Laws to make cars smaller and drive slower will do 100x more to make crashes less deadly than fancy electronic gizmos.<p>Not to mention all these electronics make the car much more expensive and harder to repair.
I posted this same comment on the other thread, but it's worth noting here too.<p>Headline: Most Small SUVs Are Bad at Automatic Emergency Braking, IIHS Says<p><a href="https://www.thedrive.com/news/most-small-suvs-are-bad-at-automatic-emergency-braking-iihs-says" rel="nofollow">https://www.thedrive.com/news/most-small-suvs-are-bad-at-aut...</a><p>"The SUVs that participated in the test were the Subaru Forester, Honda CR-V, Toyota RAV4, Ford Escape, Mazda CX-5, Hyundai Tucson, Jeep Compass, Mitsubishi Outlander, Chevy Equinox, and the Volkswagen Taos. Of those ten SUVs only one (!) received the IIHS' "Good" rating—the Subaru Forester. After that, only two were rated as "Acceptable," the Honda CR-V and Toyota RAV4. The Ford, Hyundai, and Jeep were rated "Marginal," while the rest were sent home with "Poor" ratings and their heads hanging low."
My 2021 Honda Accord was so aggressive. I had times where I literally had my foot to the floor to GO but the car said no, when there was nothing in front of me. Luckily my miata isn't as aggressive.
Learning "how to drive like everyone is trying to smash into you" has worked for me.<p>Basically you always keep enough distance between you and the car in front of you to be able to avoid rear ending them, keep an eye on what's behind you, and resist the urge to road rage. For example, when someone cuts you off you put distance between you, "You're still moving forward".<p>I was offered that advice by a California Hwy Patrolmen when I was just 16 years old shortly after I got my driver's license. It's worked for me. I'm 65 now and I've never been in an accident or crashed a car, and I've never gotten a ticket. So it's really worked pretty well for me.<p>I'm personally not ready to want a car that drives for me, but I would like others to have one that would put on the brakes when they get too close behind me.
Article says,<p>> Unsurprisingly, automakers are unsure whether this is possible<p>I'm in the same camp. I don't think technology will become mature enough in the stated timeline to make sure this is actually possible without creating a huge ton of false positive triggers (phantom braking).
FYI: they mean "up to 62mph"<p>Anyway, placing the dividing line at 62mph is interesting because many areas (in the US) fluctuate between 55mph and 65mph speed limits. What was once a seemingly arbitrary difference in speed will now carry more implications.
The problem is it requires a computer, and no one but no one will sell you a car where you get to control the computer, and without a net connection back to servers you also don't get to control or opt out of or even audit.
Recent Tesla AEB (Auto-Emergency-Braking) is pretty good, the Euro NCAP tests show:
<a href="https://twitter.com/AIDRIVR/status/1782155551948058755" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/AIDRIVR/status/1782155551948058755</a><p>I wish NHTSA published videos like the Euro NCAP.
This should work out well </s><p>I applaud the idea, but I'm quite skeptical that it will actually work, given the nature of most drivers.<p><i>> At speeds of up to 62 mph, these next-generation automatic emergency braking systems must avoid a collision with a vehicle stopped on the roadway ahead. Sounds great, but it’s worth keeping in mind that braking distance is proportional to the square of the initial speed.</i><p>It won't work, unless it also forces you to keep an appropriate braking distance from the vehicle ahead. That distance would be substantially larger, if it was raining or snowing.<p>Not sure if anyone that came up with this idea has actually had to drive on a highway around a major metropolitan area, but that ain't happening.