The National Transportation Safety Board announced this week that it is recommending that collision avoidance systems be installed in all new commercial and non-commercial motor vehicles. These systems detect traffic or obstacles in front of the vehicle and warn drivers, with some even automatically applying the brakes.
While the NTSB doesn’t have the authority to mandate a new rule themselves, they are pushing for the rule to apply to all motor vehicles, both commercial and non-commercial. To do this, they are lobbying the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, auto manufacturers, and industry regulators.
The preferred system that the NTSB is recommending would warn drivers if they may be involved in a potential collision, begin braking for the driver if there is no response, and then bring the car to a stop completely if necessary, all without any input from the driver.
According to the NTSB, approximately 1,700 people died and a half a million people were injured as the result of rear-end crashes in 2012. The NTSB estimates that 80% of deaths and injuries from rear-end crashes could be avoided if all new vehicles had automatic collision avoidance technology built in.
Some people are concerned that mandating additional systems like this could cause the cost of vehicles to rise; currently systems like these are only standard in expensive vehicles like the Mercedes-Benz G Class, though automakers are quick to point out that these systems are optional add-ons for many other vehicles as well.
“You don’t pay extra for your seatbelt,” said NTSB Chairman Christopher Hart. “And you shouldn’t have to pay extra for technology that can help prevent a collision.”
But as appealing as it might be to simply decide that things that make us safer should be free, automakers are reminding the NTSB that if it costs them money to install (which it will), it will cost consumers more as well.
While many carriers already use collision avoidance technology with most reporting positive results, there are still doubts as to the infallibility of the systems. Currently the NHTSA is examining claims that autonomous braking systems in some vehicles are triggering for no reason, increasing the risk of rear-end collisions.
Next Story: C.R. England Trainees Won’t Have Trainers In Seats
Source: gobytrucknews, truckinginfo, usatoday, popularmechanics, theverge, abc, washingtonpost, thetrucker
Image Source: scania
the best decision ever. safety is suppose to be for free.
A few buttheads always ruin it for everyone else. So sick of them telling us safe drivers how many 10’s of thousands more I have to dump into my truck for absolutely no purpose at all. I have zero accidents. But do they take that into account? No…..
FYI Wilson. Nothing is free. If you are selling a product and the feds regulate you and tell you that you are required to put an additional system in that costs you extra labor and $$$ for the system itself which raises your costs you will pass that on to the consumer. Never understood people who think something should just be handed to them for free. And then get mad at the company for charging a fee. Like they can’t make a profit without being looked at as greedy. SMH..
The company I drive for has a system like this, and it’s terrible! It malfunctions frequently (even after having it repaired). It sometimes will detect oncoming traffic or traffic in the lane next to you and slam on the brakes. Luckily it never did that on an icy road!! Sometimes it brakes when there aren’t any cars around at all. Until they are perfected, I don’t think they should be mandatory.
I’ve experienced the same results; it stops working 1-2 times per day, will register “false collisions” for overpasses (once auto-hard braking for one in Colorado at freeway speed). As with many newer devices and systems, theory versus reality. Seeing the speed of the vehicle ahead is good as we’re one of the slower companies out there.
Well said, Sarah T…
Happened to us today on the Indiana toll road..
We are going to try some super glue to see if I can stop the radar unit from moving….ITS WAY TO SENSITIVE!!!!!
I agree 100% it is a dangerous system that has not been reliable! EVERY truck I have driven with the system “3” has had REPEATEDLY malfunctioned and has had me in the shop for Days! It read overpasses oncoming traffic even signs on corners and has triggered a breaking event! The system is Dangerous!!!! I will not drive a truck with one in it!!
I agree. I had the same problem driving for Schneider. The system would cause the truck to start braking, if a vehicle was on either side of me.
Trucks will soon become SO complex that the “average joe or jane” wont be able to afford much less maintain them. A “mandatory” but non-functional system will then be a “fine-able” offense much like having your brakes out of adjustment. Big dollars at the scale and the vehicle doesnt move until repaired. This will be a Major loss for those carrying fresh fruit/vegetables that wont be on time to your “friendly” unionized warehouse.
These types of systems work best with unqualified and under qualified drivers, but at least it will be cheap, we all know how important that is! These systems can’t tell the difference between tailgating and being cut off at a light. Which can make for some fun times if there is ice and snow on the ground. Good luck innovators, your ginnea pig drivers are gonna need it! Reminds me of the “just put 4lbs of pressure on your foot brake all the way down the hill” fiasco of the early 90s. The innovators finally decided they were killing too many people because what works in the lab wont work on the road. But what is really important here is to let these innovators continue their human experimentation programs. Even though they have killed twice as many people a year since CDLS were put in place. (Also revising or hiding old numbers with new numbers to perfect the statistics ) who are they? The United States government they, that’s who, and now nothing short of annilation can stop them.
