johnlocke wrote: ↑Thu Apr 28, 2022 11:18 pm
GRA wrote: ↑Thu Apr 28, 2022 3:47 pm
johnlocke wrote: ↑Tue Apr 26, 2022 9:41 pm
While I agree that ACC when combined with lane keeping isn't a good idea, that wasn't what i was suggesting. Just ACC or even just anti-collision braking. While avoiding a stopped vehicle after the car in front swerves out of the way is a problem, at least ACC would reduce the impact if not avoiding it entirely. I suspect that ACC would have better reaction times than a human driver. A far more likely scenario is stop and go freeway driving where ACC is a real boon and even anti-collision braking would help.
While DAS equipped cars have hit stationary objects, it's also true for ordinary drivers. Whenever a Tesla hits something it seems to be a big deal. Police, firemen, and ambulance drivers regularly get sideswiped by ordinary drivers who ought to watching out for them but don't. While it has been said that Good is the enemy of Perfection, it's also true that good is better than nothing.
Yes, humans have hit stopped vehicles, the issue is two-fold. When a human hits a stopped vehicle, there's no question where the responsibility lies absent mechanical failure, but throw in automated systems that suggest but don't ensure that the human remains in control and the responsibility is muddied. Tesla, for one exploits this with a 'heads we win' ("AP prevented a collision"), 'tails you lose' ("if the car collides with something while on A/P, it's solely the driver's fault") attitude.
The other issue is does ACC/AEB actually reduce the number of collisions of this particular type? I' not aware of any statistics either way. More important to me is that we establish responsibility on both sides, which is why I'm against the use of any DAS system until such time as the manufacturer is willing to accept full legal responsibility for any accident caused while the car is driving itself.
For the first case, pass a law saying that if you're in the car, it is your responsibility. If the car is not occupied then the manufacturer is liable.
I'm not sure how you would go about proving AEB is actually safer without a lot more cars equipped with the feature, Hard to prove a negative result (no accident) without reams of data. The IIHS estimates that if all manufacturers installed AEB, it could prevent 42,000 crashes and 20,000 injuries by 2025 so they must have some data to back that up. 12 major auto manufacturers are now equipping their cars with AEB or ACC so someone thinks it works.
It is clear that some Teslas have prevented an accident with AEB. You can see the U-tube videos. It's also clear that Tesla's system isn't perfect. If you are worried about assigning responsibility, pass a law to make one party or the other responsible as you see fit. Nothing improves without some trial and error. Some prodding along the way doesn't hurt either. I bet that if you made owners 100% responsible under all conditions, you could hear them screaming at the manufacturers quite clearly.
We're not talking about AEB, we're talking about ACC. The IIHS data is clear that AEB has reduced accidents, which is why virtually all the manufacturers agreed to install it on every car by 2023 in the U.S., and it's apparently running well ahead of schedule: https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/nh ... automakers
As I wrote before I'm completely in favor or making AEB mandatory, because it provides an additional layer of safety on top of the driver - there is no doubt at all who's got the ultimate responsibility, nor is there any incentive to treat it as primary and trust their lives with it. Calling it "Automatic EMERGENCY Braking" may have a lot to do with that, as that makes it clear that it's a last hope.
OTOH, current IIHS data for ACC paints a very muddled picture:
https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/adapti ... s-to-speed
Adaptive cruise control spurs drivers to speed
Drivers are using adaptive cruise control (ACC) as a tool for speeding, possibly undermining the feature’s potential safety benefits, a new study from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found.
Drivers are substantially more likely to speed when using ACC or partial automation that combines that feature with lane centering than when not using either technology, the study showed. When selecting a speed to “set and forget,” many drivers choose one that’s over the limit.
“ACC does have some safety benefits, but it’s important to consider how drivers might cancel out these benefits by misusing the system,” says IIHS Statistician Sam Monfort, the lead author of the paper. “Speed at impact is among the most important factors in whether or not a crash turns out to be fatal. . . .”
The systems on the market today don’t restrict drivers from setting speeds that are higher than the legal limit, and they require constant supervision by the driver because they’re not capable of handling certain common road features and driving scenarios.
Nevertheless, an analysis of insurance claims data by the IIHS-affiliated Highway Loss Data Institute and other research indicate that ACC may lower crash risk. Other studies have shown that these systems maintain a greater following distance at their default settings than most human drivers and suggested that they reduce the frequency of passing and other lane changes.
To find out the impact ACC and lane centering technologies have on speeding, IIHS researchers analyzed the behavior of 40 drivers from the Boston metro area over a four-week period using data collected by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Advanced Vehicle Technology Consortium. These drivers were provided with a 2016 Land Rover Range Rover Evoque outfitted with ACC or with a 2017 Volvo S90 equipped with ACC and Pilot Assist — a partial automation system that combines ACC with lane centering. The data suggest that drivers were 24 percent more likely to drive over the speed limit on limited-access highways when those systems were turned on. The amount by which they exceeded the speed limit when they did speed was also greater when they were using the driver assistance features compared with driving manually.
Whether driving manually or using ACC or Pilot Assist, speeders exceeded the limit by the largest margin in zones with a 55 mph limit. In these areas, speeders averaged about 8 mph over the limit, compared with 5 mph in 60 mph and 65 mph zones. ACC also had the largest impact on how much they exceeded the limit in zones where it was 55 mph. In these slower zones, they averaged a little more than 1 mph higher over the limit when using ACC or Pilot Assist than they did driving manually.
That 1 mph increase may not sound like much. Leaving aside any other effect these features may have on crash risk, however, it means ACC and partial automation users are at about 10 percent higher risk of a fatal crash, according to a common formula for calculating probable crash outcomes. This study did not analyze real-world crashes.
The study did not account for several other factors that have been shown to reduce crash frequency and severity. For instance, it’s possible that drivers who set their systems at higher speeds also selected a greater following distance. ACC systems are also designed to respond sooner and less abruptly than human drivers when the vehicle ahead slows down.
Future research will need to balance these benefits against the effects of excess speeding to fully understand the technology’s impact on safety. Making systems more restrictive might be the answer, provided that limiting the maximum speed or linking it to posted limits doesn’t discourage risky drivers from using ACC altogether.
Both of the tested systems also allow drivers to bump their selected speed up or down by 5 mph increments at the touch of a button, which might at least partially explain why users exceeded the legal limit by larger amounts when they had the feature switched on.
Now, allowing an ACC to set speeds significantly above the speed limit is clearly dangerous; ~5 mph allows cars using cruise control to keep up with the human flow of traffic without being far faster than it. OTOH< Tesla for one has gone back and forth about allowing drivers to set any speed they want, even when using A/P or FSD and the car knows what the speed limit is, which is one of the examples of NHTSA simply not doing their job for years.