U.S. to require automatic emergency braking on new vehicles in 5 years
U.S. regulators plan to mandate automatic emergency braking on new vehicles within five years, aiming to cut rear-end crashes, injuries, and deaths at relatively low added cost per car. Commenters weigh those projected benefits against frequent false positives and edge-case failures in current systems, concerns about driver stress and loss of control, and broader worries over rising vehicle prices and government intrusion. Others argue that safety mandates like this are in line with long-standing precedents (seatbelts, ABS), that similar rules already exist in Europe, and that automated braking is only one piece of a larger road-safety puzzle involving enforcement, road design, vehicle size, and speed limits.
Overall sentiment
- Strongly mixed: many skeptical due to bad experiences with current systems; others argue the aggregate safety gains justify a mandate.
- Thread repeatedly contrasts individual annoyance/risk vs. population-level reduction in crashes and fatalities.
Real‑world experiences with automatic emergency braking (AEB)
- Several drivers report frequent false positives: hard braking on narrow roads, during passes, in curves, or due to road debris, signs, trees.
- Some systems reportedly pull toward the shoulder or brake mid‑turn, creating new hazards (risk of being rear‑ended, loss of control, or lane deviation).
- Other users report mostly positive experiences: AEB or collision warning intervened in close calls (rear‑end situations, a pedestrian crossing during a right turn).
- False positives vary by implementation; some systems give only warnings first, others go straight to hard braking.
Safety effectiveness and cost-benefit
- Cited estimates: ~362 lives saved/year for about $82 per car (≈$354M/year), argued to be cost‑effective vs. typical “value of a statistical life.”
- Some point to data suggesting AEB can prevent a large fraction of rear‑end crashes; others note many current systems perform poorly at higher speeds.
- One argument: reducing speed by even 10 km/h before impact meaningfully reduces severity, even if a crash still occurs.
- Counter‑argument: new categories of crashes from false activations may offset some gains; true net effect seen as unclear by skeptics.
Mandates, regulation, and “freedom”
- Supporters compare this to historical safety mandates (seat belts, ABS, airbags), arguing large social costs of crashes (~40k deaths/year, huge medical costs) justify regulation.
- Opponents frame it as government overreach and a precedent for more intrusive controls (e.g., remote shutdowns, mandated sensors) and argue drivers should choose.
- Some raise concern about regulatory capture and lobbied mandates (analogy to France’s scrapped in‑car breathalyzer rule).
Technology maturity and reliability thresholds
- Many see current AEB, lane assist, and collision detection as immature: 99–99.9% correctness viewed as insufficient when controlling a fast, heavy vehicle.
- Others note that AEB is already common in new cars and that standardized requirements may push manufacturers to improve robustness.
Costs, equity, and alternatives
- Concerns that added tech raises car prices, effectively taxing poorer drivers in car‑dependent regions.
- Some argue cars are underpriced given externalities and that higher costs and safety mandates are beneficial.
- Alternatives proposed: better public transit and housing near jobs, smaller/lighter vehicles, stricter speed enforcement or speed governors (with debate over edge cases and safety trade‑offs).