Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Transportation Government United States

US Reviewing Automatic Emergency Braking Rule (reuters.com) 178

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: A U.S. auto safety agency said on Friday it is reconsidering a landmark rule from the administration of former President Joe Biden requiring nearly all new cars and trucks by 2029 to have advanced automatic emergency braking systems. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said it would delay the effective date to March 20 to give the new Trump administration time to further review the regulation.

The Alliance for Automotive Innovation, representing General Motors, Toyota Motor, Volkswagen and other automakers, last week filed suit to block the rule, saying the regulation is "practically impossible with available technology." The group asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to overturn the rule, saying the requirement that cars and trucks must be able to stop and avoid striking vehicles in front of them at up to 62 miles per hour (100 kph) is unrealistic. It unsuccessfully asked NHTSA last year to reconsider the rule.
Come 2029, all cars sold in the U.S. "must be able to stop and avoid contact with a vehicle in front of them at speeds up to 62 mph," reports Car and Driver."

"Additionally, the system must be able to detect pedestrians in both daylight and darkness. As a final parameter, the federal standard will require the system to apply the brakes automatically up to 90 mph when a collision is imminent, and up to 45 mph when a pedestrian is detected."

According to the NHTSA, the rule will save at least 360 lives annually and prevent more than 24,000 injuries.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US Reviewing Automatic Emergency Braking Rule

Comments Filter:
  • by larryjoe ( 135075 ) on Friday January 24, 2025 @10:37PM (#65117035)

    "In 2016, 20 automakers voluntarily agreed to make automatic emergency braking standard on nearly all U.S. vehicles by 2022. By late 2023, all 20 had equipped at least 95% of vehicles with the braking systems, but critics say there is no way to ensure effectiveness without government regulations." (link [reuters.com])

    AEB is already nearly ubiquitous for new cars. The pushback is not for AEB but for advanced AEB at higher speeds. Current systems work at around 30 mph, but the advanced systems that are the focus of this thread are for higher speeds around 60 mph. Obviously braking at higher speeds is more challenging, so the question is how well these systems can work at these higher speeds.

    • As I said in my just wow post the lav-25 and m242 can take a human target at nearly a mile while moving at 40mph over rough terrain.
      They can make a car stop.

    • by Z00L00K ( 682162 ) on Friday January 24, 2025 @11:04PM (#65117073) Homepage Journal

      One catch with the automatic braking is that it can do false detection and suddenly brake in unexpected situations.

      This means that the rules imposed have to be working in reality so that the vehicles don't accidentally misinterprets things like a mailbox as a child and do an emergency braking.

      • by sjames ( 1099 )

        But I keep hearing from "unlucky" drivers all about how a mailbox can just jump out in the middle of the road and get hit! What about them?

        • by cstacy ( 534252 )

          But I keep hearing from "unlucky" drivers all about how a mailbox can just jump out in the middle of the road and get hit! What about them?

          I have heard about your bleeding heart "Won't Someone Think Of The Mailboxes" rhetoric. Next you''' be playing the racing card.

      • by superdave80 ( 1226592 ) on Saturday January 25, 2025 @01:27AM (#65117209)

        One catch with the automatic braking is that it can do false detection and suddenly brake in unexpected situations.

        It happened to me. Car braked suddenly because it THOUGHT I was going to hit something, and almost got rear-ended.

      • We have Elon Musk saying that full self-driving with just cameras is possible and "right around the corner." Meanwhile we have an automotive group suing to say that a much simpler automatic braking system is nearly impossible with current technology.

        I'm not fully qualified to say which statement is true. But they can't both be true simultaneously.

      • So you don't stop for mailboxes? They aren't even moving! But I guess that's your point. Are you saying you have a car that thinks mailboxes are pedestrians? That must suck.
    • by immel ( 699491 )
      This is one of those problems where the complexity scales by the square of the speed. Double the speed, quadruple the complexity. You not only need to see a human from farther away, you also need to predict their movement longer in advance.
      I'm sure there are systems capable of identifying a human from far away, even at night. The hard part is that this problem has very low tolerance for both false positives and false negatives. You don't want your vehicle emergency stopping on its own in the middle of a h
      • by AvitarX ( 172628 )

        It has a high tolerant for false negatives.

