Rear-end collision avoidance technology from Nissan

[szh]

Mt Dad wouldn't let me drive the family cars (all automatics) until I had mastered shifting a manual. His reasoning? If I were ever in a situation where I had to drive someone else's car, he didn't want me to be stuck, helpless, unable to pilot any vehicle I might find myself having to drive.

Interesting point!

I learned to drive a manual, because that is all we ever bought and had in my family and when I started buying cars later too.

In fact, I bought and drove only manual cars for more than 17 years before I bought my first car with an automatic - my 1991 Q45 (which only came with an automatic)!

Z

[AppleBonker]

But, I don't believe that teaching them how to text while driving is a good thing. Make it a "don't do it" kind of lesson, then it would be good!

The problem with this is that people will still do it. How many times do you see someone texting from the car? It's already illegal in a lot of places, so clearly no one is being deterred by the law (or, shockingly, the increased chance of death). If drivers are going to text on the road regardless of it being a good idea or not, they should be tested to prove their skill first. While it would be nice to find a way to eliminate texting while driving, I don't know how many personal rights would have to be invaded to effective implement a ban. I just mentioned adding it to the driving test as the easiest potential solution to the problem.

[szh]

Well, yes, but a law is a law (assuming you have it in your state). Either enforce it properly or don't make the law in the first place. Yes, people will break it because they know enforcing is difficult.

But, offering a training course on how to text properly seems, on the face of it, a encouragement to go ahead to break the law ... "officially" ... with an tacit consent this law is "okay to ignore"! I find that unacceptable.

Z

[PoorManQ45]

I have to wonder how this would affect aggressive driving.

Like on the freeway when you're about to be boxed in and you accelerate and slip through a small opening. You usually get pretty close to the vehicle in front of you in this situation. I'm wondering if the sensors would be tripped and it would force the pedal up and apply the brakes. That would really suck...

[PoorManQ45]

In 25 years when no one knows how to drive anymore because the car does it all for you based on assumptions from narrow datasets, the roads are going to be one scary f**king place.

Actually, I think you've got it backwards.

When cars become fully automated they will all be in constant communication. There will be no sudden, unexpected, changes in speed or direction. Everything will be communicated to all surrounding vehicles.

The problem with implementing controls like this right now is that you're not taking over everything, and all cars. If you were to install this in all cars, with a few tweaks, maybe a communication system, I believe this could actually work quite well.

[Ajax]

If it were up to me, everyone would have to pass a one-week driving course. It would test driving at speeds exceeding the speed limit, poor weather/mechanical conditions and also force you to do other tasks while driving (such as eating, texting, talking on the phone, etc). While I don't think those extra tasks are a good idea whilst driving, the vast majority of people on the road WILL do them while driving. At least have them prove they are capable of doing so first. I know this would never fly, but I'd gladly give up a week of my life (and even vacation time from work) to ensure that I would be safer on the roads.

Gotta weigh in a bit here. May 2009, my best friend's mom was killed in an accident. She was stopped for a red light on her motorcycle. Lady hit her from behind at 50mph. The lady then admitted to painting her nails while driving. During the trial, she explained that she had even tried painting nails out a bit to make sure she could stay on the road (full details in a blog on the website in my sig- I encourage you to read it). Just because you are capable of texting, eating, etc while on the road doesn't mean you can do it safely.
I know that because of the accident, I've become more vigilent with my own driving habits.
Perhaps driver training should include a simulator with distractions involved so that driver's can really see how quickly things can go bad.
BTW, the lady was found guilty of Reckless Homicide- Sentencing was last week, but I haven't found out the details yet.

[AppleBonker]

I actually remember seeing that ^ on the news. I was pretty furious about it, too. Sorry for your friends loss, and I hope she ends up in jail for a long time. I just wish this case was more publicized at this point to make people think twice about not paying attention to the road.

