|
Because driving standards and law enforcement have fallen to the point that it has become necessary?
|
What's all this faffing around ?
Why don't "they" just get on with it and ban cars altogether.
"They" can then ban alcohol sales, fatty food, any sharp objects and any new building over 2m high in case we fall down the stairs. We can then live forever and love every long agonising minute of it.
|
>> What's all this faffing around ?
>>
>> Why don't "they" just get on with it and ban cars altogether.
>>
That's the last thing the car haters want, there is a lifetime of work, and pension generation in future legislation. Best of all "they" can make life miserable for the drivers with the skills they can only dream of, while falling off their bikes. :-)
EDIT - I propose full motor cycle leathers and helmets for all cyclists!
Last edited by: Old Navy on Mon 6 Aug 12 at 13:36
|
|
How long before we have people saying "it wasn't my fault I ran into the car in front, the auto-braking failed"?
|
|
Or people whose own car has it, failing to appreciate its absence when driving another!
|
|
Cheer up Dulwich,nobody forces you to carry on living >:)
|
|
Then the solution is to improve driving standards, surely! But that would cost money, of course...
|
|
Look on the bright side - it should ultimately put a stop to tailgating.
|
|
What about the concertina effect? Could result in some interesting insurance claims!
|
'Look on the bright side - it should ultimately put a stop to tailgating.'
so would a huge spike on the steering wheel pointing towards the driver
People would drive more sensibly if they had the threat of death in their hands.
|
>> so would a huge spike on the steering wheel pointing towards the driver
>> People would drive more sensibly if they had the threat of death in their hands.
We need snipers on motorway bridges and gantries to deal with people like this, with abuse of the overtaking lanes, and anyone using rear fog lights in rain also added to their remit. ;-)
|
>> Why does this make me feel uneasy..?
>>
>> www.reghardware.com/2012/08/06/euro_ncap_to_add_auto_braking_to_test_regime/
>>
Because its a sensationalised piece of reporting that's designed to do exactly that?
The proposal is to add auto braking to the new car safety test regime from 2014, not to make it compulsory. What that means is that is that a new car will be unlikely to achieve a 5 star rating without this feature.
|
Euro NCAP said that it "hopes that European authorities will soon require AEB as mandatory on all new vehicle types"
Doesn't sound like sensationalising to me.
|
The statement:
"From that date, so-called Autonomous Emergency Braking (AEB) technology will be required by any car seeking a New Car Assessment Programme rating.
That means they effectively all will, since no one's going to buy a new car that lacks an NCAP rating."
is just plain wrong. The car will have an NCAP rating - just not a five star one and plenty of people buy cars without a five star rating. Like I said sensationalist reporting.
|
>> is just plain wrong. The car will have an NCAP rating - just not a
>> five star one and plenty of people buy cars without a five star rating. Like
>> I said sensationalist reporting.
>>
I read the statement as "No AEB, No assesment". = No stars.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Mon 6 Aug 12 at 14:11
|
With all this "Safety" hullaballo How long before the first Foam-rubber car emerges!!
A lot of these built-in safety features actually create bad drivers and hence increase accidents.
|
If these so equipped vehicles encounter radar from gatsos or lasers from laser guns what will they do?
The way some people drive it would probably be best if they applied the brakes on their drives and left them there...
I also wonder how the technology is implemented and what every day occurrences could potentially cause an accident as the car would suddenly slam the brakes on because you drove by a wheelie bin.
|
>> as the car would suddenly slam the brakes on because you drove
>> by a wheelie bin.
>>
I wondered about that too.
Presumably for a start it will only respond to things that have been moving but have slowed down, to avoid reacting to stationary things like bus stops, bridges etc?
Also presumably it can distinguish between cars in different lanes - so what happens on bends when the car directly ahead might be in a different lane?
Or you accelerate hard for a slingshot overtake?
|
>> Also presumably it can distinguish between cars in different lanes - so what happens on
>> bends when the car directly ahead might be in a different lane?
>> Or you accelerate hard for a slingshot overtake?
>>
Maybe the masterplan is to turn us all into brain disengaged convoy drivers so that we can phone, surf the net, and check our emails, eat breakfast etc, on the move.
|
>> Maybe the masterplan is to turn us all into brain disengaged convoy drivers so that
>> we can phone, surf the net, and check our emails, eat breakfast etc, on the
>> move.
Lorry drivers in fact.
|
>> Exactly - and that is not what EURO NCAP are saying;
>>
>> www.euroncap.com/Content-Web-Article/c79b2bdc-f914-4ad0-8d49-54254cda0ddc/euro-ncap-to-drive-availability-of-autonomous-emer.aspx
>>
>>
"The inclusion of AEB systems in the Euro NCAP star rating will ............."
