that it does too many motorists are way behind; the proverbial "100 kt. pilots in 200 kt. airplanes".
I wonder how the average motorist would feel if their pilot ignored FAA rules and operated the aircraft in accordance with what they think their experience learned them were their limits...

It's data, but mostly related to what people are willing to admit. Only 86% were willing to admit they ate/drank and I think we can reasonably assume the real number would be much closer to 100%.

Driving is widely considered "safe". The evidence is overwhelming and includes pedestrians waiting to cross the street with their toes (and/ or occupied stroller) sticking out over the curb.
I don't want to count the number of people I know whose lives were ended, shortened or made miserable and/or have been rendered unable to work by easily predictable and preventable vehicle crashes, but it's a dozen, at least, not including myself. -----
- gpsman
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well then I'm gonna have to join krw on this one. What specific evidence do you have that the majority of drivers are busy texting, sexting, blogging, twittering, chatting, updating Fecesbook or applying makeup? Sure every driver has been distracted by something at some point. But that isn't what that statement says. It says that if we went out there right now we'd find that 51%+ of those driving are engaged in those activities. I'll even allow the leeway of just being distracted period. And I say if the majority of drivers on the road this minute were distracted there would be wrecks all over the place.
So, link please?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 08/05/2012 02:35 PM, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

No link required... Drive around for a while, hopefully you'll run in to one. ;-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.