back to article Self-STOPPING cars are A Good Thing, say motor safety bods

Having your car automatically slam on the brakes to avoid a low-speed accident leads to a 38 per cent reduction in real-world rear-end crashes, says a road safety organisation. European road safety research organisation Euro NCAP (New Car Assessment Programme) carried out an analysis of data from various countries. The full …

  1. Nigel 11

    I hope this is programmed right ...

    I hope that the car is programmed to slacken off the emergency braking when that's appropriate and to come to a halt no more than a few feet behind the obstruction. Otherwise I forsee some massive (albeit low-speed) pile-ups on our Motorways, when one of those density waves in busy traffic triggers some vehicle's autonomous emergency braking.

    1. MrXavia

      Re: I hope this is programmed right ...

      I have something like this, but its not designed to stop the car totally, just reduce the impact speed when a collision is guaranteed...

      What IS great is the forward alert, if the car predicts a collision, it will alert me in plenty of time, and I can brake myself, it has saved me from a potential accident when I was in heavy traffic and the guy in front braked while I was checking mirrors/blind spots for a gap to merge into the left lane...

      So all in, if done right, I.E. an alert plus emergency braking, then it will reduce accidents...

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: I hope this is programmed right ...

        Fingers crossed the programmers have done their error trapping correctly.

        Sure you were checking your mirrors and not the cute blond in the other car ?

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: I hope this is programmed right ...

      I think the clue is in the word "emergency". If you're driving properly then they should never engage but if they do then you're probably in the sort of situation where stopping ASAP is the only sane action.

      1. Chloe Cresswell Silver badge

        Re: I hope this is programmed right ...

        Friend of mine has a volvo with emergancy stopping action.

        It does it on clear roads with no traffic if the sun is "in the wrong place", and emergancy braking with no reason is not a fault or a cause for worry, according to volvo.

        They did offer him 60% of the price of his 3 months old car if he wanted to get rid of it..

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: I hope this is programmed right ...

          For a few months I had a near-new Skoda Citigo with emergency brake assist. It also had the direct sequential auto gearbox. Dealer ex-demo at a great price, not features I would have chosen to pay for.

          Something wasn't right somewhere though, because from time to time, usually (but not always) involving obstacles which weren't really problems (such as a high hedge on a bend, or a parked car in a place it shouldn't be on a road you're turning right into), it would do an unsolicited change into neutral, fixable only be a reboot (engine off and on again).

          I'd known the dealers for years, they did their best, but it seemed basically undiagnosable from their point of view (there didn't seem to be much of a log in the control systems).

          Fixed eventually by replacing control unit(s).

          Other than that, a lovely little car.

          But complexity isn't necessarily a virtue. Just ask Toyota about uncommanded acceleration (and/or read the court case reports in EE Times).

          1. JamesPond

            Re: I hope this is programmed right ...

            "For a few months I had a near-new Skoda Citigo "

            Commiserations.

    3. Lee D Silver badge

      Re: I hope this is programmed right ...

      You stopping too close to the car in-front just involves him (through no fault of his own) when someone slams into the back of you and shunts you onto him,

      There's really no way to win here, except give yourself adequate distance to stop at all times.

      I have this ingrained after several near-misses where I stopped perfectly in time myself and then I look in the rear-view and SEE the guy behind notice too late. Only myself rolling/jumping forward into the distance between me and the guy stopped in front prevented the paperwork from being brought out. And I'm sure if I'd done that, and he'd STILL hit me and shoved me into the car in front, it would be a paperwork nightmare to prove that I'd actually stopped safely and was then trying to prevent an entirely different accident happening.

      There's a reason that I bought myself in-car cameras, even on a really old, junky car.

      On motorways, especially, you don't want to be within inches of the guy in front no matter what happens. Because that turns a rear-end shunt buffered by your boot and the length of your car into a double-sandwich situation with the engine block coming back towards your legs, and the glass towards your face. Stop, and warn and watch the guy behind, and be prepared for anything. In that situation, you can't even jump into the hard shoulder out of his way because he might have the same idea to stop himself hitting you. Stop early, move forward if you have room and it might stop a fender-bender. Otherwise, you just have to let him hit you and hope you don't pile into the car in front..

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: I hope this is programmed right ...

        "There's really no way to win here, except give yourself adequate distance to stop at all times."

        You don't do that in London - its actually more dangerous than tailgating because some scumbag WILL pull suddenly into your safety gap.

      2. Alan Brown Silver badge

        Re: I hope this is programmed right ...

        "Stop, and warn and watch the guy behind, and be prepared for anything"

        In situations like that I bang the hazards on. If you do it whilst looking in the mirror you'll usually see the noses of oncoming cars dip sharply as soon as they start flashing.

    4. Fink-Nottle

      Re: I hope this is programmed right ...

      > I hope that the car is programmed to slacken off the emergency braking when that's appropriate and to come to a halt no more than a few feet behind the obstruction.

      The current Mercedes system does just that - it calculates the space available and applies brakes accordingly. It also causes the brake light to flash in order to alert following vehicles.

      1. Otto is a bear.

        Re: I hope this is programmed right ... and works in reverse

        Mrs. Bear has a habit, when in a hurry, of taking the car out of gear before it has come to rest, so in reverse this turns the reversing sensors off. BANG! at least twice, and she ain't alone in this habit.

        I'd hope that in these auto stop vehicles the sensors work, regardless of the position of the gear leaver.

        BTW: This is true for both manual and automatic vehicles as you can slap either into neutral whilst they are moving in either direction.

        Me, I wait until the vehicle has stopped before I attempt to power off in the other direction, and my clutch loves me for that.

    5. Rol

      Re: I hope this is programmed right ...

      I can see that when this feature becomes ubiquitous, drivers who used to wait to join moving traffic will just pull out and rely on the auto braking of the cars they are cutting up.

      It wouldn't be too difficult for the cars system to upload those kinds of inconsiderate and dangerous actions to the Highways Agency for subsequent prosecution and thus allow the police to get back to looking after the general public, not acting as road monitors.

      1. launcap Silver badge
        Stop

        Re: I hope this is programmed right ...