I stand in the corner with a dunces hat. :-)
|
...I stand in the corner with a dunces hat. :-)...
It's the reghardware 'reporter' who is the dunce for misinterpreting the NCAP statement.
If he's a proper trained journalist I will eat my hat.
Any monkey with a keyboard is a published author now.
|
I suppose AEB had to come, My humble Ceed is advertised as having EBA (Emergency Brake Assist) I assume it has, as I have not provoked it into action yet. At least I have control over its intervention. I blame the IT geeks for inventing these things. :-)
Crossply tyres on ice teach car control. :-)
|
|
The way this is all going, there will be parts of our large cities you won't be able to drive through...because...whenever a rogue pedestrian fancies crossing wherever and whenever the hell he likes...you car will automatically stop for him.
|
>>Any monkey with a keyboard is a published author now<<
Very true, sadly.
Personally, I don't give a stuff about Ncap ratings and I don't have a lot of time for those who say they do 'because I care for my family'. So catch the bus. I brought up my family safely before Ncap existed.
The generously proportioned couple I saw last week batting along in their open top Austin 7 Chummy would agree with me I think. It looked like something from Russell Brockbank's Major Upset.
|
I wrote off a car in particularly spectacular circumstances. I have more then a passing interest in NCAP ratings.
And if someone trots out that spike on the steering wheel crap again you will be looking for four new tyres
Last edited by: Zero on Mon 6 Aug 12 at 16:11
|
|
funny that, I brought four new tyres last month (no joke).
|
|
I will be in Zeros area next week, I will watch out for Lancers speeding and being driven in spectacular accident mode.
|
>> I will be in Zeros area next week, I will watch out for Lancers speeding
>> and being driven in spectacular accident mode.
You wont, your visa has been revoked.
|
Wow Lancers have 'spectacular accident mode' as an optional extra.
Just got to buy one now and become yet another statistic.
I guess it makes a change from my Bakelite handling Rio
|
>> Wow Lancers have 'spectacular accident mode' as an optional extra.
they dont - simply not fast enough.
|
"batting along in their open top Austin 7 Chummy"
You have to wonder how they have survived this long without an Ncap rating, not to mention all the mod cons of assisted everything. Possibly by knowing and driving within their and the car's abilities and anticipating traffic well ahead, knowing that a loss of momentum would take some time to recover!
|
>> My humble Ceed is advertised as having EBA (Emergency Brake Assist) I assume it has, as
>> I have not provoked it into action yet.
Some might not realise EBA has kicked in. They might think they have applied maximum brake pressure themselves whereas the car has detected an emergency braking situation and applied max pressure itself.
I'm sure automatic stopping of cars was inevitable when the technology matured and got cheap enough. I wish the lorry that ran into the back of my hire car in Italy had it! And I'm glad the Fiesta was fairly well designed and absorbed a lot of the impact.
|
>> >> My humble Ceed is advertised as having EBA (Emergency Brake Assist) I assume it
>> has, as
>> >> I have not provoked it into action yet.
>>
>> Some might not realise EBA has kicked in.
Many people have all the safety features in the world and either
a) drive like morons because of this, assuming that they can challnege the laws of physics
or
b) panic when the 'safety features' kick in.
A straw-poll round the office once showed that of the people whose cars had ABS, over 50% had never been in a situation where it had activated, and wouldn't know what was happening if it did. And would probably panic.
That is frightening.
|
It may be loose reporting, CG, but do you really think that it will stop there?
They have already expressed the hope that AEB will be mandatory on all new vehicle types, yet the most they can say about it is that it "can help to avoid crashes", in much the same way that low-calorie snacks *can* help you lose weight.
If they had real evidence, they would say so, but they don't, so they haven't.
|
>> If they had real evidence, they would say so, but they don't, so they haven't.
of course they have no evidence, too few cars have it to provide the evidence.
|
So what about the "Real world performance data" they talk about? This "suggests" that AEB "can reduce accidents", implying rather strongly that the results were inconclusive.
Realising, perhaps, that there are limits to the crash resistance you can build into a car, and that further improvements are unlikely to be cost-effective in the mass market, they are turning their attention, like good little bureaucrats, to other areas they can influence.
As I understand it, the mortality rate in the UK is considerably lower than in most of the EU, so maybe that would reward further study, rather than the imposition of ever more complicated ("forward-looking radar, lidar and video systems") hardware. I hope somebody sues them when it goes wrong.
|
There's further left to go than we've already come along this particular road.
It's often said that if drinking alcohol or inhaling tobacco smoke were newly invented they would probably be illegal along with other 'drugs'.
In the same vein - I've done a fair bit of narrowboating, and often thought that if canals, and especially lock chambers, were a new invention the public wouldn't be let anywhere near them on their own.
Once that sort of thinking gets a grip with people who are "accountable" for protecting the public then there really is no limit - when they 'fix' one thing they just look for the next thing on the list until we are all wrapped in cotton wool, then they'll start working out what the most dangerous kind of cotton wool is and ban that.
I hope these things go in cycles and there's a backlash at some stage.
It's barmy when you think about it, people are not an endangered species, there's a population problem, and H&S runs counter to evolutionary development ;-)
|
>>often thought that if canals, and especially lock chambers, were a new invention the public wouldn't be let anywhere near them on their own.
Ever done the Pontcysyllte aqueduct? That gave me the willies, everyone else on the boat retreated to the cabin.
|
>> Ever done the Pontcysyllte aqueduct? That gave me the willies, everyone else on the boat
>> retreated to the cabin.
Sadly, no. Scary with just the edge of the iron trough on one side? At least others like Chirk, and Marple on the Peak Forest canal have some masonry there even though there's no handrail on one side.
I have the classic picture taken on Marple with us on the canal and the train on the adjacent viaduct. One of the crew on one trip insisted on disembarking on the non-railing side which made me feel ill enough.
|
>>
>> Ever done the Pontcysyllte aqueduct? That gave me the willies, everyone else on the boat
>> retreated to the cabin.
>>
Yes, did it a fortnight ago.
As someone who doesn't like heights I was surprised to find it didn't bother me too much.
Obviously I didn't actually look straight over the side, unlike the family who revelled in it.
Chirk tunnel on the other hand was 12 minutes of hell, with my eyes closed, waiting for a million tons of rock to fall on us.
Then I bought a paper on emerging and front page news was a couple killed in a tunnel.
|
"then they'll start working out what the most dangerous kind of cotton wool is and ban that"
Exactly!
OT, but there's a nice example of regulatory obsession here, WRT cigarette packaging:
dickpuddlecote.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/its-open-and-shut-case-amigos.html
|
|
Is this AEB the same system that volvo used and the press saw slam into the back of a truck because it didn't work? I hope not...
|
Probably not. Given the proliferation of antilock brakes and adaptive cruise-control systems manufactures are coming up with EU regulators are thinking, “Why not take it a little bit further and mandate automatic emergency-braking systems?
|
|
Does anyone object to the mandatory emergency braking system and involuntary lane change warning system for trucks being implemented in 2013?
|
Can you expand a bit on that one CG please?
Pat
|
So a "Euro" organisation claims to have valid data to support its arguments.
"The results of that survey, published back in June, revealed that a car's ability to sense a fast-falling distance to the vehicle in front and apply the brakes if the driver hasn't - or isn't pushing the pedal hard enough - can reduce the number of accidents on Europe's roads by 27 per cent."
Is this as reliable (do you think) as that other key data we get from Europe on MPG figures?
|
|
NCAP have probably been £obbied by patent holders.
|
|
I suppose it doesn't recognise wet or icy conditions and so leave a bigger gap before gently applying the brakes. There will still be rear end and pedestrian collisions.
|
|
Yes, full on automatic emergency stops in adverse conditions should keep the legal profession in work for a while. :-)
|
I must admit it looks like a recipe for disaster. Car with system throws a wobbly and gives it maximum braking effort for no apparent reason. Car behind either does not have the system, or has less grip and goes into the back of the stopper.
Sure, it's the car at the backs fault, but to stop when there is no reason (an insect on the sensor...) and a clear road in front does give some sympathy to the rear car.
I'm sure the legal profession will think it's a wondrous idea!
|
Excellent points by Dulwich, ON and slidingpillar about the effectiveness of these systems in real world conditions, and the legal minefield they open up.
Perhaps it is all explained by sooty tailpipes' shrewd observation : "NCAP have probably been £obbied by patent holders."
But then I am an old cynic.
|
Just playing devil's advocate here but if you were an alien designing a system that needs to apply brakes in an emergency without fail you wouldn't put a human being with comparitively slow reaction times who may or may not be concentrating on the road ahead at the heart of the system. I read a statistic that brakes were applied in only 40% of all motor accidents.
The type of accident where such a reliable automatic system would save serious numbers of lives is the motorway pile up in poor visibility
|
"motorway pile up in poor visibility"
I'd be perfectly happy, pleased even, to have a device that beeped at me when it detected an approaching obstacle, especially in fog. I'd just rather it left me to drive.
|
Devils advocate time.
trains have automatic braking systems. To my knowledge there has never been an accident due to them working when they shouldn't, plenty where they didn't work when they should, and even more where the driver didn't when he should.
|
>> Devils advocate time.
>>
>> trains have automatic braking systems. To my knowledge there has never been an accident due
>> to them working when they shouldn't, plenty where they didn't work when they should, and
>> even more where the driver didn't when he should.
>>
Trains don't usually operate suicidally close to each other. :-)
Last edited by: Old Navy on Tue 7 Aug 12 at 10:50
|
>> "motorway pile up in poor visibility"
>>
>> I'd be perfectly happy, pleased even, to have a device that beeped at me when
>> it detected an approaching obstacle, especially in fog. I'd just rather it left me to
>> drive.
>>
But what about the guy behind you barrelling along at 70 oblivious to the conditions and you're tail-end charlie in a queue of traffic? Would you prefer his car emitted a bleep or slammed on the anchors?
|
"Would you prefer his car emitted a bleep or slammed on the anchors?"
Well, I might prefer his anchors to be slammed on, but it would just transfer the problem backwards, due to the concertina effect, i.e. there is a decreasing amount of space for following vehicles to stop once the first one brakes hard.
In a perfect world, with every system calibrated the same, and with every vehicle's brakes and tyres responding identically, then it could work, but in real life...
|
>> Is this as reliable (do you think) as that other key data we get from Europe on MPG figures?
>>
Which bit of the Euro fuel consumption figures don't you understand?
Cars are tested in a laboratory, to certain standards and that's how they produce the figures that you see in the car ads. Those are the only figures that manufacturers are allowed to publish - by law.
Nobody said that you will replicate those figures in everyday use on the road.
|
>> Which bit of the Euro fuel consumption figures don't you understand?
>>
Duncan, why the aggression?
>> Cars are tested in a laboratory, to certain standards and that's how they produce the figures that you see in the car ads. Those are the only figures that manufacturers are allowed to publish - by law.
Yes. I know all that. But the reason why newspapers, car magazines, and forums like this get so enervated about the topic is that those "certain standards" are removed from the real world. What people want is for them to be made MORE REALISTIC, and there is no reason why they should be.
What respectable branch of science that would deliberately use unrealistic tests?
(If you want more details of how the test is flawed, just read through some of the threads on this forum, or use google to find many sites like this one www.wearefutureproof.org.uk/blog/are-the-official-mpg-figures-fact-or-fantasy.html)
|
>> But the reason why newspapers, car magazines, and forums like
>> this get so enervated about the topic is
>>
? enervated ?
Drained of energy?
|
>> ? enervated ?
>> Drained of energy?
>>
I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Energised. Excited. Agitated.
|
>> >> Which bit of the Euro fuel consumption figures don't you understand?
>> >>
>> Duncan, why the aggression?
Sorry.
Didn't mean to sound aggressive. Probably tired. A bit late for me.
|
|
Didn't Mercedes have a problem with early versions of EBA, in that it would think an emergency stop was necessary and would brake the car to a halt when the driver was just slowing?
|
Anyone fancy a Renault or Citroen with automated braking?
Make sure your will is uptodate..
|
>> Nobody said that you will replicate those figures in everyday use on the road.
So what exactly is the point of them? Especially since they don't even seem to be consistent enough in their error to real world use even to rank different cars? The means have become the end - the objective has become the production of these useless data, and the objective of the manufacturers is to perform well in the tests whether it mirrors reality of not. I have a car with a combined figure of 43.6 that struggles to do 38 in rural use driven as by a nervous vicar.
They have been about as effective as school league tables. Does anybody here think that worked?
|
|
Dupe deleted
Last edited by: Manatee on Mon 6 Aug 12 at 23:31
|
In the past, the fuel consumption rules were different. Can't remember what one measure was, but the other was the constant 75mph figure. I and several of my acquaintances always thought this gave a number that was pretty close to what we could do in the real world. Even if that was 5mph more than the national speed limit.
The Euro consumption figures are ok for comparing a Fauxhall to a Vord (or whatever) but as far as trying to predict what a car will do for real are about as about as useful as chopsticks in a soup kitchen.
|
>> ............. but as far as trying to predict what a car will do for real are
>> about as about as useful as chopsticks in a soup kitchen.
>>
The combined figure is meaningful for me.
|
Thanks CG, I get most of the updates automatically but had missed that one somehow.
Pat
|
Most people drive so badly they could not hit even more "realistic" figures.
I manage to just about hit the combined figure if I drive longer distances..on top of my mostly around town driving.
|
|
Time to bring back the Mobil economy drives, perhaps...
|
>> Time to bring back the Mobil economy drives, perhaps...
>>
There are too many mimsers already, we can do without economy competitions! :-)
|
I recall seeing this demonstrated on the old series of Top Gear years ago. It was demonstrated in Japan. I am surprised that it has taken so long to come to market.
|
More EU rules - Old Navy