Yep and the people/corporations that are going to make money making and selling this shit
I have one of these systems and it will detect a road sign or nothing at all and slam on the brakes. This last winter it “detected” a fixed object, the snow covered road, then slammed on the brakes for a second nearly jack knifing my fuel tanker.
People wake up!!! Can’t u see the these type of mandates is all about the $$$$$$$…these systems will not avoid collisions…if a driver is impaired what good is the system? Automatic braking? Please! How many tire skid marks do we see in the highway from vehicle that collide! Just focus on the $$$ this will bring to the manufacturers, insurance companies, and the dealerships, and repair & maintainence Entities…these politicians lobbying for these mandates are getting kickbacks from these groups…everybody gets paid except for the people who drive the trucks as a means to make $$$ look at the what it cost to maintain these mandated emission systems…which is a bunch of crapp…regen appears to be almost a total failure yet the people who actually brought the truck are stuck periodically spending tens of thousands of $$$ in maintainence and up keep on a freaking exuast! The big companies don’t care because they lease their fleets of brand new trucks & when the factory warranty runs out they turn them back in to the dealer for new ones & the best up trucks are passed to the owner operators…fuel surcharges isn’t where it needs to be…the rate of freight is laughable…& drivers are not compensated enough for their time at the wheel and away for home on top of all the other bs we put with out here on the road…this proposed mandate is like a $7.99 burger from Wendy’s at the truck stop plus tax!
The NTSB Chairman Hart is living in a fantasy world. There isn’t anything on a vehicle that the buyer doesn’t pay for. No OEM is providing anything for free. It may not be itemized as such on an invoice, but it is included in the price to begin with. Always amazing how someone can get thru college and be so naive about the way the world works. These systems will cost, and be a total waste for some of us. Just one more thing to throw a sensor at the wrong time and need down time to repair.
I have worked for companies that had these systems in their tricks. I have had it slam on the brakes for no reason and also not do a thing when someone cut me off and it should have braked hard. I am sure these systems will be mandated to try to offset the increase in rear end collision s once speed limiters are mandated. Speed limiters will cause even more trucks to travel in packs, it’ll look like Talladega or Daytona after the ” the big one”.
I was a shop supervisor and the company I was working for had these anti collision systems. There were many failures with then, snow or minor impacts would also put them out of alignment and start reading over passes guard rails and caused sudden break application injuring drivers and causing unsafe rear-end collision possibilities. If they pass That law I buy older cars . I used to fix them . I embraced abs and a lot of the questionable safety mandates in the past this one I am against. The reason is to put driver’s behind the wheel that can’t drive to pay them less .
Mike Please Write to Your Congressman telling Him of Your Knowledge and experience with this piece of junk and ABS is a Good Thing and it’s the Gov that has changed everything and Disqualifying drivers from being able to drive with their New Regulations and Mandates which has Resulted in a DRIVER MILL Operation to keep Americas Freight still moving
I have “ON GUARD” on my truck…( not my choice).if the radar unit gets “Mis aligned”, ( and it does once a week),
Your vehicle WILL slam on its brakes at nothing…usually sending you into the steering wheel,and the vehicle behind you,into your trailer…..don’t get me wrong..they are a great concept (when they work)… But it takes the driver out of the equation…
when I choose to drive my truck slower than the flow of traffic, every freight jockey that comes around me moves in too close. 80% of the so-called professional drivers are far worse than the four-wheelers about cutting off trucks, especially the 65 mph governed yahoos. Now, I have to worry about flat-spotting my tires and shifting the high-value, sometimes irreplaceable gear in my trailer because my truck automatically locks up the brakes due to the freight jockeys’ lack of courtesy and/or common sense?!?
I think they should put collision avoidance on those slow ass vehicles doing 50-55 mph in 70 mph zones. It will either speed them up or push them over to the shoulder. Seriously though, this is why we don’t have flying cars, although if we did it would make it easier for the trucks on the road.
First of all, you pay extra for the seatbelt, I’m sure the cost was figured in 50yrs ago when they became mandatory in cars.
Now with these “collision avoidance systems” people can text, read, talk on the phone, etc. all they want, the “system” will save them. Why don’t they try paying attention to DRIVING!!1
What about driving in ice? What about when this system is 20 years old and starts malfunctioning? What about when you are speeding up to get into the gap in the left lane around a stalled car and it jams the brakes right before you switch lanes and now you get real ended and both lanes are blocked.