        > rely on the auto braking of the cars they are cutting up

        Morris Minors don't have auto-braking.. (well - sometimes they have auto-fail-to-starting but that's a different issue)

        1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge
          Thumb Up

          Re: I hope this is programmed right ...

          "sometimes they have auto-fail-to-starting but that's a different issue"

          That's what the starter handle is for. Especially give it a turn or two on a frosty morning ;-)

    6. Stevie

      Re: I hope this is programmed right ...

      I'm looking forward to the newspaper stories of how yobos cause traffic snarls by tossing traffic cones in front of vehicles at rush hour in a coordinated manner.

    7. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

      Re: I hope this is programmed right ...

      Hell yeah! Computers only do as they're told and what they are told has to cover every situation or they fail, hopefully safe. My SatNav today attempted to guide me off the dual carriageway today, up the slip road, around the roundabout and back down the other slip road back onto the dual carriageway. The road was busy and very, very slow and the SatNav was "aware" of the traffic conditions from it's little radio traffic thingy. It's set to choose the quickest route and the algorithm "decided" that exit and re-entry was a few seconds quicker than just staying in the queue.

  2. Dave Horn

    Speed limit reduction

    And this is probably the best reason for reducing the speed limit to 20 mph in urban areas, since autonomous braking is really only effective up to about 30 kph, at which point it's a mitigation tool at best.

    Volvo's camera system will track, spot, and react faster than us in and it's about time such systems are mandatory fit. Sure, you won't prevent or eliminate all accidents, and no doubt the feel-the-road lobby will complain about increased risks from people not paying attention, but the evidence is now there.

    My experience with autonomous braking is that it reacts very late, and leaves the smallest gap possible between it and the object it's avoiding. If someone goes into the back of you... well, that's their fault.

    I bought a Volvo after the salesman challenged me to run him over in the dealership car park, a task I attempted with gusto but ultimately failed at.

    (I would, if running the country, obviously balance out the 20 mph in built up areas with a new 40 mph limit on the quieter main roads).

    1. Jimmy2Cows Silver badge

      Reactions

      My experience with autonomous braking is that it reacts very late, and leaves the smallest gap possible between it and the object it's avoiding. If someone goes into the back of you... well, that's their fault.

      Personally (YMMV) I'd prefer something more akin to adaptive cruise control that maintains a speed-dependent minimum distance, and therefore brakes earlier and less aggressively, that a system that jams the anchors on at the last possible millisecond.

      Ideally both systems would be present and interact, with the car choosing the most appropriate action depending on the immediate situation.

      I do fear too many people will pay even less attention than they do now, just because the car will sort it out. For some (an ever increasing number) that bar is already too damn low.

      There are other risks too. Without this being on every car, drivers with the system may get used to its presence and then (for example) drive a hire car without such a system. It's entirely plausible accident rates for those specific circumstances will go up dramatically. People get into habits, especially if they make life easier. One of those habits will be less attentive driving if the car is taking up the slack. Human nature and it's unavoidable.

      no doubt the feel-the-road lobby will complain about increased risks from people not paying attention, but the evidence is now there.

      One study is a start, but it's not conclusive until backed up by others, contradicted, review, replicated. I would like to see more studies before reaching such a conclusion, including studies examining the possible negative effects of such driver aids.

      Feels to me like if one needs a driver aid to be more attentive, one probably shouldn't be driving.

      (I'm saying "one" rather than "you" to avoid singling Dave out here).

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Reactions

        Personally I'd like it to brake as hard as possible, as late as possible. That way drivers won't become inclined to rely on it to maintain a safe distance, because they won't enjoy having their face imprinted with the maker's logo on the steering wheel every few miles. If this is a last-ditch protection, like ESP, then it's a good thing. If it encourages the driver to disengage brain and stop driving the vehicle properly then it's a bad thing. So no adaptive auto braking for me, thanks.

      2. Rol

        Re: Reactions

        Yep, After borrowing my bosses car I managed to slam it into the back of a police car in a 50mph zone (the police car had PARKED just beyond the brow of an hill in the middle of the road) Needless to say both vehicles were written off.

        Pre ABS I would normally have pumped the brakes to prevent the wheels from locking, but this top of the line car hadn't got ABS and that realisation came too late in the slow motion, life passing moment.

    2. Nolveys

      Re: Speed limit reduction

      I bought a Volvo after the salesman challenged me to run him over in the dealership car park, a task I attempted with gusto but ultimately failed at.

      That's why you swerve around him, keeping him on the driver's side and open the car door at just the right time.

      1. Lee D Silver badge

        Re: Speed limit reduction

        Was that after the very-public double-Volvo crash tests of exactly this feature where they totalled all the cars involved in front of the world's press?

        Brave guy.

        1. Test Man

          Re: Speed limit reduction

          "Was that after the very-public double-Volvo crash tests of exactly this feature where they totalled all the cars involved in front of the world's press?

          Brave guy."

          Wasn't that Merc cars? And wasn't that down to the fact that the tech wasn't actually ready at the time so they relied on a hidden wooden board on the ground to indicate to the driver to brake but the suspension cushioned the wooden board "ramp" far too well so the driver didn't realise he had to brake and he plowed into the car in front?

          1. Lee D Silver badge

            Re: Speed limit reduction

            Nope. http://metro.co.uk/2010/09/28/volvo-crash-test-fails-in-front-of-journalists-and-spectators-526087/

            Re: "reasonable" speed limits - there is no concept of reasonable in someone that can't stick to 30 when the sign says 30.

            However, taking your examples, what makes you think it's safer to speed past a school in the dark than in the light? I've been to school-hosted events that last way past 3am, especially for hiring out sports halls for wedding receptions, or even just plain old end-of-term party. And, yes, there's kids in tow. And, no, the speed limit is not always for safety - I wouldn't want some moron doing 60mph past the house late at night and then having to suffer the noise of every morning run too.

            You can't justify reasonable to be higher when 30mph suffices to get you where you want to go, doesn't cause a ton of nuisance, and still isn't an accident-free speed and has been like that for decades.

            If you want to "go faster", campaign - as was done and ignored a few years ago - for HIGHER speed limits. There are countries with much higher and (pseudo-)unlimited speed limits. Campaign for that, and everyone knows what's happening, what speed to expect of nearby traffic, etc. But that's not what you want to do - you want to go faster than the posted limit and not get caught or then be let-off.