I do agree entirely with you on people not being able to perform those tasks safely. Unfortunately, that doesn't stop the vast majority from doing it. I don't claim that testing peoples' ability to perform tasks that they shouldn't is the perfect solution, but enforcement isn't going to help anything out in these situations. People are dumb. George Carlin said it best when he asked "think about how stupid the average person is, and then realize that 50% of the population is actually dumber than that". Nobody thinks about the negative consequences of their actions until they are actually faced with them. At least placing them in a test situation while performing these unsafe tasks might demonstrate how poorly equipped they are for them. And, it could eliminate some of the poorer drivers from the road at the same time.

[tigersharkdude]

I didnt read what everyone posted, so I dont know if this is a repost

"Im going to take my brand new (insert car) and get up to 45, and not hit my brakes. Lets see if it works?" I foresee this in approximately 2 years

[ADDirishboy]

I didnt read what everyone posted, so I dont know if this is a repost

"Im going to take my brand new (insert car) and get up to 45, and not hit my brakes. Lets see if it works?" I foresee this in approximately 2 years

That will be an interesting call to the insurance company.

"So you drove straight toward a wall, and deliberately chose to not hit the brakes?"
"That is correct."
"And now you want us to fix it..."
"Yes, ma'am."
"Ummm, no."

[PoorManQ45]

I didnt read what everyone posted, so I dont know if this is a repost

"Im going to take my brand new (insert car) and get up to 45, and not hit my brakes. Lets see if it works?" I foresee this in approximately 2 years

That will be an interesting call to the insurance company.

"So you drove straight toward a wall, and deliberately chose to not hit the brakes?"
"That is correct."
"And now you want us to fix it..."
"Yes, ma'am."
"Ummm, no."

*call lawyer* Ok, thanks, Nissan will be footing this bill.

Depending on how these things are marketed it could probably be construed that the customer was lead to believe that this was a replacement for their own physical input.

[wingFeather]

This would come in handy when you're behind a car with no brake lights.

My '06 M35 had something similar, when the cruise control sensed an imminent impact it tightened the belts & applied the brakes.

[Ajax]

I actually remember seeing that ^ on the news. I was pretty furious about it, too. Sorry for your friends loss, and I hope she ends up in jail for a long time. I just wish this case was more publicized at this point to make people think twice about not paying attention to the road.

FYI, the lady got 18 months out of a possible 5 years in prison. She still gets to leave for work, though I'm not sure how applicable that is- a conviction might cause some trouble for an RN; and for community service etc.
As for publicity, that's why my friend created the Black Nail Brigade, because not enough people have figured out that driving is a priviledge which requires your immediate attention.
And back to the thread, I agree that all these extra computer safety devices only serve to dumb down our driving public.
Viva le manual Transmission!

[PoorManQ45]

This would come in handy when you're behind a car with no brake lights.

I've had a few close encounters with cars with no brake lights. I bet it would be impossible to prove that the lights weren't working after the accident though

[Ajax]

Didn't Volvo recently have a similar system tested in front of journalists, and it completely failed? I remember seeing video (with no translation) within the last few months.

[AppleBonker]

This would come in handy when you're behind a car with no brake lights.

I disagree. I don't want it then either. I have seen a few cars out there with ALL of their tail lights out. I somehow seem to pick up on it fairly easily. It's actually not that complicated. Once again, if you need the car to tell you when the vehicle in front of you is decelerating, you should not be behind the wheel.

[wingFeather]

I disagree. I don't want it then either. I have seen a few cars out there with ALL of their tail lights out. I somehow seem to pick up on it fairly easily. It's actually not that complicated. Once again, if you need the car to tell you when the vehicle in front of you is decelerating, you should not be behind the wheel.

I think the idea here is to supplement driver skill, not replace it. the same can be said of ABS systems, dual outside mirrors, seat belts...