Save automatic reactions for your automatic driving trucks, those can all burn in one big firey wreck and I won’t she’d a single tear…as it turns out you hire professional drivers and they will *gasp* drive professionally. I’m fine when Saftey features don’t remove my ability to make perfectly valid choices.
I have driven with one of these systems for 3 years. First they only warn you if the cruise is off, and it does not apply any braking. If the cruise is on it warns, applies breaks if no input from driver, so the comments about slamming on brakes in ice/snow and rain are not happening unless driver has cruise on. The system is far from perfect. If the sun is shining on the radar and you go under a shaded overpass it reads as a crash impending and locks brakes up. If a 4 wheeler cuts you off to take an exit, as soon as they apply their brakes in the off ramp it locks up. In a curve it reads vehicles passing in the other lane and locks up, it misreads construction signs, bright tail lights and more. The system only applies 60% brakes and engine brake. At highway speeds a system that locks the brakes up randomly with no impending crash is more dangerous than a distracted driver. I have on a daily basis four wheelers and big trucks alike riding my DOT bar not aware that I have a system that will brake check them at any time. I have to adapt to drive with this system and it still suprises me with the stuff it reads as a possible crash and slams on brakes. And 60% braking with Jake while cruising down the highway is a dangerous thing if you aren’t prepared for it.
Mr. Hart, you need to do your research before making any comments.
I’ve used this type of system in the past if you have to tell me what I can already see so be it if you want to a computer that by has no intelligence no common sense to brake my truck you nuts they brake most of the time for no reason at all if they are going to push this on us then put it in all motor vehicles and while they are at it lower blood alcohol levels to 0 as well as all the rest of the rules and regulations we have to live by in our trucks as well as our cars .
When I was working for Roehl recently, the Bendix CA system only intervenes when the cruise control is engaged. Even then, it is easily overridden by the accelerator being depressed (such as when I anticipate that it is about to detect a false positive i.e., car in front of you exiting)
As long as it is only tied to the cruise control, and only required in newly manufactured trucks I’m all for it.
It might save some people, but seems like automatic braking could jeopardize others. It’s a good idea to provide an alert to a fast closing gap, but not apply the brakes for the driver, let the driver decide if it’s appropriate to use brakes, change direction, or ignore a false alarm. The distraction of smartphones and other behavior is too much for some people who lack attention to the primary task, so they need something to get their attention back on the road in time to take appropriate action.
All the safety gadgets in the world will not prevent accidents until 2 things happen. One is, people who drive 4 wheelers get a proper education on sharing the highway with vehicles that weigh 80,000 pounds, and two, we quit trying to drive the trucks for the driver and train drivers to drive better. Personally, I have had people in cars do some really stupid things that if I hadn’t been paying attention, they would be dead. Honestly, I don’t belive they have ANY idea how long it takes an 80,000 pounder to stop from 60 miles per hour. If they did, they wouldn’t cut in front of you and slam on the brakes to make the off ramp. But even worse is cause number two….drivers. I’ve been driving for 45 years…mostly all oversized, heavy freight. I have watched the quality of driver get worse and worse….rude, unfriendly, and you can tell, trucking is just a job, not a career. These are the guys that when they are 10 feet in front of you, they cut you off….no waiting for the lights, and if you flash them, not often do you get a thank you. Think about this…..the more “safety” crap you put on a truck, the less qualified they think the driver needs to be….less pay, less training, and when something goes wrong, EXPERIENCE talks, and safety gadgets walk. Let’s spend less time and money on gadgets, and more time on getting drivers that have a clue.
I agree with you.
We have these on guards in our trucks, they are dangerous on ice and will make you skid. They will malfunction when they get very wet from a downpour or very cold in winter which is the only time you get any peace and quiet from the distractive beeping. They will read overpasses and sometimes ghost readings whic will kick the breaks. If you are a team good luck sleeping cause if your partner get constantly too close (usualy 95 ft away) you will be tossed around likw a rag doll. This system is horrible but until it starts wrecking drivers and lawsuits start to fly the government will impose its will on the drivers once again.
When this finally comes to be watch for an increase in accidents as the system applies the brakes and the jerk behind you doesn’t react to it in time.Especially going up hill when the vehicle passing you finally comes over and the system says he’s to close,brakes apply, now you are bogged down on the hill shifting you tail off to keep those rpms up. When are they going to realise a truck is not a car.
My system only slams on the brakes if the cruise control is on. So to keep that from happening I touch the brakes and turn it off when it first starts to beep a half a mile from the vehicle in front of me in the left lane while I’m in the right lane. Some of the crap they come up with is comical.
No,NO,NO, these things are a disaster! I can see where this is heading.
Mandatory equipment without a turnoff switch. God, I wish government
would leave us alone, and stop trying to be “helpful”.