            The arguments I see are about robots policing and no real officers and blah, blah, blah. Nobody ever says "Let's just make the 30 limit 40 in this particular area". Why not? Because they know that the statistics will show the accidents rising proportionally.

            Think of it another way: "You" might be able to "control your vehicle" at those speeds (I may disagree, but whatever). But what about the pillocks. Because it says 50mph, they'll do 55 anyway. Because it says "reasonable", they'll spend thousands of pounds of tax money going to court to argue that 70mph on a blind corner while they are racing their mate was "reasonable". It doesn't work.

            Pick a number, stick to it. If the number's not enough, ask to have the number raised. NOBODY ever does. If you're just going to ignore the number whatever it is, please hope you don't hit my car (or myself or friends) even gently.

            Don't say "I just want to be able to flout the rules". Tell people the speed you want on that particular road. If more people agree than disagree, surely it stands a good chance of happening and improving traffic flow? And with modern traffic systems, there's no reason a school road can't be 20 in the day and 40 at night or similar - we have the technology.

            But you'll find a) Nobody asks. b) You don't care enough to ask, c) if it's raised to 40 you'll want to do 50 "just because", d) accidents will get more frequent and more serious, e) coppers and the locals won't take kindly to you zooming through their neighbourhoods at 3am at any speed anyway.

            1. Alan Brown Silver badge

              Re: Speed limit reduction

              WRT reasonable speed limits:

              a pedestrian hit at 20mph has a 98% chance of survival (as long as they don't hit head on a curb)

              a pedestrian hit at 30mph has a 90% chance of survival

              a pedestrian hit at 35mph has a 50% chance of survival

              a pedestrian hit at 40mph has a 10% chance of survival

              What's a reasonable speed limit for several tons of steel in a residential setting and why should residents of an area be forced to kowtow to those passing through?

      2. Inventor of the Marmite Laser Silver badge

        Re: Speed limit reduction

        Obviously a graduate from the BOFH school of how to deal with Volvo salesmen

      3. DropBear
        Trollface

        Re: Speed limit reduction

        "I bought a Volvo after the salesman challenged me to run him over in the dealership car park, a task I attempted with gusto but ultimately failed at."

        Wait - are you saying all those bonnet-mounted targeting aids on Mercedes cars are about to become useless...?!?

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Speed limit reduction

      "I bought a Volvo after the salesman challenged me to run him over in the dealership car park, a task I attempted with gusto but ultimately failed at."

      I'd chase him about in reverse, just for the fun... I'm good at reversing me :-)

    4. Pen-y-gors

      Inappropriate speed limits

      We need a mechanism or at least a legal wording that allows for appropriate speed limits, rather than fixed ones. 20mph may well be an appropriate limit approaching a well-lighted school at 8.50am on a wednesday morning in term time. It is not appropriate at the same place at 3am on a Sunday morning, when it is dry and there is no traffic. Similarly 70 or even 80mph may well be appropriate on a straight, rural main road, with no traffic, on a clear, dry, warm day. 30mph may be appropriate in the same place during snow, poor visibility at dusk and with traffic. In both cases the present silly system says 60mph is okay.

      We should do away with fixed limits, and instead have guidelines - and variable penalties for unreasonably or dangerously going outside those guidelines. Of course, that would require human beings to enforce things, rather than robot cameras, and would make it much harder to generate vast sums from inappropriate speeding fines.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Inappropriate speed limits

        "We should do away with fixed limits, and instead have guidelines - and variable penalties for unreasonably or dangerously going outside those guidelines"

        There used to be in the UK - it was called police discretion. However there are no longer any police around just private "Go Safe" firms with laser speed gun and fixed Gatsos with no discretion.

        The person who hits a child who runs out in front of them while they were travelling at 30mph but didn't react because he was on 9 points and staring avidly at his speedo might avoid prosecution as the child was "at fault", however the driver who was doing 34 and avoided the child because he was paying full attention to the road and surroundings but got nabbed by the speed van a few minutes ago will get prosecuted.

        1. Alan Brown Silver badge

          Re: Inappropriate speed limits

          "There used to be in the UK - it was called police discretion."

          Long before that, there was a period where there were no speed limits at all in the UK, after the blanket 20mph limit was abolished in the 1920s

          It was rapidly increasing rates of crashes and deaths which resulted in a 30mph urban speed limit (a number pretty much plucked out of the air) being quickly reimposed.

      2. Fonant

        Re: Inappropriate speed limits

        We should do away with fixed limits, and instead have guidelines

        That's effectively what we have now, the only fixed limits are where there are speed cameras. Everywhere else people will quite happily use the posted limit as a guideline, with five to ten miles per hour treated as acceptable "leeway" above the limit.

        There are three problems with the "letting the driver decide their own safe speed" argument:

        1) Although I think I am a safe driver, other drivers are clearly not safe, and are often not even paying attention to where they're going.

        2) No-one can yet read the future, so we never know when we might be about to crash into something. Crashes are almost always completely unexpected by the driver, who thought that they perfectly were safe up until that unexpected thing happened.

        3) Other people can no longer make useful assumptions about how fast any approaching car is travelling. In a 30mph limit you can be pretty sure that nothing will be coming at more than 40mph, if you're trying to pull out of a side road, or trying to cross the road on foot. With discretionary speeds, you might find an "expert driver" paying strong attention and doing a "safe" 50mph suddenly appears. So it's much more difficult to pull out of side roads, and more difficult for people to cross roads on foot.

        Speed limits are most needed on roads which appear to be safe to drive at faster speeds, but are in fact quite risky at faster speeds. Speed limits are least needed where the risks are obvious, such as outside a school at school run time, or in a supermarket carpark during shopping hours.

        I was involved in a crash where another driver pulled out of a side road straight into the nearside corner of my car. No way I could have avoided that, but because there was a 30mph limit (due to lots of junctions and people being around) no-one was seriously hurt. Even at 30mph it was a nasty crash, though, and I wouldn't want to try it again.