        False negatives mean we're at the status quo which has been fine for decades (based on the fact we let people drive). This isn't meant to replace careful driving, so if it only works 25% of the time it saves 8,000 injuries a year rather than 24,000. That's an improvement (of the cost is worth it is another matter, I don't know what systems are expected to cost per car).

        False positives on the other hand run the risk of making things worse than the status quo and abs

    • by geekmux ( 1040042 ) on Saturday January 25, 2025 @06:20AM (#65117433)

      "In 2016, 20 automakers voluntarily agreed to make automatic emergency braking standard on nearly all U.S. vehicles by 2022. By late 2023, all 20 had equipped at least 95% of vehicles with the braking systems, but critics say there is no way to ensure effectiveness without government regulations." (link [reuters.com])

      AEB is already nearly ubiquitous for new cars. The pushback is not for AEB but for advanced AEB at higher speeds. Current systems work at around 30 mph, but the advanced systems that are the focus of this thread are for higher speeds around 60 mph. Obviously braking at higher speeds is more challenging, so the question is how well these systems can work at these higher speeds.

      I’d say the challenges with high speed braking will come down to the meatsack still driving a pre-AEB vehicle trying to react in the same millisecond speed the “advanced” system in front of them did, and failing.

      And saving 360 lives a year? Gee, I wonder how many more-than-that could be saved if we treated smartphone addiction leading to harm or death like we do a drunk driver harming someone? With punishment that includes mandatory treatment for addiction. I worry about the smartphone junkie way more than any drunk now. Drunk drivers represent some assholes on the road. Smartphone addicts represent damn near everyone under 40 licensed to drive a car. You tell me what the bigger problem is and will be. There’s a reason we need AEB instead of better drivers. Smartphone Addiction; When everyone is an addict, no one is.

      Truth hurts. Ignorantly harming someone, hurts a hell of a lot more.

      • by dgatwood ( 11270 )

        I’d say the challenges with high speed braking will come down to the meatsack still driving a pre-AEB vehicle trying to react in the same millisecond speed the “advanced” system in front of them did, and failing.

        This is why you have to mandate such features on all cars. Rolling it out to only the high-end cars means that the wealthy live and everyone else dies. Yes, it takes time for it to become ubiquitous, but the sooner you roll it out, the sooner used cars have it, and the sooner almost everyone has it.

        Basically, you can't fully judge the success or failure of a policy like this until about 13 years later, which is the average age of cars on the road. And that average is increasing, so every extra year you w

      • by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

        Iâ(TM)d say the challenges with high speed braking will come down to the meatsack still driving a pre-AEB vehicle trying to react in the same millisecond speed the âoeadvancedâ system in front of them did, and failing.

        And that challenge is easily done by maintaining a safe following distance and not tailgaiting.

        If the car in front of you suddenly slams on their brakes, you need to slam on your brakes. The following distance is to allow for you to see and react to that event. 2 seconds is the

    • The reason braking at higher speeds it challenging is that most drivers follow so close that any system implemented at 45+ mph would have to actively block the driver from following too closely.

      No system can overcome the laws of physics - if you are too close the system simply can't work. It would have to actively correct the unsafe driver controlling the car. The driver will have the pedal to the floor and complain the car can't go any faster. Now the lead car switches lanes and the car will allow full
    • Adequate braking at higher speeds might require G forces that could well kill some passengers.

      • by dgatwood ( 11270 )

        Adequate braking at higher speeds might require G forces that could well kill some passengers.

        I'm pretty sure the wheels will lose traction long before you reach that point. And by pretty sure, I mean absolutely 100% certain unless those passengers aren't buckled in.

    • by Kisai ( 213879 )

      I think the automakers just are unwilling (for cost reasons) rather than "it's impossible"

      Trains can have AEB, and they have much longer stopping distances. It's been around since the 80's. What makes it hard(er) for cars, trucks, and other passenger-type vehicles is that it can't be done with cameras alone (where a train has track-side equipment to help,) it has to be done with with the vehicles own speed monitoring and a radar system. Relying on the cameras alone means it won't have the necessary depth pe

  • by hero ( 25043 ) on Friday January 24, 2025 @10:40PM (#65117041) Journal

    Companies are promising their AIs will be able to outperform humans at just about everything in a year or two but slowing a car down, even given 5 years, it seems is not one of those things.

    • Companies are promising their AIs will be able to outperform humans at just about everything in a year or two but slowing a car down, even given 5 years, it seems is not one of those things.

      Ironically it’s probably you the human that is causing that delay.

