Filed under: Government/Legal, Safety
Pedestrian safety inspires EU to consider better brake requirement
Every time we hear that the European Commission has come up with a new proposal for the car industry, the general consensus amongst the Autoblog team has been 'oh no, not another one.' This time around, the Commission's latest proposal actually makes sense to us and is something we'd like to see implemented in other parts of the globe. Officials on Monday proposed that all new cars be fitted with an advanced braking system that can detect an emergency and cut reaction times for applying the brakes.
The hope is that all cars from 2009 onwards will feature new Brake Assist Systems as part of a greater plan to protect pedestrians. The set-up works by releasing pressurized brake fluid into the braking system as soon as the driver touches the brake pedal, applying greater stopping power in an instant.
Up to 1,100 lives could be saved each year, according to European Union officials. The good news is that the auto industry is also backing the proposal and the costs involved are expected to be minimal.
[Source: Detroit News]
_opt_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
MikeW 7:59PM (10/15/2007)
Oh no it right.
If they put this on cars, then they need to have a standard for adaptive brake lights.
I prefer is be implemented with the LED CHMSL, have it grow from 1/3 (normal) to 3/3 width (maximum stop).
But knowing those people in Brussels, they will probably require flashing braking lights, in lieu of the french cars that automatically activate the hazards.
Reply
MaxP 8:01PM (10/15/2007)
so does that mean we all goin to get Brembo brakes on our car?
Can wait to see one Hyundai Accent with a set of 12" front disk brakes... with drums on the back
Reply
psarhjinian 10:38PM (10/15/2007)
That's actually reasonable. The front tires bear the bulk of the braking load and making them larger at the expense of the rears isn't a bad thing. The brake grit that turns the front wheels of most cars black (while the rears remain clean) is evidence of this.
Plus, rear drums are cheaper to replace and maintain. They cost less, perform adequately and are less susceptible to debris damage than rear discs are (front discs don't see nearly the same debris kickback). They're not a valid option, for, say, an autobahn-driven SL65 AMG, but the drum-equipped Honda Fit does quite well.
MaxP 11:37PM (10/15/2007)
yeah I know that lol was being sarcastic a little ...my current truck have drums on rear wheels and it brakes just fine (xterra 2002 supercharged)
much cheaper too!
WooHoo10 8:14PM (10/15/2007)
What ever happened to just not getting hit by a car? I say all cars must have not 4 tires, but 8. 8 wheels with 20" brakes. Stopping distance must be 2 feet or less. Happy EU? That should protect the dummies from getting hit, oh wait. No it won't. You can't legislate out stupidity.
Reply
psarhjinian 10:29PM (10/15/2007)
You know, as someone who's spouse was mowed down (and survived, thankfully) by someone who flat out wasn't paying attention and went right through a light _when traffic was stopped_ and with pedestrians already in the middle of the intersection, all I can say is:
Shut the hell up.
Until you have the misfortune of being on the wrong end of a metal-vs-meat situation, you do not get the luxury of having such an arrogant opinion taken seriously. I personally have no patience for the self-righteous whining about how it makes cars less attractive or increases weight. If it saves _one person's life_ it's worth it.
Yes, sometimes pedestrians do stupid things. Often, though, motorists do them, too--and pedestrians don't have the luxury of several tons of steel to protect them in either case.
I've also been struck myself while cycling. Twice. Not particularly seriously, but enough to hurt for days afterwards. Each time it was by someone who was not paying attention while driving. If the car can help alleviate the results of driver stupidity, then I'm all for it.
beanspants 12:08AM (10/16/2007)
psarhjinian,
While I'm sorry to hear about your wife, this is about break assist. If she was mowed down in an intersection, then this probably wouldn't do a thing to help her. So your opinion isn't worth more than any one elses'.
I think this is a good idea and shorter breaking distance would be a great thing -- but its only going to save a small number of the people hit by cars. Looking left and right when crossing the street is still the best defense - and probably could have helped your wife more than these breaks will.
Francis 12:12AM (10/16/2007)
psarhjinia, I'm sorry some idiot driver hit your wife.
That doesn't give you the right to talk down to anyone who has never had the misfortune of being in an accident.
Moreover, I'm sick and tired of people saying idiotic things like, "If it saves _one person's life_ it's worth it"'
Frankly, it's not worth it if we all have to spend hundreds of dollars that could otherwise be spent saving children from starvation just to save the life of some bimbo who doesn't have the sense to watch the road while she's doing 85mph, chatting on bluetooth and doing her makeup.
For the record, I'm not suggesting that this new brake system proposal is a good idea or a bad idea - I haven't decided yet.
Maestro1 12:48AM (10/16/2007)
Actually Francis, I think you've got it the wrong way around. It's supposed to save the life of the pour soul who got hit by that stupid bimbo doing 85mph and talking on bluetooth while doing her makeup.
Its a good idea, and as the article said - it shouldn't cost too much to implement. So I don't see where your argument about spending several hundred dollars comes from. Besides, who wouldn't want to have better brakes?
Francis 6:56AM (10/16/2007)
Maestro1, I think you've misunderstood me. I'm using the driving bimbo as an example of a life that I don't want to spend money to save - not as an example of what this new brake system is about.