        Speed limits also help to improve traffic throughput, by reducing the feedback-loop lag all human drivers introduce. For motorways, maximum capacity is reached with a top speed of around 40mph, hence the variable limits on the M25 go down to that speed.

        In towns, slower speeds mean easier transition between more main roads and side roads, where turning into a side road always needs to be done quite slowly, and turning out is often done from a standing start. More haste, less speed, works well for motor traffic. Average trip speeds can actually go up with a lower overall maximum speed, where you have to negotiate lots of junctions.

        20mph limits on residential streets, and in major towns, are very sensible. Which is why they're common in Europe (30kmh) and increasingly common in the UK too.

        1. Alan Brown Silver badge

          Re: Inappropriate speed limits

          "Speed limits are most needed on roads which appear to be safe to drive at faster speeds, but are in fact quite risky at faster speeds. "

          Adjusting the roadside furniture is actually far more effective at regulating speed than signs.

          In particular in the UK:

          Pedestrian fences speed up average traffic by 5-10mph

          Yellow lines speed up cars by 2-4mph

          Pelican crossings speed up average traffic by 10mph (The green light.....)

          painting cycle lanes or flush medians speeds up traffic by 5mph.

          ANY kind of segregation of road and pedestrians results in drivers being less prepared for pedestrians stepping off the curb.

          One example: Pedestrian injury rates are 25% higher around crossings because pedestrians will start crossing before they reach the stripes, which many drivers simply don't expect.

          You get the idea.

          Drivers slow down if there are perceived hazards - and fencing hazards off in an area where there have already been problems paradoxically reduces safety because the traffic speed increase and reduction of driver attention outweigh any reduction in pedesrian incursion (slightly fewer crashes but significantly greater injuries)

          1. JamesPond

            Re: Inappropriate speed limits

            "Yellow lines speed up cars by 2-4mph"

            Is that down the side of the car or along the bonnet/roof/boot (hood/roof/trunk)?

      3. Alan Brown Silver badge

        Re: Inappropriate speed limits

        "20mph may well be an appropriate limit approaching a well-lighted school at 8.50am on a wednesday morning in term time. It is not appropriate at the same place at 3am on a Sunday morning, when it is dry and there is no traffic."

        If that school is in a residential area (most are) then the residents tend to get pissed off with arseholes whizzing by at 50mph at 3am - road noise is a significant factor in modern speed limits and there are enough foxes/deer/cats or whatever else around that it's still not overly safe to increase speed by more than a few mph.

      4. Dr. Mouse

        Re: Inappropriate speed limits

        We should do away with fixed limits

        In an ideal world, I agree with you. We should not need speed limits, because people should be taught how to judge a safe speed for themselves and road signs should be clear and be placed only where needed. Also, as you said, we would need more cops on the road to judge whether someone was driving too fast.

        If a motorway is completely empty, there is very little extra risk driving at 90+ rather than 70. A driver should then be able judge that he can drive that fast, but then slow down when he sees another vehicle. He should be able to judge that this particular road is fine to drive at 40-50 on at night, but during the day it would be appropriate to stick to 25-30.

        Unfortunately we do not live in an ideal world. Many people do not know how to judge a safe speed to drive at. They drive too fast, leave too little space between them and the car in front of them, and all manner of unsafe things. Speed limits are already just a limit. If I find a road where driving at the 40 limit is unsafe (due to traffic, weather, road conditions, the big line of school children walking along the path balancing on the kerb like a tight-rope) I will slow down. Many do not.

        Relying on your own judgement is fine, but relying on the judgement of all drivers, many of whom don't even know what the national speed limit is or how to maintain a steady speed on a straight, clear road, is a folly. The only way to make it workable would be to raise the standard of driving skills of everyone, which I do not see happening...

    5. launcap Silver badge

      Re: Speed limit reduction

      > camera system will track, spot, and react faster than us in and it's about time

      > such systems are mandatory fit

      Which is all very well but fails to take into account that the vast majority of cars round you won't have that feature. So you might save yourself from hitting the car in front but your (probably) unexpected braking might mean the person behind you in their older-spec car just goes into the back of you..

      (Firm believer in the 2-second rule. Which makes me very much a minority on the roads, especially as you get closer to main conurbations)

    6. Alan Brown Silver badge

      Re: Speed limit reduction

      " autonomous braking is really only effective up to about 30 kph, at which point it's a mitigation tool at best."

      My Adaptive cruise control works pretty well in autobraking from speeds of 20mph and up.

      There's no reason why autobraking can't run at high speeds. It just requires the car looking further ahead.

  3. DrXym

    This is the sort of thing vehicles should strive for. Humans are vastly more capable of solving real world problems than a computer, but a computer has the reaction and response times to halt a vehicle safely to avoid a collision. Therefore, the ideal would be to let the human drive the car, but add sensors to ensure the vehicle can be brought safely to a halt.

    A danger of this of course is that if the car saves the driver's bacon they might be inclined to drive more recklessly in the first place (the whole airbag / seatbelt thing all over). So it probably needs to come with other measures to ensure the vehicle is being driven in a safe manner to prevent that - automatic distance keeping, lane tracking etc.

    1. JamesPond
      Pint

      "So it probably needs to come with other measures to ensure the vehicle is being driven in a safe manner"

      Isn't that the job of the police? Unfortunately in the UK there now seems to be fewer and fewer traffic police on the roads whose job it was to both deter and to catch drivers driving in an unsafe / dangerous manner. instead they have been substituted for 'road safety officers' with no powers of arrest, fixed speed cameras or mobile camera vans who's only role is to catch those going over the speed limit.

      I've installed a dash-cam in my car and not a day goes by without filming idiots on the road with no situational awareness, undertaking, changing lanes with no indication, or hell bent on pushing you out of the way on the road because their journey is obviously more important than anyone else's.

      Rant over, time for that pint.

      1. DrXym

        "Isn't that the job of the police?"

        Police are few and far between and I didn't say illegally. I said recklessly. The driver might take more risks and not even be conscious of it. They might tailgate more, they might speed more, they might engage in actions that their car will bail them out of in an emergency.

