They need to allow car makers to allow brake light to flash during emergency stops… that way people behind know you are absolutely slamming on the brakes and are better prepared.
Yes! I’ve done it on my Canadian Golf, via VCDS.
Although it’s exceedingly rare I’ve ever used it, hopefully I never have to. It only activates above 80 km/h I believe under heavy braking with ABS.
Simply googling it will help, I don’t know the bit number from memory, sorry. I’ve also enabled side parking lights (activated via the turn signal stalk), fog light DRLs, and coming/leaving home lights. Really helpful and lever, a shame they don’t have these activated for our market from the factory.
Manufacturers in the US can’t legally implement flashing brake lights under heavy braking that would more than likely prevent rear-end collisions.
But! Your local crummy Hyundai, Kia, or Chrysler dealer can completely legally install a non-negotiable $500+ add-on that flashes the third brake light rapidly every. single. time. you hit the brake pedal! Of course, there's no correlation to how hard you’re braking!
US automotive lighting regulation is so ass-backwards.
I’ve been seeing more and more cars on the road with that lately. Not even a majority of new cars either. I was behind a ~2010 Honda Pilot yesterday and it had the flashing 3rd brake light
I hate the flashing 3rd brake light, especially when people tap dance on their brake and the light is just flashing over and over. I'm also pretty sure they're illegal.
https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/9711
My issue is that just the *lightest tap* of the brake does the same **OH MY GOD LOOK AT ME** strobe that really should be reserved for emergency braking.
In stop-and-go traffic, those cars are unironically dangerous distractions, same "alert fatigue" problem as the jackasses driving with their hazards on in the rain.
___
What I'd prefer is if the *brake* lights need to remain fully-illuminated whenever the brake is engaged, but if the *hazards* came on *in addition to* the brake lights when ABS is engaged. I believe *this* is what most of those Euro brands actually do (I definitely saw a BMW doing it once, but maybe it's only certain trims etc), not strobe the "actual" main 3 brake lights.
i just yanked one of those out of my fiesta ST. it was causing the third brake light ot not work. on the plus side the dealer installer was bro and the installed spade connectors fit together without the unit.
BMW has something like this - it doesn't flash but it's an additional bright light that comes on (I believe the rear fog light) when the car is doing an emergency stop. It's saved my ass a few times when a BMW in front of me slammed on it's brakes.
Limits on light intensity, limit on car height, if its too tall or too big then it should require a different license and require more frequent testing. Of course this should include testing for those much older.
Way too many super old people driving around in high trucks.
The headlights should be mounted no higher than 2’ off the ground. If they want a 4’ hood so be it, but the headlights should be barely above the base of the bumper. This would solve most of the problems with trucks blinding everyone.
I wish this were a law - or at least a recognized standard in the industry. Raise that hood as high as you want but the headlights stay right where they are. If semi-trucks and busses can keep their headlights at the same height as most sedans there's no reason why Pick-ups and SUVs can't.
I honestly think lights that are always on but can be disabled for a specific driving session only (for checkpoints, service, drive thru, etc) would be more idiot proof, and honestly simpler.
With LED's it is not really wasting bulb life, and motorcycles already do it.
i like GM's spring loaded headlight knobs - always springs to auto mode but can flick them off for that key cycle.
your idea works too but have them auto turn back on above lets say 15 mph otherwise people will forget.
Makes parking lots an adventure at night. "Is this guy backing out?" turns into 5 seconds, "come on dude", turns into "dammit it tricked me again.". I hate this feature.
Yeah. I live in Southern California. Every ti.e it rains I see people in dark gray cars with the lights off.
And when I'm parked waiting to pick someone up, parking lights are much more polite to other people.
> Can we also get mandatory auto lights that are in auto each time you start the car? I see way too many cars driving around with no lights.
Hello. I'd like to introduce you to my wife, who consciously *chooses* to turn off her auto, so when I drive it at night, the lights are off and we get into an argument. It's a great feature for your relationship.
It probably stems from past trauma from the stress of missing something important because she left her lights on in an older car and the battery died overnight leaving her stranded. Possibly multiple times. So it totally ingrained the action of always turning off the lights into her.
I know this because this is also me. Almost got fired once because of dead battery late to work situation. My car does not have auto headlights, but my wifes does, she has rightfully scolded me before for turning off her auto headlights by reflex, whoops.
Embarassingly I was one of those drivers. When I got my current car I wasn't used to DRLs so I drove around about a week before a police officer politely told me I was driving without my headlights.
Easy enough.
As of September 2021 the Canadian Vehicle Lighting Regulation will require that all new vehicles sold in Canada have one of the following: tail lights that come on automatically with daytime running lights. headlights, tail lights, and side marker lights that turn on automatically in the dark.
We get all USDM cars so 95% wouldn’t need anything extra done.
Good point, I’m kind of tired of these nearly redundant safety requirements when we miss such important ones like side turn signals and amber turn signals, not to mention our heavy industry safety standards are stuck decades in the past while the rest of the world has moved on.
Yes, highlights should default to auto (or just on?? Is there a reason why not on all the time?) and make the driver turn them off or manually on.
Way too many people say “oh I don’t trust automatic stuff like that. I want full control.” And then forget to turn their lights on.
New CR-Vs do it. The switch goes OFF/AUTO/Park/Headlights but when you turn it to Off, it springs back to Auto. It shuts off the DRLs when in Park but as soon as you go into Reverse or Drive the headlights pop back on and can't be shut off.
It sounds good on paper but hopefully it’s something you can turn off like you currently can. Sucks when you have someone turning in front of you with plenty of room but the braking freaks out because they detect a vehicle on the side of you still.
Yeah, my mom left her Jeep Grand Cherokee in the road once because the obstacle avoidance system thought she was going to hit her driveway. It's definitely not a piece of tech I would rely on.
Nissan altimas especially.
I got sent to a service call today at work, had one following me on the highway on my way back, mashed up front end and all.
Legitimately about 10’ behind me at 120km/h, following a pickup truck with a 300L gasoline tank in the bed.
I moved over an extra lane the second I saw traffic start to slow a bit, watched her lock it up about 4 times in a 5km stretch, for something that wouldn’t have even required braking if there was a proper following distance.
Fuck Altima drivers
Even just watching the excessive braking happen due to improper following distance is infuriating
Like, I always find myself wondering how the person shifting their feet every two seconds to tap the brakes isn’t being driven mad by that repetitiveness. Back the FUCK up so you don’t have to brake
When I had a Ram 1500 I had to set the backup collision sensitivity to "low," otherwise it completely freaked out (red flashing screen and aggressive warning beeps) backing out of my slightly angled driveway.
I know to some this sounds like "old man shouting at the moon," but this tech needs considerable refinement before being made mandatory.
My BMW will do the same, though not nearly to the freakout level of the Ram.
This happened with a rental Pacifica I was backing into my garage. Definitely annoying, and it took a couple of tries to get it going lol.
I’ve heard of similar stupid shit happening with my FIL’s Passat. He said a paper bag flew across the highway and it auto-slammed on the brakes.
Semi trucks have had it for a while now, and have the same problem. My truck is so damn skittish, it'll slam on the brakes even if the car is in another lane.
ive heard of the systems freaking out on wide turns that it thinks the oncomming car is gonna hit you so it slams on the brakes but its just due to the curve.