      If you slow-ass drugged/drunk/distracted meatsacks weren’t still following way too close impatiently, they just might be able to deploy automatic advanced braking systems ready to stop on a dime in front of you.

      You’d probably be singing a different tune through a straw from a hospital bed with an ambulance chaser consoling you with zeros by your side. Also known as justified liability and the reason for “technical di

    • The funny thing is that, I believe, Waymo cars are already doing this. Meanwhile Musk says Level 5 vehicle automation with nothing but cameras is right around the corner but he doesn't seem able to deliver. The rest of the car manufacturers say that pedestrian detection is impossible.

      If Waymo can detect pedestrians at 45mph but nobody else can, that's understandable, but then Musk needs to cool it with the FSD promises.

      • by dgatwood ( 11270 )

        The funny thing is that, I believe, Waymo cars are already doing this. Meanwhile Musk says Level 5 vehicle automation with nothing but cameras is right around the corner but he doesn't seem able to deliver. The rest of the car manufacturers say that pedestrian detection is impossible.

        If Waymo can detect pedestrians at 45mph but nobody else can, that's understandable, but then Musk needs to cool it with the FSD promises.

        Detecting the pedestrian shouldn't be the problem. That's a thoroughly solved problem. Recognizing whether the pedestrian is going to cross the road or not is harder, but not impossible.

        Tesla's FSD problems are mostly a combination of path planning issues, really poor understanding of which lane to use, learning from bad drivers to drive in ways that violate the law and potentially can be safety issues, and not accurately judging the size of objects, resulting in clipping your mirrors on things. These ar

        • If you look at other posts in this thread, apparently, this technology is already required in Europe and being delivered by the same manufacturers who say it's impossible. I don't know as I haven't been to Europe in decades. But there really ought to be a penalty for saying something is impossible if you're already doing it just across the pond.
  • by zephvark ( 1812804 ) on Friday January 24, 2025 @11:07PM (#65117077)

    So, it barely does anything, and will add massively to the cost of cars. Laws like this are effective misdirections that keep cars both expensive and only available from major manufacturers. You could probably save many more lives, annually, by requiring bathtubs that aren't slippery when wet.

    • So, it barely does anything, and will add massively to the cost of cars.

      Yeah fuck those 360 people. And fuck those 24000 others who have to live with potentially life changing injuries. I just want a cheaper car! /s

      It's amazing how self centreed some people are. I remind you that car makers are promising cars will drive themselves by that time. I remind you that cars already have front facing radars, cameras, and sonar sensors from other regulations, including AEB that doesn't quiet yet meet the requirements. Yet you're here ignorantly complaining that this will increase cost (

      • by geekmux ( 1040042 ) on Saturday January 25, 2025 @09:10AM (#65117579)

        So, it barely does anything, and will add massively to the cost of cars.

        Yeah fuck those 360 people. And fuck those 24000 others who have to live with potentially life changing injuries. I just want a cheaper car! /s

        It's amazing how self centreed some people are. I remind you that car makers are promising cars will drive themselves by that time. I remind you that cars already have front facing radars, cameras, and sonar sensors from other regulations, including AEB that doesn't quiet yet meet the requirements. Yet you're here ignorantly complaining that this will increase cost (which you have zero basis to say given that the hardware already exists in new vehicles) all the while dismissing the idea of killing 360 people.

        I wonder if your view would change if it was someone you cared about? Or if your arm got torn off in an accident.

        Treating mental illness and addiction would save a hell of a lot more than 360 people. We care more about the tax revenue selling addicts cars filled to the MSRP-plus-priced brim with shit no consumer asked for, especially in in the “base” model (the hell is even that anymore), and have fuck all to do with safety (heated, cooled, and massage seats?).

        If anything, our fucking touchscreen tactile-free infotainment cocoons behind the wheel are enabling problems with distracted driving. Car companies had no choice but to cater to the Touchscreen Generation. Just like AEB. That’s not progress. It’s tolerating addiction.

    • They didn't provide information about those 360 lives. I guess it was mostly in urban areas, where high-speed collisions aren't the primary cause of pedestrian deaths. People are fairly well protected inside their metal cages, assuming they wear seat belts. Target the regulation at the problem, not where "it feels good."
  • set it to 50

  • In other news, Vin Diesel was seen leaving the oval office this afternoon. In an exclusive interview granted to slashdotter martin-boundary, the actor who plays Dominic Toretto confirmed the highly anticipated announcement that the next movie in the beloved franchise, "Fast & Furious 11: Breaking is for Suckers" is going ahead on schedule. Vin confirmed there would be a small cameo scene with a mystery celebrity. When pressed further, he only said that it would involve a golfcart.
  • There goes that bumper sticker the comedian Gallagher once suggested, that read...