        But if the car has the ability to react in an emergency it could also do other things - measure road conditions, traffic conditions, measure the gap between the car and those in front and behind, the lane markings, the speed limit and other things that impact on safety. It doesn't necessarily have to do anything more than give out an annoying bong if the driver is doing something unsafe and the chances are the driver would adapt their driving.

      2. Mark 85

        @JamesPond

        I guess the UK hasn't figured out what local police can do as they have in the US. Over here, they're revenue generators. Write out traffic tickets and the city/county/whatever makes money. The towns the utilize this philosophy usually have a round the clock police presence on the roads.

        1. JamesPond

          Re: @JamesPond

          @Mark 85

          In the UK the money from speeding fines now goes directly to the government treasury, which then distributes most of the £150m+ each year to the local council authorities, rather than directly back to the police. Which is why there are less traffic police on our roads now as it doesn't pay them anything and councils pay for mobile camera vans to catch us instead.

  4. MJI Silver badge

    Self Stopping

    Last time I had a car with this a new crank sensor fixed it

  5. Hans Neeson-Bumpsadese Silver badge

    Transitional period

    During the transitional period where some cars have this and other don't I would expect an increase in rear-end shunts...the car in front of me has a sensor which can detect an obstruction, think faster than a human and apply the brakes. I'm following at the Highway Code distance which assumes both drivers have similar thinking time/distance, and I could fail to stop quickly enough.

    1. kdh0009

      Highway Code Distance

      No worries, if you're at the recommended highway code distance there is no chance of you rear ending anyone.

      Since those limits were conceived when brakes were somewhat less good..

      1. JamesPond

        Re: Highway Code Distance

        Having just been on a 'speed awareness course' they no longer use stopping distances, but rather suggest you keep a 2 second distance from the vehicle in front.

        1. launcap Silver badge

          Re: Highway Code Distance

          > suggest you keep a 2 second distance from the vehicle in front.

          That's been the case for motorbike training for a least 25 years. "Only a fool breaks the two-second rule".

    2. The Mole

      Re: Transitional period

      If you are following the highway code distance then you will be able to stop in time regardless of how quickly the car in front breaks. The highway code distance is assuming something has fallen off the back of a lorry and so isn't moving, the stopping distance should be the distance required to recognise, break and come to a stop before hitting it. Most drivers don't follow the highway code however and assume that a shorter gap is sufficient, relying on the fact the car in front is unlikely to come to a sudden halt and so the total distance you have to stop over is longer than the initial gap..

      1. Snivelling Wretch
        Joke

        Break vs. brake

        "...you will be able to stop in time regardless of how quickly the car in front breaks."

        ...and if that's my Alfa, it often breaks suddenly and without warning.

        1. MJI Silver badge

          Re: Break vs. brake

          Or my last car when the crank sensor failed, followed by the alternator (yes a coincidence)

        2. launcap Silver badge

          Re: Break vs. brake

          > ...and if that's my Alfa, it often breaks suddenly and without warning

          That's part of the spec! Just like it is on most Italian motorbikes (electronics designed for nice sunny Italian weather really, really doesn't like northern European island weather..)

      2. sandman

        Re: Transitional period

        Try leaving the highway code mandated gap (particularly on the motorway) and someone will inevitably slot into it - often forcing you to brake - grrrr.

    3. Nick L
      Coat

      Re: Transitional period

      Happens now: people slam on the brakes unexpectedly because they see a cat/dog/claim for whiplash... What does concern me about automated systems is that we are basically abdicating responsibility to those automated systems and expecting them to get on with it. Parking a car without reversing sensors when you're used to 'em might lead to a small dent... Not checking your blind spot because you have a blind spot warning system might miss a bike, or the system might have failed completely... Forgetting to brake because you thought adaptive cruise control was on and should have slowed the car down, or the emergency brake system should have kicked in, is possibly fatal.

      My wife's new car has adaptive cruise control and emergency braking. The disclaimers are quite clear, assuming you ever look at the manual... It still feels eerie to use adaptive cruise control and have the car slow down then speed up for you without you taking any action. It works, but I'll be damned if I'm trusting my and my family's life to something that might malfunction due to dirt on the sensor.

      (From the manual: The efficacy of the radar sensor can be impaired by contamination such as slush or snow, or by environmental conditions such as heavy rain or spray. And "The system is not a substitute for the full concentration of the driver. ")

      How long before the most dangerous component of a car - the nut behind the wheel - has zero control? Maybe not this decade, but definitely in my lifetime.

      Coat, please, I'm leaving. Mine's the one with the 15 year old Elise's keys in the pocket. The one with no traction control, ABS, or power steering... The one that it feels like you're actually driving.

      1. 's water music

        Re: Transitional period

        ...the most dangerous component of a car - the nut behind the wheel...

        I tried removing the nut behind the steering wheel of my first car when somebody told me that. The safety outcome was not positive.

        No need for my coat, I'm here all week.

      2. Lee D Silver badge

        Re: Transitional period

        I see them as totally different things.

        Traction control, ABS and power steering all have one thing in common.

        Outright failure of the system cannot result in a more dangerous situation. If ABS fails, you still brake as hard as the brakes allow - but if you're don't realise that, you MAY skid more but no more than if the ABS just wasn't there at all.

        (Note: Failures of the BRAKING system itself are another matter and very dangerous because failure of it DOES result in a more dangerous situation! Lovely having all this fancy tech but if you put water in the brake fluid, it's still useless)

        Traction control - if that fails, again, you're back to "normal" driving.

        Power steering - if that fails, you're back to heavy steering of old but still maintain control.

        A short period of confusion, maybe, but if your ABS fails and you need to brake, you just hold the brake down and things still happen.

        I disagree, therefore, with avoidance or removal of such facilities.

        However, emergency braking? If that fails, that could perform unwanted emergency braking SUDDENLY (in spray, snow, slush, etc. as pointed out by other posters here). If cruise control fails, it could accelerate or ignore the driver's input entirely - it has control of the throttle.

        It's all a question of if a tech is fail-bad or fail-good. ABS failures result in lights, warnings, and NO ABS but still hydraulic braking under the control of the driver (on or off). Emergency braking failures, however, result in pile-ups, accidents and deaths no matter whether the driver wants to brake or not. They may be one-in-a-million but I object - as a driver - to losing control over something that I'm ultimately responsible for.