I’m an older guy and still miss the switch that would shut off the front brakes
on tractor trailers. the switch was labeled “dry-Wet”. Years ago I ordered a brand new Pete. one of the options was to NOT have front brakes! I know to some of you young guys this sounds weird, but next time in slick conditions and you” tap” the brakes and truck wants go left/right, thats the front brakes doing that. leave me alone
Bob R
FELLOW TRUCKERS PLEASE WRITE TO YOUR CONGRESSMAN URGING HIM TO STOP THIS ! 2 TIMES I WAS ALMOST THROWN THROUGH THE WINDSHIELD The third time I did go through the Windshield luckily I wasn’t hurt, from the sleeper Berth while I was sitting on the lower bunk while my Co Driver was driving, all three times a car had cut in front of the truck, and that activated the System and Slammed On the Brakes without warning.
This is the WORST Thing without a doubt that can Happen to Trucks for Truckers I will NEVER Drive a Truck again with this Device on it or on a car I’ll rip it out of the car ! Really it’s Not about Safety the Maker of this Device is Polishing the pockets of NTSB. The makers spent years on trying to Perfect this Piece of Junk and it Don’t Work they also claimed it prevented rollovers which is just a bunch of BS.
AGAIN I SAY WRITE TO YOUR CONGRESSMAN BECOME THE MOUSE IN HIS EAR CONTINUOUSLY RELENTLESSLY WE REPRESENT A LARGE GROUP OF PEOPLE BUT EVERYONE OF US HAS TO WRITE TO HIM TO MAKE IT COUNT AND SHOW HIM WE ARE A VAST MAJORITY NOT JUST ONE OR TWO THAT FEEL THIS WAY. THIS THE ONLY WAY WE CAN GET THEIR ATTENTION AS A GROUP !
Why are these systems always mandated for trucks but never cars? Trucks get their speed set by computer and the cars fly at whatever speed they care to die. Cell phone use is restricted by federal law but car drivers (steering wheel holders) yak all day long. Professional drivers are forced to prove they aren’t under the influence of drugs, even when no evidence has been presented or accusation made, but car wheel holders can drive drunk, stoned and stupid until they get caught. What’s good for ONE driver is good for ALL.
The computers are already taking control away from the driver! You will never solve the problem until you control the 4 wheelers. There isn’t a day goes by that I don’t see one making some stupid and dangerous move. Just a couple days ago, one crossed in front of me, crossed another lane to get to an exit ramp and almost wiped out another car already on the ramp!
I’ve had trucks with VORAD installed. A lot of drivers hated it, but I liked it. I enjoyed that it would maintain distance and speed with the truck in front of me. It wouldn’t hit the air brakes, (a plus IMO), but would activate the Jakes. On the other hand, it beeped a lot, and couldn’t “see” four-wheelers until you were on top of them. But this was several years ago so, presumably, improvements have been made. When it broke down, the company wouldn’t fix it, but it would continue to beep away, which was annoying. It couldn’t be disabled because it was so embedded into the system.
Systems which will jam on the air brakes, or grab the wheel, kinda scare me. The thing has to work perfectly, all the time, or it won’t be safe. Not even Apple computers do that. The 2012 Pete I drive now has a ton of computerized systems, and things constantly go wrong with it. It seems to me that, the more computerized junk you add to an already complicated machine, the more that will go wrong.
“You don’t pay extra for your seatbelt,” said NTSB Chairman Christopher Hart. “And you shouldn’t have to pay extra for technology that can help prevent a collision.”
So who will be donating these things? We do pay for seatbelts, it’s all factored in the cost to build a vehicle. Nothing is free, if it’s on there, you paid for it one way or another. I’d like him to get a repair bill on a system that is out of warranty and still say how free they are. What an idiot.
I’m not really against the idea, but we’re just not ready for this. These things have way too many issues that need to be worked out. When they are as reliable as a seatbelt, I’ll be OK with it, but a few hundred bucks diagnostic time every few months and possibly a few thousand a year in parts to keep them working is far from free.
Thus is a terrible idea…I’ve had the unfortunate opportunity to drive a truck with this system and it is hazardous…..you can be in the middle of no where and the system will slam on the brakes with absolutely nothing around you….being that I run a step deck, this system is dangerous and can cause load shifting when it hits the brakes…..
What ever happened to leaving enough space between you and the next vehicle in front of you and not tailgating?
This “safety feature” would just give people another reason to text and do other distracting things while driving, and instead relying on technology to CYA.
Who will be responsible for damages when this software goes berzerk? GM? Ford? Chrysler? or Microsoft or Linux or Google?
This is a move in a bad direction – give me my 1987 Jeep or 1968 Pontiac GTO any day – a simple, proven engine in a machine that is fun to drive.