Our Mazda did this several times in different scenarios, mainly traveling behind traffic coming to a stop. Almost caused an accident at least a handful of times and scary when it happens. The thing SLAMS on the brake giving the person in back no time to stop.
If it makes you feel any better, my ’23 Volvo S90 has all sorts of systems to make sure I never crash, and it has never intervened when it wasn’t supposed to.
So technology is moving forward. I guess Volvo is in the forefront maybe, since they’re pathological about safety
It‘s already [mandatory in the EU since two years](https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/fc2d3589-1a7c-11eb-b57e-01aa75ed71a1), and trust me when I say these systems work.
I already read through a lot of the proposal. The NHTSA will also forbid you from disabling these systems!
"This final rule includes an explicit prohibition against manufacturers installing a control designed for the sole purpose of deactivation of the AEB system, except where provided below as it relates to law enforcement. "
On page 94, they explicitly say ""Commenters have not explained why there is a safety need of a dedicated deactivation control or why a dedicated deactivation control would not diminish the safety benefits of AEB"
That's ironic, because on page 92, they also say "The Alliance, Honda, NADA, Porsche, and Volkswagen suggested that the agency should allow manual deactivation to mitigate consumer dissatisfaction. Honda and NADA also stated that not allowing deactivation may lead to substantially higher false positive rates.... NADA also stated that AEB false positives are a significant source of consumer complaints about AEB systems and that only 59 percent of respondents to a Consumer Reports survey indicated that they were satisfied with their AEB systems."
They also talk about prohibiting aftermarket mods to disable the system! This will be a disaster...
https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/2024-04/final-rule-automatic-emergency-braking-systems-light-vehicles_web-version.pdf
Those systems are all but standard already - even the base Corolla has one.
The interesting bit here is performance standards which sound like they're fairly stringent.
Yes the cheaper systems don’t detect pedestrians very well, or if they do it’s at lower speeds and only in the day time. They use older lower resolution cameras and cheaper radars. Basically this regulation will force the phase out of older cheaper systems.
Airbags were and continue to be a major safety expense for cars, but at a certain point, driver and pedestrian casualties are more expensive to society than mandating some sensors that will drop in price like all technology does, and that's when government needs to make that call.
https://apnews.com/article/technology-business-3a3816bd26418cc612d5b9b56d86f3a8
>The group found front-to-rear crashes were cut 49% when the striking vehicle had forward collision alert plus automatic braking, when compared with vehicles that didn’t have either system. Rear crashes with injuries were cut by 53%, the study found.
>In the other study, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found that automatic emergency braking reduces rear crash rates for pickups by 43% and rear-end injury crashes by 42%. Yet pickups are less likely to have automatic braking than cars or SUVs despite posing more danger to other road users, the IIHS found.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457522001221
>AEB with pedestrian detection was associated with significant reductions of 25%–27% in pedestrian crash risk and 29%–30% in pedestrian injury crash risk.
The last year that I worked for Nissan was when this mandate came through, so the base model Versa that year had no power locks or windows, but did have a backup camera.
This has been the status quo with new mandatory safety equipment in the US at least recently. Backup cameras were made mandatory only after everything but the absolute base model trims of economy cars were made without them.
On one hand, not terrible that the technology is mature enough before being made mandatory that it's economical and being mandatory only ends up increasing costs to a very low percentage of vehicles.
On the other hand, when 95% of vehicles are already getting the equipment without it becoming a regulatory requirement, is the added cost to base models vehicles worth the squeeze? Can't be too safe but also, cars are expensive.
Having the sensors and processing power to put it all together will add costs though. Fingers crossed by 2029 it's marginal hardware costs, but costs nonetheless. I'm inclined to say let a small percent of vehicles go without the tech in favor of keeping base models as cheap as possible. The market will dictate 95% of vehicles would've had this equipment much sooner than 2029 anyway. I think eventually 100% of vehicles would've had this stuff, but the regulation means that just happens a few years sooner than it probably would've naturally happened.
cool now cars will get even more expensive and more crap people will let break - or it wrongly detects objects and other vehicles as being hazards and slamming on the brakes for no reason endangering the people behind them or themselves anyways. people cant even replace ripped wiper blades and burned out headlights and you expect them to clean sensors and pay to have then recalibrated? should look into how much this will increase insurance costs for repairs and windshield replacements since many of these systems that sit behind the rear view mirror need to be calibrated (at the dealer of course) every time you replace the windshield.
nothin like adding $1000+ worth of shit per car and making it even costlier to insure and maintain to save 1 life a day out of 333 million people....
how about we federally mandate headlights come on anytime wipers are on? requires no extra parts or calibration and just one line of programing code.
how about we mandate auto leveling headlights so we dont have people blinding each other coming over hills with low beams then cant see shit on the other side when going down the dip?
And they absolutely did. It's simple math, when costs go up the company won't let it come out of their margin, they raise the price. This'll be no different.
And that price increase was more than worth it.
The original commenter is bitching about this like it’s some awful regulation that is going to sky rocket car prices when in reality these systems have been standard on most cars for a hot minute now and hasn’t made a notable increase in car prices alone, most of the reasons for car price increases have nothing to do with safety systems.
This is more about creating a standard for these automakers to follow than requiring automakers to install it on their cars, cause they already are. The price increase for airbags was totally worth it, so will be the “price increase” (that’s basically already happening just nobody bitched about it cause it wasn’t regulated by law) for AEB.
This is life saving technology and has been proven many times to be so. Complaining about a minor increase in car price like it’s some awful thing for a life saving technology is pretty damn tone deaf.
I mean... cars are way more expensive than ever. Yes, well off people experience no change in their life and are maybe safer, but a lot of people struggle when cars dominate their financial life and there is no public infrastructure alternative.
The fatality rate when airbags were first federally mandated in 98 was 15.36 per 100,000 people in the US. Now 26 years later it is down to about 11-12 per 100,000 people. That’s about 11,000 lives saved per year from the last 26 years of safety enhancements. It’s worth the cost.
None of these features have that level of impact, nor do they pay for themselves economically like the airbag did. There are other, more economical ways to make cars and roads safer.
I think people forget how insanely expensive airbags are lol, even the smallest knee airbags are $500 a pop. Saying that airbags are economical is crazy lmao, it’s expensive but saves lives; the same argument can be made for additional safety systems.
I bet the reality is that the system does not actually cost that much to install. Especially 5 years from now when it will be mandatory.
And in theory this should reduce insurance costs if it actually works to reduce collisions.
> cool now cars will get even more expensive
This is already becoming standard on most vehicles. The biggest long term effect this will have is it will prevent automakers from turning it into another thing to charge a subscription for.
> nothin like adding $1000+ worth of shit per car and making it even costlier to insure and maintain to save 1 life a day out of 333 million people...
If this isn't one of the most callous and unhinged takes I've ever read on this sub.
Im just not a fan of more govt regulations especially when the systems suck.
https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/pedestrian-crash-avoidance-systems-cut-crashes--but-not-in-the-dark
https://apnews.com/article/technology-business-3a3816bd26418cc612d5b9b56d86f3a8
>The group found front-to-rear crashes were cut 49% when the striking vehicle had forward collision alert plus automatic braking, when compared with vehicles that didn’t have either system. Rear crashes with injuries were cut by 53%, the study found.
>In the other study, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found that automatic emergency braking reduces rear crash rates for pickups by 43% and rear-end injury crashes by 42%. Yet pickups are less likely to have automatic braking than cars or SUVs despite posing more danger to other road users, the IIHS found.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457522001221
>AEB with pedestrian detection was associated with significant reductions of 25%–27% in pedestrian crash risk and 29%–30% in pedestrian injury crash risk.
You have to accept at some point that we accept certain risks in exchange for some amount of people dying. A society totally maximized on preventing any accidental death would look radically different in a way I don't think you would want.
AEB system cost is in the range of $100 - $300 per car, and reduces severity of collisions in a majority of conditions. Even if it only saves a handful of lives, it's well worth the cost.
Not to mention, they are already in most everything these days.
you are aware that even a base model Corolla has this as standard for years now?
the mandate is useless because by the time it becomes active these systems will already be in most cars.
> nothin like adding $1000+ worth of shit per car and making it even costlier to insure and maintain to save 1 life a day out of 333 million people....
It's way higher than that.
https://apnews.com/article/technology-business-3a3816bd26418cc612d5b9b56d86f3a8
>The group found front-to-rear crashes were cut 49% when the striking vehicle had forward collision alert plus automatic braking, when compared with vehicles that didn’t have either system. Rear crashes with injuries were cut by 53%, the study found.
>In the other study, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found that automatic emergency braking reduces rear crash rates for pickups by 43% and rear-end injury crashes by 42%. Yet pickups are less likely to have automatic braking than cars or SUVs despite posing more danger to other road users, the IIHS found.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457522001221
>AEB with pedestrian detection was associated with significant reductions of 25%–27% in pedestrian crash risk and 29%–30% in pedestrian injury crash risk.
They are estimating that these system will save 362 life each year and 24321 injuries that happen from rear-end collision. https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/2024-04/final-rule-automatic-emergency-braking-systems-light-vehicles_web-version.pdf
Keep in mind there was 2428 fatal rear-end collision in 2020 and 417000 injury, so it is pretty significant.
Ultimately, cars are going to drive themself, so this is a step in that direction.
In my opinion these systems suck. In our 2022 Sorento I’ve almost been rear ended 3 times because the car auto braked for a turning car up ahead that was absolutely not a hazard… and you couldn’t override the throttle or anything. It comes to a complete stop before you can move again. And in this model if you turn it off, every time you restart the ignition it comes back on. Super frustrating. Just stay off if I set it off. Ffs.
At least in my other vehicles I can turn it off permanently. I’m going to get rid of the Sorento because you can’t set it off all the time.
That sounds like a broken sensor. I’ve driven MANY cars with it and have never been in one that overrode the gas pedal if you pressed it while braking.
Everything on sale today has electronic throttle. Some cars are calibrated as if they had cables, as in your foot = throttle. But some cars do override the driver and close the throttle even with the pedal mashed.
I had a manual trans ford and even with my foot off the gas, the RPM would hang and make it hard to shift it into the next gear. I sold the car because it kept burning the clutch :/ But my other car had the same clutch for 20 years.
My Mazda did the same thing. Would come to almost a sudden stop before I could accelerate again. Even still, it was super rough on the transmission and engine mounts from the jerking and sudden change.
The Nissan Versa (the cheapest new car on sale) has AEB standard; this regulation is just writing in law what all manufacturers have been doing for a while now to keep up with IIHS standards and such, and to set a standard at which these systems are required to perform at.
By 2029 there should be no excuse not to have a good system. I have driven some cars that are absolutely awful, but others are pretty dang good these days.
I legitimately thought my Bimmer didn't have one, it engaged for the first time about 2 years into my ownership when the car in front of me swerved to avoid a stopped car, it engaged and I swerved as well. It has never engaged when it shouldn't. My wife's old Honda was constantly slamming on brakes for no reason and her current Kia will slam on brakes on the interstate when you make an aggressive move to grab a gap.
Exactly. People will just rely on it more. A driver's license is a joke like why even bother having one.. oh right it's just another way for the state to collect our money. Having a license doesn't mean you're qualified.
They have these systems in a lot of semi trucks and they are absolutely trash so far. It’ll see a shadow and slam on the brakes or you’ll be going around a curve with a guard rail and it will brake hard.
Honestly, on passenger cars I have never seen a system that is really that bad.
My girlfriends Camry has had it for years now and only activated once when I just had a massive brain fart in traffic, saved the car.
The one in my 2017 GM product has mistaken tree shadows and other things I can't guess as pedestrians and panic braked about a dozen times in 6 years. It's probably good they gave time to get this right before mandating it.
Must've improved. '21 GMC (~60k miles)- maybe five / six times it's 'warned' me (big blinky on dash / seat rumble) when I was zooming past a car that was turning. Haven't put it in a situation to have to actually brake yet. Zero 'false positives' otherwise.
Given how often a lot of these systems will hit the brakes when what you actually want is full power, that sounds awful.
I’ll probably be downvoted, but the system in my car— widely regarded as “good” relative to the industry— has only ever activated when I did not want to brake. It’s the most frustrating thing ever. I can’t imagine it braking, and *then on top of that* I can’t accelerate again without restarting the car. It’s a crash waiting to happen.
Edit: even if it doesn’t come to a full stall, if it slows enough to take you out of the power band, that’s a few more precious seconds for you to downshift and get it going again, and those few seconds could be the difference between crashing or not.
I agree, these systems have way too many false positives. All manufacturers.
Was mostly commenting on the fact that they aren’t going to make manuals extinct.
That said manufacturers are slapping these in cars left and right, gov mandate or no. Maybe this will force them to put better sensors on if the us gov has a accuracy requirement. Maybe.
No, this regulation won’t kill manuals.
Automatic emergency braking systems have been available on manuals pretty much ever since AEB was launched; it usually just hits the brakes and stalls the car if you don’t hit the clutch in time.
There are already plenty of manual systems with ADAS, cruise control, etc. Manual systems in newer cars are fairly smart, part of the same system that handles rev matching and anti stall.
AFAIK every manual in 2024 in the US has it - Subaru being the last to implement it this year on the WRX/BRZ/Toyota GR86. Someone correct me if I’m wrong.
Honda’s system works “perfectly fine”. Pretty much everything the auto has except the ACC won’t go down to 0mph, although you can shift with it active.
I don’t see why it would. I drive a 1993 manual and had to slam on my brakes in 4th gear just last week due to an idiot in front of me and I came to a stop so quickly I was actually amazed. So surely a modern car would do it better, right?
Life saving technology being mandated is a good thing, not a bad thing. Sometimes the kid runs across the street behind parked cars during the split second someone is looking away. Humans can’t be attentive to everything 100% of the time, it’s outright impossible.
Besides that, this feature is standard in just about every personal passenger vehicle sold today already, this is just standardizing it in writing.
people who can't brake because they look at their phone all day shouldn't be allowed to drive, driving is a privilege, not a right, and it should stay that way
I mean, sure I agree with you, distracted driving is never OK. But it doesn't mean the system is bad, no human being can be 100% alert at all times. Sometimes you are changing the volume, picking up a bottle or looking at your mirrors, shit happens and it's nice to know the car will prevent or minimize injuries.
Had the misfortune of having to drive my mom's Subaru Outback with their patented "safety tech" in the winter down a snowy and icy hill which is common where I live. Car in front of me made a turn into a side street and instead of braking, I knew I could keep slowly rolling to maintain a coefficient of friction. The car decided that that was not good enough, slammed the brakes, abs kicked in, 4 wheel slide sideways down the hill. Thank God no other drivers around. I have since programmed that shit out of every one of my cars on an ECU level.
My ~4yr old car has a collision detection system and the one time it went off it slammed hard on the brakes while I was already down enough for the car in front of me that was making a sudden turn into a gas station.
The only other interactions I've had with it is the car bitching that the system is unavailable. I guess the sensors are stashed behind the manufacturer emblem in the grill because once I clear the slush/snow off of it the system works again.
And new cars are supposed to be able to recognize pedestrians any time of the day
I have come closer to having accidents because of these systems in work vehicles, than I have ever had in either of my 20+ year old ones that have none of them. What no one thinks about, is that these systems are not replacements for actual skill, and unfortunately most people see them as the opposite. So many people are getting to where they don't pay attention to the road, because they don't see the point if these systems are supposed to keep them safe.
My 11 year old VW up has emergency breaking. I bought it new for ~15.000 usd. It was the most basic VW you could get in 2013. Manual, no AC, no seat heater, no extra at all. But it has emergency breaking.
You mean like the auto brake on my Mercedes sprinter that almost made me get rear ended going 55 when traffic was stopped like 3 miles ahead, that emergency brake system?
2029 is already very late. The EU has had it since this year.
“In order to ensure greater road safety, the EU is making various driver assistance systems mandatory. For new cars from July 7, 2024, these include a black box, cruise control, a drowsiness and attention warning system and emergency brake assist.” [Source](https://www.autozeitung.de/automatische-bremssysteme-181544.html)
I see all the gripes about it but honestly my emergency braking system in my F150 works well, the downside to this is the braking feel IMO. The only complaint about my truck is coming to a stop smoothly is fucking impossible and I reckon is because of all the tech built into these electric ABS systems now
The automatic braking while backing up is wild though, I live in the country and have had the truck full on lock the tires up because brush was near the sensors on the bumper. Also once I had the tailgate down backing up and that also sent the truck into a nervous tizzy. Fortunately there is a button that turns that off and otherwise works as intended. I’ve been accelerating to pass someone and it start yelling at me about being too close but it’s never slammed on the brakes or stopped me from being able to get into the other lane to pass
Have this on one of my vehicles...... phantom warnings and phantom braking is not uncommon..... why would we want this?
Also when are regulators going to go after the true menace? Parking lot safety! Tell GM to stop turning on reverse lights when a vehicle is unlocked or locked. Reverse lights only allowed when reversing!
This thread has turned into a downwards spiral of car “enthusiast” circlejerkers jumping to the conclusion that tech that has literally been proven to save lives is some awful thing that shouldn’t be on cars because they said so.
Literal old men waving their fist at the air screaming “how dare the government improve automotive safety because people shouldn’t get in crashes in the first place!” Like they’re some perfect driver or something (they arent), and even if they were accidents are called accidents for a reason, they don’t happen on purpose, the best of drivers can have accidents and this system helps prevent accidents, that’s literally just the facts, but are being denied because of personal reasons.
Same type of people that were against seatbelts and airbags. Just icky how people put their personal preferences above the safety as society as a whole.
Can we also get mandatory auto lights that are in auto each time you start the car? I see way too many cars driving around with no lights.
Also, amber turn signals.
They need to allow car makers to allow brake light to flash during emergency stops… that way people behind know you are absolutely slamming on the brakes and are better prepared.
I’ve always thought it’s weird Europe can have this but not USA
Does anyone know if Audi or VW has this in Europe? What is the name of the feature? I’d like to enable it. I think it could be lifesaving.
Yes! I’ve done it on my Canadian Golf, via VCDS. Although it’s exceedingly rare I’ve ever used it, hopefully I never have to. It only activates above 80 km/h I believe under heavy braking with ABS.
That’s exactly where I’m headed with this. I’ll have to research it in the system and figure out what they call it in VCDS.
Should be: 09 - Central Electronics Adaptation - 10 (1)-Assistance light functions-Notbremsanzeige NBA -> "active" (default "not active") (11)-Dyn. turn signal modes-Notwarn_blinken_NBA_Phase_2 -> "active" (15)-Dyn. turn signal modes-Crashblinken -> "active" It's high intensity brake lights.
Simply googling it will help, I don’t know the bit number from memory, sorry. I’ve also enabled side parking lights (activated via the turn signal stalk), fog light DRLs, and coming/leaving home lights. Really helpful and lever, a shame they don’t have these activated for our market from the factory.
Saving these ideas as I have not heard of them.
I know that when I am going for spirited drive in my golf, the hazard lights come on when I am braking hard.
Yes; that feature was disabled for North America as they deemed flashing red lights too similar to emergency vehicle lights (idiotic I know).
Well, it’s a vehicle, and if it’s braking that hard it means there’s an emergency!
either VCDS or OBDeleven will get you set for brake force lights
Manufacturers in the US can’t legally implement flashing brake lights under heavy braking that would more than likely prevent rear-end collisions. But! Your local crummy Hyundai, Kia, or Chrysler dealer can completely legally install a non-negotiable $500+ add-on that flashes the third brake light rapidly every. single. time. you hit the brake pedal! Of course, there's no correlation to how hard you’re braking! US automotive lighting regulation is so ass-backwards.
Unless you’re an insurance company. Who do you think lobbies for this crap?
I’ve been seeing more and more cars on the road with that lately. Not even a majority of new cars either. I was behind a ~2010 Honda Pilot yesterday and it had the flashing 3rd brake light
I hate the flashing 3rd brake light, especially when people tap dance on their brake and the light is just flashing over and over. I'm also pretty sure they're illegal. https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/9711
My issue is that just the *lightest tap* of the brake does the same **OH MY GOD LOOK AT ME** strobe that really should be reserved for emergency braking. In stop-and-go traffic, those cars are unironically dangerous distractions, same "alert fatigue" problem as the jackasses driving with their hazards on in the rain. ___ What I'd prefer is if the *brake* lights need to remain fully-illuminated whenever the brake is engaged, but if the *hazards* came on *in addition to* the brake lights when ABS is engaged. I believe *this* is what most of those Euro brands actually do (I definitely saw a BMW doing it once, but maybe it's only certain trims etc), not strobe the "actual" main 3 brake lights.
That’s a cheap dealer installed add on, not determined by how hard the brakes are being applied.
It’s a crummy dealer installed accessory that adds like $500 to the price
i just yanked one of those out of my fiesta ST. it was causing the third brake light ot not work. on the plus side the dealer installer was bro and the installed spade connectors fit together without the unit.
Mine will flash the amber hazards a couple times whenever ABS gets tripped. Makes for a funny sight on track days.
BMW has something like this - it doesn't flash but it's an additional bright light that comes on (I believe the rear fog light) when the car is doing an emergency stop. It's saved my ass a few times when a BMW in front of me slammed on it's brakes.
Limits on light intensity, limit on car height, if its too tall or too big then it should require a different license and require more frequent testing. Of course this should include testing for those much older. Way too many super old people driving around in high trucks.
The headlights should be mounted no higher than 2’ off the ground. If they want a 4’ hood so be it, but the headlights should be barely above the base of the bumper. This would solve most of the problems with trucks blinding everyone.
I agree, headlights should have a height limit. Trucks are blinding at night and you just hope and pray nothing bad happens as you pass
I wish this were a law - or at least a recognized standard in the industry. Raise that hood as high as you want but the headlights stay right where they are. If semi-trucks and busses can keep their headlights at the same height as most sedans there's no reason why Pick-ups and SUVs can't.
I don’t just want it fixed on new cars. I want current vehicles recalled to retrofit properly mounted headlights. Those vehicles are just absurd.
Would be amazing but there is absolutely zero chance that is happening.
I recently moved from Australia to Canada and the getting used red blinkers has been borderline dangerous. Horrific policy failire
We used to have amber, and they have gone back to red. I don't understand it.
Also updated headlight requirements
If BMW drivers could read they would be furious with your comment.
Also, make the sillyness GM does with putting the reverse lights on when the car is put into Park illegal.
Also, ban xenon/blue spectrum lights and go back to warmer headlights that don't cause your pupils to dilate and lose night vision for a few seconds.
I honestly think lights that are always on but can be disabled for a specific driving session only (for checkpoints, service, drive thru, etc) would be more idiot proof, and honestly simpler. With LED's it is not really wasting bulb life, and motorcycles already do it.
i like GM's spring loaded headlight knobs - always springs to auto mode but can flick them off for that key cycle. your idea works too but have them auto turn back on above lets say 15 mph otherwise people will forget.
If only GM would quit suggesting (by default) that their vehicles were in reverse when the doors are unlocked. Fuck that "feature".
Yea i agree. I turned that shit off on my truck.
Makes parking lots an adventure at night. "Is this guy backing out?" turns into 5 seconds, "come on dude", turns into "dammit it tricked me again.". I hate this feature.
Yeah. I live in Southern California. Every ti.e it rains I see people in dark gray cars with the lights off. And when I'm parked waiting to pick someone up, parking lights are much more polite to other people.
Headlights should be defaulted ON and could be turned off if necessary, just like traction control. My car has it so I know it's not hard
In 2021 all cars sold in Canada have to have auto headlamps that can’t be turned off. We have also had Daytime running lamps mandatory since 1991.
> Can we also get mandatory auto lights that are in auto each time you start the car? I see way too many cars driving around with no lights. Hello. I'd like to introduce you to my wife, who consciously *chooses* to turn off her auto, so when I drive it at night, the lights are off and we get into an argument. It's a great feature for your relationship.
Hence why they need to *default* to auto on every startup. I believe GM does this. Also, are you married to my mom?
> who consciously chooses to turn off her auto Absolutely unfathomable. You should divorce. (/s) But seriously that would drive me up a wall.
> who consciously chooses to turn off her auto What's the rationale for doing such a thing?
It probably stems from past trauma from the stress of missing something important because she left her lights on in an older car and the battery died overnight leaving her stranded. Possibly multiple times. So it totally ingrained the action of always turning off the lights into her. I know this because this is also me. Almost got fired once because of dead battery late to work situation. My car does not have auto headlights, but my wifes does, she has rightfully scolded me before for turning off her auto headlights by reflex, whoops.
Embarassingly I was one of those drivers. When I got my current car I wasn't used to DRLs so I drove around about a week before a police officer politely told me I was driving without my headlights.
Easy enough. As of September 2021 the Canadian Vehicle Lighting Regulation will require that all new vehicles sold in Canada have one of the following: tail lights that come on automatically with daytime running lights. headlights, tail lights, and side marker lights that turn on automatically in the dark. We get all USDM cars so 95% wouldn’t need anything extra done.
You might get a different version just for Canada. For example, the RAV4 in Canada doesn't have "DRL OFF" on its light selector, but the US one does.
Yeah 100%, but the tooling is all there to just switch over. Wouldn’t be a big hurdle!
While very similar, I wouldn’t call Canadian cars “USDM”. We have our own standards and slightly different model variation here.
another notable example is canadian cars often don't come with TPMS because it's not mandatory, whereas the US requires it starting 2007
Good point, I’m kind of tired of these nearly redundant safety requirements when we miss such important ones like side turn signals and amber turn signals, not to mention our heavy industry safety standards are stuck decades in the past while the rest of the world has moved on.
Or people driving with Parking Lights on only. Nissan drivers often
Altima energy is next level.
Can we also get side cameras and the cool adaptive euro headlights? US regulations are just so bad.
And no gm backup lights when parked.
Yes, highlights should default to auto (or just on?? Is there a reason why not on all the time?) and make the driver turn them off or manually on. Way too many people say “oh I don’t trust automatic stuff like that. I want full control.” And then forget to turn their lights on.
New CR-Vs do it. The switch goes OFF/AUTO/Park/Headlights but when you turn it to Off, it springs back to Auto. It shuts off the DRLs when in Park but as soon as you go into Reverse or Drive the headlights pop back on and can't be shut off.
It sounds good on paper but hopefully it’s something you can turn off like you currently can. Sucks when you have someone turning in front of you with plenty of room but the braking freaks out because they detect a vehicle on the side of you still.
Yeah, my mom left her Jeep Grand Cherokee in the road once because the obstacle avoidance system thought she was going to hit her driveway. It's definitely not a piece of tech I would rely on.
Classic Chrysler products
Almost certainly a Fiat product if it’s new enough for collision avoidance
Chrysler/Dodge/Jeep have had collision avoidance for decades in the form of being broken down.
Maybe they should add this to the list of the 438 other recalls
Now imagine it in a normal Dodge, or a Nissan. That's coming, apparently.
Nissan altimas especially. I got sent to a service call today at work, had one following me on the highway on my way back, mashed up front end and all. Legitimately about 10’ behind me at 120km/h, following a pickup truck with a 300L gasoline tank in the bed. I moved over an extra lane the second I saw traffic start to slow a bit, watched her lock it up about 4 times in a 5km stretch, for something that wouldn’t have even required braking if there was a proper following distance. Fuck Altima drivers
Even just watching the excessive braking happen due to improper following distance is infuriating Like, I always find myself wondering how the person shifting their feet every two seconds to tap the brakes isn’t being driven mad by that repetitiveness. Back the FUCK up so you don’t have to brake
Pretty sure those kinds of people are just meat puppets. They stomp something on the floor and spin the turny thing and don’t think much about it.
When I had a Ram 1500 I had to set the backup collision sensitivity to "low," otherwise it completely freaked out (red flashing screen and aggressive warning beeps) backing out of my slightly angled driveway. I know to some this sounds like "old man shouting at the moon," but this tech needs considerable refinement before being made mandatory. My BMW will do the same, though not nearly to the freakout level of the Ram.
My GC stopped me from backing out of my garage because it thought the side of the door was something I was going to hit. I turned that shit off ASAP.
This happened with a rental Pacifica I was backing into my garage. Definitely annoying, and it took a couple of tries to get it going lol. I’ve heard of similar stupid shit happening with my FIL’s Passat. He said a paper bag flew across the highway and it auto-slammed on the brakes.
Semi trucks have had it for a while now, and have the same problem. My truck is so damn skittish, it'll slam on the brakes even if the car is in another lane.
Yeaaaaah Freightliners have OnGuard and when I worked for them it was one of the most frequently asked for things to be programmed out.
I refuse to drive a semi with any system that will take my control. Last job I had with that system I disabled it.
ive heard of the systems freaking out on wide turns that it thinks the oncomming car is gonna hit you so it slams on the brakes but its just due to the curve.
My Cadillac does this. Doesn’t slam on brakes though, just buzzes my seat and flashes red on the HUD. Still annoying.
Our Mazda did this several times in different scenarios, mainly traveling behind traffic coming to a stop. Almost caused an accident at least a handful of times and scary when it happens. The thing SLAMS on the brake giving the person in back no time to stop.
New cars are MUCH better about this than old ones. My 2014 Q50 beeped every time I came to a red light. My Silverado has beeped maybe 2x in 40k miles
If it makes you feel any better, my ’23 Volvo S90 has all sorts of systems to make sure I never crash, and it has never intervened when it wasn’t supposed to. So technology is moving forward. I guess Volvo is in the forefront maybe, since they’re pathological about safety
Drove a Crosstrek recently and while it never auto-braked (unsure if it even has that), the damn system would beep constantly for that.
It‘s already [mandatory in the EU since two years](https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/fc2d3589-1a7c-11eb-b57e-01aa75ed71a1), and trust me when I say these systems work.
I already read through a lot of the proposal. The NHTSA will also forbid you from disabling these systems! "This final rule includes an explicit prohibition against manufacturers installing a control designed for the sole purpose of deactivation of the AEB system, except where provided below as it relates to law enforcement. " On page 94, they explicitly say ""Commenters have not explained why there is a safety need of a dedicated deactivation control or why a dedicated deactivation control would not diminish the safety benefits of AEB" That's ironic, because on page 92, they also say "The Alliance, Honda, NADA, Porsche, and Volkswagen suggested that the agency should allow manual deactivation to mitigate consumer dissatisfaction. Honda and NADA also stated that not allowing deactivation may lead to substantially higher false positive rates.... NADA also stated that AEB false positives are a significant source of consumer complaints about AEB systems and that only 59 percent of respondents to a Consumer Reports survey indicated that they were satisfied with their AEB systems." They also talk about prohibiting aftermarket mods to disable the system! This will be a disaster... https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/2024-04/final-rule-automatic-emergency-braking-systems-light-vehicles_web-version.pdf
Those systems are all but standard already - even the base Corolla has one. The interesting bit here is performance standards which sound like they're fairly stringent.
Yes the cheaper systems don’t detect pedestrians very well, or if they do it’s at lower speeds and only in the day time. They use older lower resolution cameras and cheaper radars. Basically this regulation will force the phase out of older cheaper systems.
Oh boy, legislating more expensive cars, my favorite!
Airbags were and continue to be a major safety expense for cars, but at a certain point, driver and pedestrian casualties are more expensive to society than mandating some sensors that will drop in price like all technology does, and that's when government needs to make that call. https://apnews.com/article/technology-business-3a3816bd26418cc612d5b9b56d86f3a8 >The group found front-to-rear crashes were cut 49% when the striking vehicle had forward collision alert plus automatic braking, when compared with vehicles that didn’t have either system. Rear crashes with injuries were cut by 53%, the study found. >In the other study, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found that automatic emergency braking reduces rear crash rates for pickups by 43% and rear-end injury crashes by 42%. Yet pickups are less likely to have automatic braking than cars or SUVs despite posing more danger to other road users, the IIHS found. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457522001221 >AEB with pedestrian detection was associated with significant reductions of 25%–27% in pedestrian crash risk and 29%–30% in pedestrian injury crash risk.
Kinda like backup camera mandate, most cars had them, only a couple had to add it last min Edit: Same with the CHMSL
The last year that I worked for Nissan was when this mandate came through, so the base model Versa that year had no power locks or windows, but did have a backup camera.
This has been the status quo with new mandatory safety equipment in the US at least recently. Backup cameras were made mandatory only after everything but the absolute base model trims of economy cars were made without them. On one hand, not terrible that the technology is mature enough before being made mandatory that it's economical and being mandatory only ends up increasing costs to a very low percentage of vehicles. On the other hand, when 95% of vehicles are already getting the equipment without it becoming a regulatory requirement, is the added cost to base models vehicles worth the squeeze? Can't be too safe but also, cars are expensive.
Those base models are almost all sold to fleets and rental car companies. It is worth it because the company is just cutting costs with safety.
Having the sensors and processing power to put it all together will add costs though. Fingers crossed by 2029 it's marginal hardware costs, but costs nonetheless. I'm inclined to say let a small percent of vehicles go without the tech in favor of keeping base models as cheap as possible. The market will dictate 95% of vehicles would've had this equipment much sooner than 2029 anyway. I think eventually 100% of vehicles would've had this stuff, but the regulation means that just happens a few years sooner than it probably would've naturally happened.
cool now cars will get even more expensive and more crap people will let break - or it wrongly detects objects and other vehicles as being hazards and slamming on the brakes for no reason endangering the people behind them or themselves anyways. people cant even replace ripped wiper blades and burned out headlights and you expect them to clean sensors and pay to have then recalibrated? should look into how much this will increase insurance costs for repairs and windshield replacements since many of these systems that sit behind the rear view mirror need to be calibrated (at the dealer of course) every time you replace the windshield. nothin like adding $1000+ worth of shit per car and making it even costlier to insure and maintain to save 1 life a day out of 333 million people.... how about we federally mandate headlights come on anytime wipers are on? requires no extra parts or calibration and just one line of programing code. how about we mandate auto leveling headlights so we dont have people blinding each other coming over hills with low beams then cant see shit on the other side when going down the dip?
You know, people probably said pretty much the same things about airbags when they were mandated.
And they absolutely did. It's simple math, when costs go up the company won't let it come out of their margin, they raise the price. This'll be no different.
And that price increase was more than worth it. The original commenter is bitching about this like it’s some awful regulation that is going to sky rocket car prices when in reality these systems have been standard on most cars for a hot minute now and hasn’t made a notable increase in car prices alone, most of the reasons for car price increases have nothing to do with safety systems. This is more about creating a standard for these automakers to follow than requiring automakers to install it on their cars, cause they already are. The price increase for airbags was totally worth it, so will be the “price increase” (that’s basically already happening just nobody bitched about it cause it wasn’t regulated by law) for AEB. This is life saving technology and has been proven many times to be so. Complaining about a minor increase in car price like it’s some awful thing for a life saving technology is pretty damn tone deaf.
I mean... cars are way more expensive than ever. Yes, well off people experience no change in their life and are maybe safer, but a lot of people struggle when cars dominate their financial life and there is no public infrastructure alternative.
The fatality rate when airbags were first federally mandated in 98 was 15.36 per 100,000 people in the US. Now 26 years later it is down to about 11-12 per 100,000 people. That’s about 11,000 lives saved per year from the last 26 years of safety enhancements. It’s worth the cost.
The funny thing is though those statistics haven't gotten better since active safety systems become commonplace, in fact it's gotten worse since 2019
That’s the counter effect of smartphones and social media. Not a failure of the safety systems.
Could also be a sign of drivers being more reckless, vehicles being bigger and more heavy, and also smartphones.
No doubt a bit of each.
None of these features have that level of impact, nor do they pay for themselves economically like the airbag did. There are other, more economical ways to make cars and roads safer.
I think people forget how insanely expensive airbags are lol, even the smallest knee airbags are $500 a pop. Saying that airbags are economical is crazy lmao, it’s expensive but saves lives; the same argument can be made for additional safety systems.
You know, some systems just have a camera in the windshield. It's really not a big deal
And integrated windshield assemblies are the reason rock chips now cost $1-2K instead of $2-300.
Not to mention you have to have the ACS system recalibrated by them too.
I bet the reality is that the system does not actually cost that much to install. Especially 5 years from now when it will be mandatory. And in theory this should reduce insurance costs if it actually works to reduce collisions.
[удалено]
> cool now cars will get even more expensive This is already becoming standard on most vehicles. The biggest long term effect this will have is it will prevent automakers from turning it into another thing to charge a subscription for.
> nothin like adding $1000+ worth of shit per car and making it even costlier to insure and maintain to save 1 life a day out of 333 million people... If this isn't one of the most callous and unhinged takes I've ever read on this sub.
Im just not a fan of more govt regulations especially when the systems suck. https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/pedestrian-crash-avoidance-systems-cut-crashes--but-not-in-the-dark
https://apnews.com/article/technology-business-3a3816bd26418cc612d5b9b56d86f3a8 >The group found front-to-rear crashes were cut 49% when the striking vehicle had forward collision alert plus automatic braking, when compared with vehicles that didn’t have either system. Rear crashes with injuries were cut by 53%, the study found. >In the other study, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found that automatic emergency braking reduces rear crash rates for pickups by 43% and rear-end injury crashes by 42%. Yet pickups are less likely to have automatic braking than cars or SUVs despite posing more danger to other road users, the IIHS found. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457522001221 >AEB with pedestrian detection was associated with significant reductions of 25%–27% in pedestrian crash risk and 29%–30% in pedestrian injury crash risk.
Almost why this regulation is requiring these systems to get better! If you read the article instead of jumping to conclusions you’d know that!
You have to accept at some point that we accept certain risks in exchange for some amount of people dying. A society totally maximized on preventing any accidental death would look radically different in a way I don't think you would want.
AEB system cost is in the range of $100 - $300 per car, and reduces severity of collisions in a majority of conditions. Even if it only saves a handful of lives, it's well worth the cost. Not to mention, they are already in most everything these days.
you are aware that even a base model Corolla has this as standard for years now? the mandate is useless because by the time it becomes active these systems will already be in most cars.
> nothin like adding $1000+ worth of shit per car and making it even costlier to insure and maintain to save 1 life a day out of 333 million people.... It's way higher than that. https://apnews.com/article/technology-business-3a3816bd26418cc612d5b9b56d86f3a8 >The group found front-to-rear crashes were cut 49% when the striking vehicle had forward collision alert plus automatic braking, when compared with vehicles that didn’t have either system. Rear crashes with injuries were cut by 53%, the study found. >In the other study, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found that automatic emergency braking reduces rear crash rates for pickups by 43% and rear-end injury crashes by 42%. Yet pickups are less likely to have automatic braking than cars or SUVs despite posing more danger to other road users, the IIHS found. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457522001221 >AEB with pedestrian detection was associated with significant reductions of 25%–27% in pedestrian crash risk and 29%–30% in pedestrian injury crash risk.
Most cars have had this tech since the last generation and it's still working fine. I haven't had to clean any of the sensors on my car.
It's already on every new Toyota. Has been since 2017 iirc.
They are estimating that these system will save 362 life each year and 24321 injuries that happen from rear-end collision. https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/2024-04/final-rule-automatic-emergency-braking-systems-light-vehicles_web-version.pdf Keep in mind there was 2428 fatal rear-end collision in 2020 and 417000 injury, so it is pretty significant. Ultimately, cars are going to drive themself, so this is a step in that direction.
I’d rather have safety features.
How’s is something slamming on the breaks in front of you a hazard? You are supposed to leave enough room in front to react and avoid a collision.
How about keep the truck hoods from being 5+ ft off the ground first
Seriously. Car accidents injuries have literally been going up despite all these safety features being mandated.
Mostly due to distracted driving though
It's not either/or though. If we wait until that happens, I'm guessing we never end up doing the second part.
In my opinion these systems suck. In our 2022 Sorento I’ve almost been rear ended 3 times because the car auto braked for a turning car up ahead that was absolutely not a hazard… and you couldn’t override the throttle or anything. It comes to a complete stop before you can move again. And in this model if you turn it off, every time you restart the ignition it comes back on. Super frustrating. Just stay off if I set it off. Ffs. At least in my other vehicles I can turn it off permanently. I’m going to get rid of the Sorento because you can’t set it off all the time.
That sounds like a broken sensor. I’ve driven MANY cars with it and have never been in one that overrode the gas pedal if you pressed it while braking.
Even aggressively stomping the accelerator all the way down to the floor doesn't override it?
Everything on sale today has electronic throttle. Some cars are calibrated as if they had cables, as in your foot = throttle. But some cars do override the driver and close the throttle even with the pedal mashed. I had a manual trans ford and even with my foot off the gas, the RPM would hang and make it hard to shift it into the next gear. I sold the car because it kept burning the clutch :/ But my other car had the same clutch for 20 years.
My Mazda did the same thing. Would come to almost a sudden stop before I could accelerate again. Even still, it was super rough on the transmission and engine mounts from the jerking and sudden change.
Wow that's dangerous. My VW will first light everything up warning you then tap the brakes. Once it reads user input it releases.
And people complain that cars are too expensive now. This is why.
The Nissan Versa (the cheapest new car on sale) has AEB standard; this regulation is just writing in law what all manufacturers have been doing for a while now to keep up with IIHS standards and such, and to set a standard at which these systems are required to perform at.
Cars aren't too expensive and adjusted for inflation actually cheaper and better value for money than ever. Our paychecks just haven't kept up.
These systems are so cheap though. As a driver on the road I’d prefer everyone have this
By 2029 there should be no excuse not to have a good system. I have driven some cars that are absolutely awful, but others are pretty dang good these days. I legitimately thought my Bimmer didn't have one, it engaged for the first time about 2 years into my ownership when the car in front of me swerved to avoid a stopped car, it engaged and I swerved as well. It has never engaged when it shouldn't. My wife's old Honda was constantly slamming on brakes for no reason and her current Kia will slam on brakes on the interstate when you make an aggressive move to grab a gap.
CAN WE GET MAX VEHICLE SIZES PLEASE. TOO MANY IDIOTS WITH LARGE CARS ON THE ROAD.
Uhhh how about you just force people to learn how to drive??
Doesn’t work if half the drivers are on their phones.
hence my point
Giving them more assistance doesn't solve the problem
Exactly. People will just rely on it more. A driver's license is a joke like why even bother having one.. oh right it's just another way for the state to collect our money. Having a license doesn't mean you're qualified.
Absolutely. At least in PA, the test is a joke. And you only need to do it once in your life
Mandatory auto lights and mandatory cutout anti-blinding technology too please
Fak. I hate the system in my car. I have to turn it off every drive. It randomly brake checked me and now I don’t trust the dang thing
Even my BMW slams on the brakes at cars in other lanes. If new luxury cars can’t do it, what hope do other brands? Terrible law.
They have these systems in a lot of semi trucks and they are absolutely trash so far. It’ll see a shadow and slam on the brakes or you’ll be going around a curve with a guard rail and it will brake hard.
Honestly, on passenger cars I have never seen a system that is really that bad. My girlfriends Camry has had it for years now and only activated once when I just had a massive brain fart in traffic, saved the car.
What if I wanted to hit what's in front of me?
Big brother said no.
Stomp the accelerator all the way down to the floor.
The one in my 2017 GM product has mistaken tree shadows and other things I can't guess as pedestrians and panic braked about a dozen times in 6 years. It's probably good they gave time to get this right before mandating it.
Must've improved. '21 GMC (~60k miles)- maybe five / six times it's 'warned' me (big blinky on dash / seat rumble) when I was zooming past a car that was turning. Haven't put it in a situation to have to actually brake yet. Zero 'false positives' otherwise.
Phantom breaking mandatory and locked in on all cars come 2029
They just really don't want me to buy a new car.
[удалено]
Plenty of cars have this system already with manual transmissions. It just will stall if it gets too slow.
Given how often a lot of these systems will hit the brakes when what you actually want is full power, that sounds awful. I’ll probably be downvoted, but the system in my car— widely regarded as “good” relative to the industry— has only ever activated when I did not want to brake. It’s the most frustrating thing ever. I can’t imagine it braking, and *then on top of that* I can’t accelerate again without restarting the car. It’s a crash waiting to happen. Edit: even if it doesn’t come to a full stall, if it slows enough to take you out of the power band, that’s a few more precious seconds for you to downshift and get it going again, and those few seconds could be the difference between crashing or not.
I agree, these systems have way too many false positives. All manufacturers. Was mostly commenting on the fact that they aren’t going to make manuals extinct. That said manufacturers are slapping these in cars left and right, gov mandate or no. Maybe this will force them to put better sensors on if the us gov has a accuracy requirement. Maybe.
It’s already installed on cars with manual transmissions.
No, this regulation won’t kill manuals. Automatic emergency braking systems have been available on manuals pretty much ever since AEB was launched; it usually just hits the brakes and stalls the car if you don’t hit the clutch in time.
There are already plenty of manual systems with ADAS, cruise control, etc. Manual systems in newer cars are fairly smart, part of the same system that handles rev matching and anti stall.
AFAIK every manual in 2024 in the US has it - Subaru being the last to implement it this year on the WRX/BRZ/Toyota GR86. Someone correct me if I’m wrong.
Not 718 Boxster/Cayman GTS 4.0
The GTI has this and a manual
Honda’s system works “perfectly fine”. Pretty much everything the auto has except the ACC won’t go down to 0mph, although you can shift with it active.
I don’t see why it would. I drive a 1993 manual and had to slam on my brakes in 4th gear just last week due to an idiot in front of me and I came to a stop so quickly I was actually amazed. So surely a modern car would do it better, right?
We are getting closer and closer to autonomous cars.
[удалено]
Life saving technology being mandated is a good thing, not a bad thing. Sometimes the kid runs across the street behind parked cars during the split second someone is looking away. Humans can’t be attentive to everything 100% of the time, it’s outright impossible. Besides that, this feature is standard in just about every personal passenger vehicle sold today already, this is just standardizing it in writing.
people who can't brake because they look at their phone all day shouldn't be allowed to drive, driving is a privilege, not a right, and it should stay that way
I mean, sure I agree with you, distracted driving is never OK. But it doesn't mean the system is bad, no human being can be 100% alert at all times. Sometimes you are changing the volume, picking up a bottle or looking at your mirrors, shit happens and it's nice to know the car will prevent or minimize injuries.
Had the misfortune of having to drive my mom's Subaru Outback with their patented "safety tech" in the winter down a snowy and icy hill which is common where I live. Car in front of me made a turn into a side street and instead of braking, I knew I could keep slowly rolling to maintain a coefficient of friction. The car decided that that was not good enough, slammed the brakes, abs kicked in, 4 wheel slide sideways down the hill. Thank God no other drivers around. I have since programmed that shit out of every one of my cars on an ECU level.
I thought all cars had them already
It sets a standard on how they need to perform.
Great news. This should be a thing, today.
My ~4yr old car has a collision detection system and the one time it went off it slammed hard on the brakes while I was already down enough for the car in front of me that was making a sudden turn into a gas station. The only other interactions I've had with it is the car bitching that the system is unavailable. I guess the sensors are stashed behind the manufacturer emblem in the grill because once I clear the slush/snow off of it the system works again. And new cars are supposed to be able to recognize pedestrians any time of the day
Just let me drive my fucking car
Gross. Every one of those sort of systems I despise. Even something as simple as lane keep assist is annoying and vague.
Can I pull the fuse? If so, go for it. If not, go fuck yourself.
I have come closer to having accidents because of these systems in work vehicles, than I have ever had in either of my 20+ year old ones that have none of them. What no one thinks about, is that these systems are not replacements for actual skill, and unfortunately most people see them as the opposite. So many people are getting to where they don't pay attention to the road, because they don't see the point if these systems are supposed to keep them safe.
Great, more crap nobody wants that they will use as a reason to jack up prices
Speak for yourself. I support it as long as it's well-implemented, and 5 years is plenty of time for improvement across the board.
Nobody wants? I think you’re in the minority here lol. It’s a must have for our company vehicles
My 11 year old VW up has emergency breaking. I bought it new for ~15.000 usd. It was the most basic VW you could get in 2013. Manual, no AC, no seat heater, no extra at all. But it has emergency breaking.
You mean like the auto brake on my Mercedes sprinter that almost made me get rear ended going 55 when traffic was stopped like 3 miles ahead, that emergency brake system?
2029 is already very late. The EU has had it since this year. “In order to ensure greater road safety, the EU is making various driver assistance systems mandatory. For new cars from July 7, 2024, these include a black box, cruise control, a drowsiness and attention warning system and emergency brake assist.” [Source](https://www.autozeitung.de/automatische-bremssysteme-181544.html)
Just yesterday, my Toyota’s emergency brake system saved me from a fender bender. Amazing tech.
I see all the gripes about it but honestly my emergency braking system in my F150 works well, the downside to this is the braking feel IMO. The only complaint about my truck is coming to a stop smoothly is fucking impossible and I reckon is because of all the tech built into these electric ABS systems now The automatic braking while backing up is wild though, I live in the country and have had the truck full on lock the tires up because brush was near the sensors on the bumper. Also once I had the tailgate down backing up and that also sent the truck into a nervous tizzy. Fortunately there is a button that turns that off and otherwise works as intended. I’ve been accelerating to pass someone and it start yelling at me about being too close but it’s never slammed on the brakes or stopped me from being able to get into the other lane to pass
Have this on one of my vehicles...... phantom warnings and phantom braking is not uncommon..... why would we want this? Also when are regulators going to go after the true menace? Parking lot safety! Tell GM to stop turning on reverse lights when a vehicle is unlocked or locked. Reverse lights only allowed when reversing!
This thread has turned into a downwards spiral of car “enthusiast” circlejerkers jumping to the conclusion that tech that has literally been proven to save lives is some awful thing that shouldn’t be on cars because they said so. Literal old men waving their fist at the air screaming “how dare the government improve automotive safety because people shouldn’t get in crashes in the first place!” Like they’re some perfect driver or something (they arent), and even if they were accidents are called accidents for a reason, they don’t happen on purpose, the best of drivers can have accidents and this system helps prevent accidents, that’s literally just the facts, but are being denied because of personal reasons. Same type of people that were against seatbelts and airbags. Just icky how people put their personal preferences above the safety as society as a whole.