        Lane-veering warnings - no conceivable failure of the system can result in a situation worse than not having it. It might false-warn, or not-warn, but that's it. It shouldn't control the car, or snatch the steering wheel to put it back in lane (because, again, that's overriding the driver and dangerous).

        As I've had to tell several bosses: If you want me to have the responsibility, I have to have the power to control all this stuff. If you don't want me to be able to control it, I don't want the responsibility for it. If something fails, it needs to fallback to the driver and normal systems. It should ENHANCE the car, not control it. If emergency braking fails - by definition, it has control of braking that overrides the driver. One sensor malfunction or bit of water in a cable, and it's going to push you into the hardest kind of emergency stop. Hell, even at speed potentially because the speed it sees is just a sensor again. Just because it says it can't operate over a certain speed doesn't mean it couldn't operate the brakes at any speed in the case of a malfunction.

        And an unexpected emergency brake of your own vehicle at 70mph going round a motorway bend in four-lanes of flowing traffic is fatal, no matter the distance in front or behind you.

        1. MJI Silver badge

          Re: Transitional period

          I had all three with my current car. Hard work steering it and I went throught the fluid like mad. (oil seal fixed it)

          Then ABS and TC failed.

          New hub and a reset fixed it.

          power steering out was worse!

        2. Jan 0 Silver badge

          Re: Transitional period

          > "Power steering - if that fails, you're back to heavy steering of old but still maintain control."

          Sorry, no. Most old cars had light steering. Lorries gave you big biceps, but cars could be steered with a light touch. For example, when the power steering on my Panda fails, it makes my Series II Landrover feel agile.

  6. abedarts

    A step in the right direction

    For my money if its going to brake for me it may as well drive for me and then I wouldn't get into situations that required emergency stops.

    Around 1800 people died - that's 5 every day - and 22,000 were seriously injured on UK roads last year; we all know these figures but choose to look the other way. so anything that can help reduce all this grief, misery and pain must be a good thing.

    1. Blane Bramble
      Joke

      Re: A step in the right direction

      but choose to look the other way.

      I think I see the cause of all those road deaths!

      Why, yes, that is my coat, how did you know?

    2. LucreLout

      Re: A step in the right direction

      Around 1800 people died - that's 5 every day - and 22,000 were seriously injured on UK roads last year; we all know these figures but choose to look the other way. so anything that can help reduce all this grief, misery and pain must be a good thing.

      Anything? A quick google for stats shows a breakdown by age [1] revealing that we could more than halve road deaths overnight by banning anyone under 25 from the roads. I appreciate for the young, that will be a heavy price to pay, but you did say "anything that can help".

      So lets move on to address more common causes. Heart disease. If we could reduce this number by just 2.6% we could save more lives than are lost on the roads. (heart disease kills about 70,000 a year [2]) Anyone familiar with my posting history would know I dislike taxes and nanny state behaviours, however, increasing VAT on fatty or salty foods to 100% would almost certainly reduce deaths by more than 2.6% as some people would prioritise spending elsewhere and others simply wouldn't be able to afford to continue.

      More could be done with regard to the roads - a harder test, graduated licencing, retesting etc, but eventually you have to accept that with rapid transit comes deaths from rapid transit, and focus resources where they can have the most impact, which realistically isn't road safety.

      [1] http://www.racfoundation.org/assets/rac_foundation/content/downloadables/road%20accident%20casualty%20comparisons%20-%20box%20-%20110511.pdf Figure 6 and figure 8

      [2] http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/vsob1/mortality-statistics--deaths-registered-in-england-and-wales--series-dr-/2012/sty-causes-of-death.html

      1. D@v3

        Re: A step in the right direction

        "halve road deaths overnight by banning anyone under 25 from the roads"

        the problem with this is, how many under 25 accidents are because the driver is young and reckless, and how many are because the driver is new and inexperienced?

        Changing the age limit might help with the first, but is unlikely to affect the second.

        1. NotWorkAdmin

          Re: A step in the right direction

          Speed limits and other road safety measures are simply trade off's between the number of deaths/injuries we're prepared to accept vs the economic impact of harsher restrictions. Uncomfortable an idea as that is, if we made everyone drive at 1mph we'd have next to zero deaths, but not be able to afford any hospitals.

          For me, autonomous vehicle is the ONLY viable way to get what we all really want.

      2. Mark 85

        @LucreLout Re: A step in the right direction

        A quick google for stats shows a breakdown by age [1] revealing that we could more than halve road deaths overnight by banning anyone under 25 from the roads.

        That may sound good, but all that will do is move the high incidence of road deaths to a slightly older age group. Why? Because at the younger age we are learning to drive and are usually still learning other necessary life lessons. At age 25, a bit of maturity sets in and along with all the experience that's been building...result: we get some safer drivers. Take away the experience and pfffffft the next higher age group gets more carnage.

    3. John Robson Silver badge

      Re: A step in the right direction

      Not necessarily "anything", but graduated licensing and a police/court system that is will to push people back down that scale is important, as are short duration licenses... it's a very long time since anyone assessed my driving - I'm sure I have plenty of bad habits, but they are now habits...

      The biggest problem with road safety is that, in the UK at least, we seem to think that roads are for cars. Is it any wonder Ford Prefect chose that name, or tried to shake hands with a mini?

      Roads are for people, some of whom are using a big metal box, many are not. Which ones bring enough energy to any collision to kill - in 99.99+% of cases it's not the pedestrian, the cyclist or the horse...

      Anything we can do to reduce the external toll of inattentive drivers, by actions focussed on them - primarily education that the roads are for people, but also driving aids (although I'd still be interested to know the result of drivers seat seatbelts/airbags being banned - not an experiment which can be ethically researched though) is a good thing.

      Anything we try to do by restricting those put at danger is just a distraction from the real problem.

    4. Intractable Potsherd

      Re: A step in the right direction - road deaths

      My personal opinion is the road deaths/injuries figure in the UK are within the bounds of acceptability, especially while we accept significantly more deaths from other causes. However, has anyone ever tried to calculate the deaths/injuries that would occur *without* cars? My gut feeling is that any reasonable estimate would show that things would be HUGELY worse.