As for this brake system, if I understand it correctly, it detects when you want to emergency brake, but don't brake hard enough. So it just turns hard braking into emergency braking, but does *not* reduce the minimum braking distance.
I don't want this on my car because I believe I am a smarter driver than the computer. If it saves lives, okay, I think I can live with paying for this as long as it has an off switch (like traction control) because I strongly suspect it will interfere with track day driving.
Personally, for driving safety, I think we should adopt the German system of extensive driver training, enforcing lane discipline, ticketing tailgaters and other wreckless driver and letting people who are safely speeding go.
Cars have never been built safer than they are now. The weakest part of the system is the fleshy bit behind the wheel.
500 1:21PM (10/16/2007)
psarhjinian, my sympathies are with you, but I don't think the proposed EU regulations would help. If the person who hit your spouse was going flat out through a light and not paying attention, all the brakes in the world wouldn't make a difference.
I too was hit by a car while bicycling. The woman simply wasn't paying attention and didn't brake until AFTER she hit me. As others have said, you can't legislate out stupidity (of the driver).
Harrison 8:27PM (10/15/2007)
Put racing slicks and the largest brakes Brembo makes. Not only will we eliminate most crashes, stopping distances will also be reduced.
Reply
Nicole 9:52PM (10/15/2007)
Too bad this would only work under perfect conditions - like dry, even pavement, etc.
Bert 8:32PM (10/15/2007)
Brakes are worth nothing if you don't know how to use them / can't use them to their full potential.
Braking with ABS means: stomp, stay, steer. Stomp the brakes to the 'floor'. Stay on the brakes, even thought they may 'vibrate' or make a 'weird noise'. When safe, steer out of the way of the problem, the ABS will give you the traction you need to effectively steer out of the way.
Until people know and use the above, better brakes are moot.
I like the idea of adaptive brake lights, perhaps just a 2 level system. What I have seen in action, following what I believe to be an undercover police car, is a light to indicate the driver is on the gas. In this case it was a green light. As soon as the driver took their foot off the gas the light went out. It was quite easy to follow them in rush-hour traffic without going accordion nuts.
Reply
Nicole 9:52PM (10/15/2007)
I agree with your second paragraph, but not the rest. This brake assist system has nothing to do with ABS. It detects when you hit the brakes hard, and makes sure you get maximum deceleration by adding more brake force to it.
It helps the brakes to apply full force more quickly, thereby shortening stopping distance.
DJ 8:37PM (10/15/2007)
"Up to 1,100 lives could be saved each year, according to European Union officials."
Geez, how many pedestrian deaths do they have in the EU each year, given that new safety devices only save a certain percentage, but not all??? At least this better than the front bumper airbag that was floated at the time of the frontend design requirements.....or limiting speed limits to 5mph or less in urban areas.
Reply
Nicole 9:53PM (10/15/2007)
It happens more often than you think. Because more people in Europe walk. IT's very simple: No pedestrians, no accidents with pedestrians. - but more obese citizens...
I had a pedestrian run in front of me, and hit him. He had not noticed me coming and tried to run across the street, right in front of me. When I hit the brakes, he heard me, looked at me, and I will never forget that scared face before I hit him. It was not a fun experience, even though I did not cause it. I would have appreciated every help to stop more quickly.
I've seen another case whereh a drunk man had run out in front of a car that was traveling at about 30+mph. You should have seen the damage to that car.... the man died.
I applaud the EU to better protect pedestrians. And while I'm not for over-regulating cars, this is a reaction to the development of our cars and aftermarket accessories in recent years. For example, adding steel bars to the front of an SUV might be helpful in the Australian Outback, but in a European city, it would surely kill a pedestrian who is hit by it.
It's the pendululm swinging the other way...
Alex 9:51PM (10/15/2007)
that what i was wondering, how many people are getting hit by cars in Europe? I wonder is it a case of stupid drivers not paying attention, stupid pedestrians not looking or both?
psarhjinian 10:49PM (10/15/2007)
It's mostly a function of demographics. European towns and cities are designed for pedestrian traffic by virtue of their age. Lots of small, narrow streets, slow speeds, lots of intersections, lots of small stores and not a lot of parking. Urban planning didn't happen, or predated vehicular traffic and cities grew organically as needed.
Many American cities are quite the opposite: car friendly in that there's few intersections, no crossings, massive parking lots punctuated by big-box stores, high speeds and a lack of direct pedestrian access (lots of cul-de-sacs and off-main boulevards). The bulk of the growth happened at the height of car culture and the result is not at all conducive to pedestrian access.
This pretty much forces Europeans to walk and Americans to drive. It also explains why Americans have bumper-crash regulations while Europeans have pedestrian-crash regulations.
Just try driving through Paris--you'll understand the idea of a "city not built for cars" that happens to have a lot of traffic anyway. You'll also understand just how pedestrian deaths occur so frequently. Italian (notably Roman) drivers just seem careless; French (and especially Parisian) drivers seem actively hostile.
beanspants 12:15AM (10/16/2007)
The US also has a large number of pedestrian deaths - in most years, more pedestrians are killed than people who die in SUV rollover accidents, but which gets more attention??
Also, most people get hit by busses, not individual cars.