    "I break for no fouk a reason." (also for a C++ programmer)

    Now the auto industry can focus on my car suddenly turning a sharp angles with "rack and opinionated" steering...no more unlucky breaks or brakes.

    JoshK.

  • ... up to 45 mph when a pedestrian is detected.

    What will really happen? Pedestrians don't need to wait for the walk signal, every car will automatically stop. We've already seen robo-taxis immobilized by placing obstructions (witch's hats) in front of it. Here, when the driver gets out, a car thief gets in.

    Stealing cars and paradoxically, catching car thieves just got a lot easier. This rule can be used against certain other 'people' but I won't give the game away. It's fascinating how laws to stop 'bad stuff' happening, actually enable criminals

    • Your algorithm assumes that the pedestrian will move at a constant speed, which they might not. If there is a pedestrian in the road, you probably need to make a full stop. Pedestrians are very unpredictable.

      Many years ago, I drove my nephew to his first date. On the way back, a group of four kids ran across the street (two lanes each way, 45mph limit, not a controlled access highway). Light rain. Three of them were decisive and made it across. The fourth didn't move at first but then decided to go.

  • Eventually we're going to have to accept that people die, and not always of old age.

  • "practically impossible with available technology."

    Well they've got 4 years to advance the technology...

  • It can already be done with the heaviest trucks on the road. Just go look at Volvo's videos of their 40 tonne semi-truck AEBS tests on Youtube. The problem with America is that you're now DECADES behind when it comes to cars and heavy trucks in particular. I drive 44 tonne trucks here in the UK and stepping into a US truck is like going back 40 years in time.
  • If it's impossible how come every new European passenger vehicle has advanced emergency braking as standard since has been mandatory mandatory since 2024? And these rules come into force for new large vehicles like buses and lorries this year too. I suspect the reason US car makers don't want this has nothing to do with it being possible or not and more to do with their fear of regulatory testing, especially when it comes to pedestrian safety.

  • Why not 100 MPH? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by cascadingstylesheet ( 140919 ) on Saturday January 25, 2025 @09:23AM (#65117585) Journal
    I mean all it takes is an edict, right?
  • ...and why trucks and automobiles are $65,000 GREAT idea. (My 2014 Subaru with EyeSight does adaptive cruise and will stop at a traffic light on it's own.)
  • .. by it's driver, essentially the car would have to slow down to keep a safe distance from the lead car. This would infuriate the majority of drivers that simply don't follow safe driving habits.

    I try to keep a distance that if the car in front suddenly becomes a wall I might have time to panic stop. The problem with this on double lane roads is inevitably someone always go around you and fills in that safety gap.

    Getting there 1 second faster is not going to save your crumby day. But at least you are
  • ...that doesn't exist yet is silly and wrong.
    It demonstrates that politicians are clueless.
    A batter approach would be to encourage the development of tech.
    Any mandate should be delayed until development and testing are complete, and it is agreed that the tech works, and the pitfalls, edge cases and side effects are determined to be manageable.

  • A gizmo that would stop cars from starting when alcohol fumes are detected inside the car, should be much easier and cheaper and save 37 deaths per day instead of just 1, or one person every 39 minutes.

  • At some point, the cost trade off has to be considered. We can save lots of lives and make traffic accidents nil if we make car unaffordable. But how does this affect poor people's ability to get to work or go on with their lives. For the lefties out there, stop focusing on Trump and corporations and consider the negative impact on marginalized communities if cars are unaffordable to buy, operate, and maintain.
  • considering the EU has mandated emergency braking for years now and is getting along fine. Likewise, they've been mandating amber turn signals for even longer and have fewer people turning getting rear ended as a result.

    But I suppose getting either in the next five years in the US is unlikely because it would require Republicans to care about something other than manufacturing consent for fascism, blaming brown and queer people for all of their own failings, and finding ways to legalize slavery.

  • But what we really need is a system that prevents break checking.

"my terminal is a lethal teaspoon." -- Patricia O Tuama

Working...