  7. jake Silver badge

    The mind boggles.

    If you can't actually drive ... don't try. All you are going to do is kill someone.

    1. WilliamBurke
      Pint

      Re: The mind boggles.

      Since accidents happen all the time, there are obviously loads of people who can't drive. At least not good enough in that particular situation. And while some people enjoy driving (I do, but not always), for many it's a means of getting from A to B that's more convenient than public transport and cheaper than a taxi.

      The self-driving car is inevitable. It's not quite there yet, but it will end up like playing chess: technology can improve, while humans have reached the pinnacle of their abilities. Sooner or later we are beaten and left behind. 50 years from now, a human-driven car will be seen like a car driven by a drunk. It's obviously risky. At some point this risk was considered acceptable, but it isn't anymore. If we go the whole hog at once (as Google tries), or give more and more autonomy to "normal" cars will be decided by the markets and the media.

      Pint icon, because then I can drink again...

    2. Vic

      Re: The mind boggles.

      If you can't actually drive ... don't try.

      You've not heard of the Dunning–Kruger effect, then?

      Vic.

  8. David M

    Risk of false positives

    My relatively-new VW doesn't brake, but does display an alert if it thinks I'm about to crash into the vehicle in front. This has gone off a few times, and all were false positives. In one case, the road curved to the left and there was a right-turn sliproad on the bend with a car waiting - the system thought I was heading straight for this car so the alert went off, but actually the road curved off to the left of it. Had the brakes slammed on at this point, I would have been in danger of being hit from behind. I hope that the sensors get a lot more intelligent before automatic braking becomes commonplace.

    1. 's water music

      Re: Risk of false positives

      One imagines that the calibration of a system designed to alert a meat sack so that they can take corrective action would be quite different to one designed to deploy the anchors automatically

  9. Tony W

    Recognise the limits of people

    If you're driving, the law requires you to pay continuous attention to the road and traffic. But it's been well known for many years that human beings are incapable of closely monitoring, e.g. a radar screen, for long periods, without occasional distraction that will cause them to miss something they should have noticed. How many drivers can put their hands up and say they have never noticed something later than they should have done? Sensible people drive in such a way as to make allowance for occasional distractions, but even this doesn't totally deal with the problem. So self driving cars are the best way to deal with a vehicle's interaction with other moving traffic.

  10. phil 27

    So you have a big chain of self braking cars, the front one sees a obstacle and has to throw the anchors on hard. The one behind react to the vehicle in front braking hard etc.

    Imagine if they all had their own braking charecteristics, stopping distance, tyre widths, brake disc size etc. In fact a whole slew of variables which affect braking distances.

    Will we see who has the best results for minimum braking distance by noting the ones without front end damage in this scenario?

  11. James 51

    Will it work for motorcycles and bicycles? Horses too (and the occasional cow or sheep).

    1. Inventor of the Marmite Laser Silver badge

      Never seen a cow with automatic brakes. Dunno how that would work.

      1. Rick Brasche

        they stop all the time by themselves. Do you not see many cows not in constant motion until a "driver" stops them? Reality isn't a cowboy movie and a stampede, Earl.

    2. 's water music

      Will it work for ... Horses

      Is your horse CAN bus compatible?

      1. Lee D Silver badge

        Dunno, but my dad always goes on about how many horses he has under the bonnet.

        They must be very small to fit that many in there.

    3. JamesPond

      Will it work for motorcycles and bicycles? Horses too (and the occasional cow or sheep).

      I think you'll find fitting brakes to horses, cows and sheep a tad difficult.

      But yes, mine works for pedestrians, motorcycles and cycles.

      1. Blane Bramble

        You don't need to fit brakes to sheep, they are more than capable of stopping suddenly in the middle of the road.

  12. Amorous Cowherder

    When I went to buy my Honda CRV the salesman said there was an option that would allow control of the accelerator where it would gauge the distance to the car in front and control the cars speed appropriately...he said it was a complete waste of time and money! And he was on a commission for selling it and even he didn't want the grief of dealing with it.

    1. BobRocket
      Joke

      '...car in front and control the cars speed appropriately'

      I would have paid the extra for being able to control the speed of the car in front, mostly to speed them up a bit.

    2. JamesPond
      Meh

      "option that would allow control of the accelerator where it would gauge the distance to the car in front and control the cars speed appropriately."

      Your salesman clearly did not know what he/she was talking about. My Merc has DistronicPlus that does this and its fantastic, especially on motorways, I set whatever max speed I want and the car will then do this speed until there is something slower in front. The speedo then lights up progressively to show I'm approaching something slower, more lights, the nearer it is. If I indicate an pull out to overtake, the car doesn't reduce speed. If I do nothing, the car slows down automatically and keeps a safe braking distance to the car in front. Magic, no need for me to brake or accelerate and very good in rain/fog when its difficult to see the car in front is slowing.

      The only issue I've had is Audi drivers either undertaking and pulling out, or overtaking and pulling in too close in front, which automatically causes the car to slow down, when what I really want to do it tailgate them like they've been doing to me!

      1. Mark 85

        The only issue I've had is Audi drivers either undertaking and pulling out, or overtaking and pulling in too close in front, which automatically causes the car to slow down, when what I really want to do it tailgate them like they've been doing to me!

        What you really want though, is the James Bond automobile machinegun package (rocket launcher is optional). See "Q". He can help.

    3. M.Zaccone

      "When I went to buy my Honda CRV the salesman said there was an option that would allow control of the accelerator where it would gauge the distance to the car in front and control the cars speed appropriately...he said it was a complete waste of time and money! "

      So were you employing the salesman as your chauffeur ? Seriously though, I've got a CRV with exactly that feature and it is brilliant, especially on decent bits of motorway or autoroute. It makes cruise control worth using rather than some annoying buttons on the steering wheel.YMMV

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Will it work for motorcycles and bicycles? Horses too (and the occasional cow or sheep).

    What about deer or those pesky wabbits?

  14. BobRocket

    not the right numbers

    How many low speed accidents cause injuries to people/animals (not things) ?

    I guess not that many as speed restrictions are usually claimed to be for safety reasons.