[C-Kwik]

I've had a few close encounters with cars with no brake lights. I bet it would be impossible to prove that the lights weren't working after the accident though

Not necessarily. While the article I'm posting deals more with headlights, to some extent, it could be applied to any light bulb.

http://www.waltersforensic.com/articles ... 1-no18.htm

I'm still not even sold on the necessity of ABS. Anything more controlling than that is definitely not okay in my book. Computers can only judge by the data they are provided. They can't know outside details. They can't judge the "lesser evil" of a collision. They can't tell how YOU the driver might try to react, how their own reaction might interfere with that, or how--Heaven forbid!!!!--the driver might ACTUALLY KNOW WHAT THE s*** HE'S DOING AND BE FINE WITHOUT ELECTRONIC INTERFERENCE!

Is ABS necessary? Nope. No safety system is necessary. But it usually helps. ABS, in most situations stops in less distance and allows one to have a great deal of control. Ultimately, ABS allows each tire to "threshold brake" individually and actively with changing conditions at each tire. No human can replicate that without 4 separate pedals. And even if one did, it would be unlikely that they could manage to brake each wheel at the threshold consistently. In a comparison between the Honda CBR 600 and its ABS counterpart, skilled riders (including racers) could manage to match the stopping distances of the ABS model (mind you its a 2 channel brake system) but struggled to do it repeatedly. In an accident avoidance situation, you only have one chance.

Scenario:
Coming around a blind corner, you encounter a stopped car in your lane. Reason doesn't matter*. Behind you is a semi, also unprepared to stop. IF you stop (or the car stops FOR YOU ARRGHGHGHGHG) you're going to be a dead sandwich. But if you SWERVE...you might just make it. At the very least you'll turn a horrible triple-pileup into a clipped corner. Oh, but guess what...the car has assumed it knows better than you and you're already stopping. Congrats, you're dead. Too bad.

It doesn't sound like you lose the ability to steer. And I can't imagine its not adaptive in the sense that when it no longer senses the danger, it reduces or eliminates its involvement.

Sorry. It doesn't matter how bad a driver a person is, they will still ALWAYS have a better set of data by which to make reaction decisions than any collision prevention system.

Not always. Most people get into accidents because they didn't put attention where it needed to be. And if a person happens to be lacking the attention directly in front of him at the the wrong time, he has less data than is relevant at that moment.

Keep this s*** OUTTA MY CARS. I've gotten by for years without electronic nannies and I intend to keep on that way. When s*** goes wrong I have MYSELF and ONLY MYSELF to contend with. I'm not fighting TCS trying to belatedly contradict me. I'm not fighting ABS thinking it knows how to brake better than I do. I'm not fighting radar bullsh*t thinking it knows how to avoid a crash better than me. When I don't have to think/worry/fight with that garbage, MY OWN reaction ability is improved.

So has most of the population. Most people have never activated the ABS system in their cars. But its good to have when they do need it.

I feel the same way about this crap as I do about Infiniti's "lane departure prevention."
The more we take responsibility for MAINTAINING control of the car away from the driver, the worse off we will all be. In 25 years when no one knows how to drive anymore because the car does it all for you based on assumptions from narrow datasets, the roads are going to be one scary f**king place.

I don't think anyone is trying to remove control from the driver; as if a driver is going to simply let go of the wheel and let the car drive for him. The only lane departure system I've experienced is on my sister's FX35. It doesn't intervene or anything, but simply beeps. Annoys the hell out of me since it goes off a lot when I drive (I change lanes more often than an average person), but my sister doesn't seem to find issue with it.

And I haven't even gotten into the INCREASED potential for things that can go wrong when you start handing over complete braking control to the car.

On the other hand, if a person, for whatever reason, is not paying attention to what's in front of him, and does nothing, and the car stopped itself, wouldn't you say that decreased the potential? I handled more than 10,000 accident investigations. Most stem from a moment of inattentiveness. We, as people, are not infallible. Aids that can assist us in avoiding accidents should not be unwelcome. Could there be some bad side effects? Sure. Seatbelts aren't 100% perfect. But if they save vastly more lives then they take away, is that not a good thing?

I also dislike the idea of anything that "pre-loads" the brakes. That just means you now have no idea how much brake pressure is necessary to stop. Unless your brakes are utterly useless, you don't need "pre-loaded" brakes, you just need to press the effing pedal harder! But when the car changes brake response at panic moments, your ability to respond is--YET AGAIN--impaired.

I have no idea how such a system works, but I'd speculate the "pre-load" is nothing more than cutting off the port between the master cylinder and the reservior so that there is quicker response from the pedal (when the port is exposed pressure build-up in the system is progressive until the port is closed). It doesn't change the amount of pressure required on the brakes. And in such a case where an emergency is imminent one will always want better brake response. Most people don't brake hard enough initially when they see a hazard. The natural reaction to any kind of braking is usually to seek feedback (that is brake progressively harder until one achieves the amount of deceleration they desire). The other response is usually panic in which case a person slams on the brake and would lock-up the tires if they do not have ABS. The concept of brake assist in various cars was implemented because of this fact. All these sytems are coupled with ABS though so it really shouldn't get out of hand.

*I had this happen to me a few months ago. Early morning, very little traffic, all of it clumped together. Coming down a curving overpass, I find a woman in a Corolla STOPPED in the middle lane of a 65mph highway because there is an accident ON THE SHOULDER--no one in front of her. I moved around her, but she very nearly caused a multi-car accident with her stupid.

Just imagine if a less attentive driver was behind her. Perhaps it would have been an accident. And perhaps a system like this might help avoid some of these types of accidents.

All that said, I don't fully disagree with you. I'll reserve judgement on this system until I see how well it was implemented. And for me, I'd probably prefer not to have it if it interferes with how I prefer to drive. I usually have to turn of TCS and VDC systems in most cars I drive. But I don't resent such systems fully as I know that there are people who might need such a system and that most drivers wouldn't regularly be affected by such systems) But hell, if it keeps me from getting rear ended by some moron, I'm all for it (in concept anyways). We'll have to wait and see how well it actually performs.

[Rev_D21]

Corporations want docile consumers. You can't be a docile consumer if you are busy paying attention to driving your car.

[ADDirishboy]

I've had a few close encounters with cars with no brake lights. I bet it would be impossible to prove that the lights weren't working after the accident though

Very difficult? Yes. Impossible? No.

Really, the only way to prove that a tail light was out is if you have witnesses or the person driving with the burnt bulbs admits to it. Even then, there is going to be some fault on the person who hit them.

[PoorManQ45]

I've had a few close encounters with cars with no brake lights. I bet it would be impossible to prove that the lights weren't working after the accident though

Very difficult? Yes. Impossible? No.

Really, the only way to prove that a tail light was out is if you have witnesses or the person driving with the burnt bulbs admits to it. Even then, there is going to be some fault on the person who hit them.

C-Kwik posted this link http://www.waltersforensic.com/articles ... 1-no18.htm

Great information. It seems very easy to tell if the bulb was on.

I am looking for information on newer cars with LEDs and HIDs, but I don't think you'd have many issues with them being burned out...

[ADDirishboy]

Honestly, that article means nothing in insurance companies. The people who are behind the computer aren't the ones inspecting the cars, and the ones inspecting the cars are usually morons.

Again though, even if the insurance did find that someones bulb was burnt out prior to the accident, if you rear end someone you're still partially at fault.

[PoorManQ45]

Honestly, that article means nothing in insurance companies. The people who are behind the computer aren't the ones inspecting the cars, and the ones inspecting the cars are usually morons.

Again though, even if the insurance did find that someones bulb was burnt out prior to the accident, if you rear end someone you're still partially at fault.

The way that that article is written it seems to be explaining how an accident investigator would perform their job.

Did your company ever use them?

[ADDirishboy]

The way that that article is written it seems to be explaining how an accident investigator would perform their job.

Did your company ever use them?

Only in very serious accidents where someone was severely hurt or dead. If it's just someone that rear-ended someone else, they won't use one. It's not cost effective.

[C-Kwik]

Honestly, that article means nothing in insurance companies. The people who are behind the computer aren't the ones inspecting the cars, and the ones inspecting the cars are usually morons.

Again though, even if the insurance did find that someones bulb was burnt out prior to the accident, if you rear end someone you're still partially at fault.

Actually it means a lot to insurance companies. The people behind the desks or out inspecting the cars don't need to know how to check though. Only that the capability of confirming the status of a lamp at the time of impact might be able to be confirmed. Experts should be hired in order to ensure impartiality. And depending on the severity of the claim, an adjuster can choose the level of expertise needed. For typical claims, I used Centro Inspections (www.centroinspection.com). The company I worked for at the time used them primarily for confirming if certain mechanical failures claimed were accident-related or not and for inspections in remote locations, but I used them on a number of occassions to check if a headlamp was on or not. It was good enough for inter-company arb.

I agree there would be partial liability. Perhaps more on the person who did the rear ending.

[ADDirishboy]

I agree there would be partial liability. Perhaps more on the person who did the rear ending.

Usually, yea.

And maybe it was just the company I worked at, but they never really used them.

[MinisterofDOOM]

I don't think anyone is trying to remove control from the driver; as if a driver is going to simply let go of the wheel and let the car drive for him. The only lane departure system I've experienced is on my sister's FX35. It doesn't intervene or anything, but simply beeps. Annoys the hell out of me since it goes off a lot when I drive (I change lanes more often than an average person), but my sister doesn't seem to find issue with it.

The old FX has Lane Departure Warning, which just makes the rumble strip sound. Newer Infinitis have Lane Departure Prevention, which actually uses braking to try and keep your car from drifting out of your lane if you ignore the warning sound. It's integrated with stability control. I can see this causing lots of problems, especially in construction zones where there are old faded lines and new relevant lines that could combine to confuse the car. My old commute into Salt Lake City was 75% construction zone with movable concrete barriers, the lane paintings changing frequently. DOT does a terrible job of removing old lines and we already get a lot of out-of-state drivers and other drivers who aren't familiar with the area following the wrong sets. I can only imagine the havok LDP would wreak through those stretches. Fortunately it can be disabled.

I don't think anyone is "trying" to take control from the driver either. But it will still happen. Give them an inch, they'll take a mile.

[PapaSmurf2k3]

MOD is like John Connor from Terminator.

...and I tend to agree with him. Fortunately most of us here possess the know-how to go in and cut whatever wire is controlling that sort of stuff if it ever comes to the point where it is pre-installed and can't be disabled with a button.

[ADDirishboy]

Fortunately most of us here possess the know-how to go in and cut whatever wire is controlling that sort of stuff if it ever comes to the point where it is pre-installed and can't be disabled with a button.

[RED_DET]

Included in this "week long driving course" someone mentioned, should also include HPD as well. The majority of people driving on the roads, young or old DO NOT know the limitations of their vehicle. I see an enormous amount of horrible driving skills on a daily basis, all day long.

Another issue is obviously the driver's license bureau, the driving test is a complete joke, written or actual. Next up is the court system, which is way too lax on punishments. People have truly forgot what the passing lane is used for or hell even which one it is. The biggest issue is that folks think driving is a right. Don't even get me started on the illegal aliens that drive. If you don't have a valid drivers license you should not be able to (A) register any vehicles (B) insurance any vehicles and a "fake" international license doesn't cut it which I have seen many many times.

*foot notes*

Advanced Driver Education
Strict Laws
Strict Punishment

will curb all this nonsense of adding features to cars that brake for you, lane departure avoidance, etc.

[ADDirishboy]

Don't even get me started on the illegal aliens that drive.

I take it you live around AZ?