    I could spend some money on a gizmo to brake the car for me or I could just buy some good insurance to payout when there's an (avoidable) accident, or I could just buy the cheap insurance and pay attention when I'm driving.

    I think I'll save my money to spend on something a bit more useful.

  15. Graham Marsden
    Alert

    How about...

    ... just having a recorded voice that shouts "STOP FUCKING TAILGATING!"

    Too many drivers seem to have no clue about how far back they should be from the vehicle in front to be able to stop safely if it suddenly brakes and, even worse, think that there's no difference between the stopping distance when it's clear and dry and when it's pissing down with rain on a slippery road surface.

    This is the sort of idiocy that causes mass pile-ups.

  16. Kubla Cant

    Semi-self-driving

    I recently acquired a car that has a Limit button on the steering wheel. It's something I would never have expected to use, but it turns out it's quite valuable. Maintaining a speed below 30 requires a slice of attention that can be reallocated to things like looking out for pedestrians and trying to open CD cases. The only oddity is the way the car seems to slow down once the de-restriction sign becomes visible.

    Alongside features like automatic emergency braking and adaptive cruise control, it makes me wonder whether the effort going into self-driving cars would be more usefully applied to devising a hybrid control model, where the car handles control functions that can be automated relatively easily, while the drive continues to handle the difficult stuff like steering and trying to open CD cases.

  17. Alan Sharkey

    One way to reduce accidents and aid concentration is to remove the seatbelt and put a big spike in the middle of the steering wheel. Then watch how carefully everyone drives

    [And, yes it is a joke, in case any idiot takes me seriously]

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      kill switch

      I was actually going to suggest something similar. Mandated on all new cars, and fitted retroactively to all existing cars. On the event of any 'collision incident' driver of car gets, hmm, seriously injured. (yes, that would mean that in the case of someone going in the back of you, would result in both drivers getting injured) Would give Everyone the encouragement to drive safer.

  18. Tezfair

    similiar affect with cruise control

    I have had 3rd party cruise controls fitted to various vehicles in the past, and if I am on cruise and say, the speed drops too much, eg, steep hill, or from a jolt due to riding a pot hole, the cruise will disconnect. When it is least expected and the car suddenly starts slowing down, it makes you quickly focus on WTF.

    I would imagine that auto braking for evasion is a good thing, but I would not want it for normal driving

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: similiar affect with cruise control

      If you're car slows down while going uphill the cruise control isn't working properly! Does your speed also increase while going downhill??

      1. Tezfair

        Re: similiar affect with cruise control

        It increases, however some hills are too steep for the engine to maintain the speed at the preset level. If the engine is 'full throttle' but the speed drops by 10mph the cruise disengages. The speed will increase in the same manner if the hill is steep enough. Usually the engine braking will overcome the rolling effect.

  19. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Another means to discriminate

    As if insurance companies don't already have enough means to discriminate against good drivers, now they have one more with automated braking cars getting lower rates. How about charging me insurance rates based on my driving record of zero accidents over 30 years? That's a far better reference point than what model car I drive. Poor drivers are still going to crash with or without automated braking systems.

  20. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    This might be an unpopular view but I think that a lot of the measures to remove control from the driver in the drive to improve safety are generally retrograde to the attention for a lot of drivers. The less you have to do as a driver, the less attention some seem to pay.

    Such things as:

    - air bags.

    - ABS

    - automatic gearboxes

    - automatic windscreen wipers

    - automatic lights

    - lane alignment warnings

    - cruise control

    - etc

    Don't get me wrong, many of the safety features of modern cars undeniably save lives. However, there is a reason that some train drivers are given "dummy" buttons to press to keep them awake. They just don't have very much to do which is rapidly becoming the case for many cars these days.

    I think that this will become worse and worse until we feel that the only way to get safety is fully autonomous vehicles.

  21. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    low speed bumps are not "accidents"

    they are negligence, pure and simple.

    If you CHOOSE not to pay even marginal attention, and cannot react in time to slow down, you've CHOSEN not to be allowed to drive.

    It's a privilege, not a right.

    If driving exists only to move assets from one place to another for maximum efficiency, bring on the robot cars.

    If it's to have some modicum of control in one's own life, then keep the machines offa my car.

    1. Stevie

      Re: low speed bumps are not "accidents"

      Unless they are, such as those caused by mechanical failure or other factors not linked to the vehicle itself. The classic example is the rear-end shunt in heavy traffic that catapults the hit vehicle into the one in front. Another would be the driver having a heart attack or some other debilitating problem. Perhaps he or she has been shot by arguing drug dealers.

      I don't think you should drive until your intellect-clouding rage over the issue subsides a bit, unless you've got a car that can stop itself of course.

      1. Alan Brown Silver badge

        Re: low speed bumps are not "accidents"

        "The classic example is the rear-end shunt in heavy traffic that catapults the hit vehicle into the one in front."

        In almost every instance of this (3 car shunts) it's because the driver of the middle car stopped too close to the one in front. There's a rule buried somewhere about stationary spacing and from memory it's about 4 metres.

        Once the car in back is travelling at silly speeds when it hits all bets are off - and it's usually fast enough to kill the occupants of the first car that gets hit.

  22. Stevie

    Bah!

    When I saw an advert for the Mercedes which not only slams on the anchors but slams up any open windows when it thinks it is going to crash all I could think of was the rash of decapitated dogs we were going to be seeing in the yellow press.

  23. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Simple and effective solution

    In most countries it appears that less than 50% of all road accidents involve alcohol - in which case the obvious first step is to get all those sober drivers off the road.

  24. deadpanvanadium

    Multiple agents => potential for inconsistent decisions

    In a system with two (or more) agents there is scope for inconsistent decisions by the agents.

    Here the human agent controls the steering wheel, but an artificially intelligent agent - the AEB system - may take control of the brake.

    How does AEB work when the human being decides to overtake even though there is an oncoming vehicle? i.e. two vehicles are approaching at high speed head-on, but the car overtaking intends to pull in once an obstacle vehicle has been overtaken.

    If the automatic braking cuts in too early, believing a collision is imminent, then it may no longer be possible to overtake the obstacle vehicle, so creating a head-on collision.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon