REPORT: NHTSA to mandate lane departure warning and auto-brake systems?
Is the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration about to add some more safety measures to your next new car? According to The Detroit News, they might be. The Motown daily says that government officials are pondering whether or not they should require new vehicles to be fitted with lane-departure warning systems and automatic braking systems that trigger upon warning of an impending accident. Both systems are currently available only in very small percentage of new passenger cars – primarily luxury vehicles. According to the DetNews report, safety experts believe that the systems "show significant promise" in their ability to reduce traffic accident-related fatalities and injuries.
NHTSA will decide whether to require such systems in 2011 after further cost-benefit analysis, including looking at insurance company data and estimated manufacturing costs. It has already added new components to its New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) for 2011 vehicles, including a test that measures the effectiveness of lane-departure warning systems and a different frontal-crash program.
NHTSA hopes to announce its findings by the end of the year.
[Source: The Detroit News]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
ronEbear 1:51PM (7/03/2009)
And that`s bullsh*t. Why not just have all cars come equipped with full roll cages, 5 point safety harness, protective fire suits and crash helmets? It`s all about saving lives right? Eff that noise, it`s to line insurance companies` pockets with loads of cash from not having to settle multimillion dollar lawsuits from accidents resulting in death.
Reply
adam1drift 2:05PM (7/03/2009)
Like cars dont cost enough already with all the government mandated crap...
James 2:29PM (7/03/2009)
NHTSA + inattentive driving = OK
NOT!!
ronEbear 2:33PM (7/03/2009)
@Brian
Exactly! These safety measures will only reinforce this bad habit which is inattentive driving. Why be pro-active when the car will just "do it for you".
ronEbear 2:33PM (7/03/2009)
Meat to say @ James.
Not Detroit 2:50PM (7/03/2009)
Nanny tech is for girls yapping away on their cellphones, complaining about the traffic their stuck in as they drive to the mall for some "retail therapy". The "chickafication" of the automobile continues. If it saved just one life, wouldn't it be worth it?
Noidor 3:28PM (7/03/2009)
Well it's more of that busy-body bureaucrat nonsense
1) There is going to be the added weight from these electronics to the car which will put further pressure on automakers to somehow compensate for desirable MPG. Never mind the fact that all of this added weight has to be supported by tires, suspension, quality of steel and so forth. How is that going to influence engineering?
2) Costs, is this going to going eat into the profit margins of manufacturers? How is GM supposed to take on let's say BMW if they have to spend more on R&D of these systems rather than improving packaging, suspension systems, engine management and other REAL competitive aspects in overall appeal of the product.
3) Reduction in accidents - would it justify the costs. I don't mean to place emphasis on cost rather than human life, but do we need to be wearing helmets while sitting inside a movie theater? Probability.
4 ) Are insurance rates going to go down substantially? Surely it won't happen in "no-fault" states because that has proven to be a disaster of a policy. Then factor in inflation, factor in skyrocketing medical costs because of other contributes.
It's pure stupidity, just like mandating airbags, if competition was allowed to function on its own 1) no one would buy a car right now without an airbag. "You mean to say that Cobalt doesn't have an airbag? Fine I'll go purchase a Corolla instead". 2) Airbags would have been safer from get go.
Judy Zik 3:58PM (7/03/2009)
laughing @ Not Detroit
"chickification" Too funny. I have to admit I have seen some of these girls on the road. Unfortunately they are far out numbered by the balding old guys in suits texting between sales calls. The type that generally says it's ok for them to do other things while driving because of their superior driving skills and reaction times. Of course they have written off 6 cars in the past 10 years but it was always someone else's fault.
My biggest concern with all these add on's is the question of whether or not as a result new cars are going to end up too expensive for the average person. So far the answer has been no. New cars are cheaper than they were 10 years ago when you factor in inflation. As long as the also build in the ability to turn the Nannies off I don't see a problem.
mrfoof82 4:00PM (7/03/2009)
Roll cages are illegal in the US for two reasons.
1) The jaws of life, if they were required, would take forever to cut someone out.
But the big reason?
2) The second collision. If you don't wear a seatbelt, you slamming into the roll cage is going to do some serious damage. Since seatbelts are required by federal law, and their required use is mandated by the states, they pose a serious danger to unbelted occupants.
So yes. Roll cages would save a LOT of lives. But they've been outlawed because since some people won't wear seatbelts, they'd likely do as much harm as good.
Ridiculous Catch-22, huh?
the4thheat 10:47PM (7/03/2009)
I think they should just make sure only people who actually know how to drive get a license, but then again that would pretty much kick 90% of drivers off the road.
But the whining would really never stop then, since all the retards who have been driving like crap for the last 20 years are all convinced they're great drivers.
AMcA 10:15PM (7/04/2009)
Please, no.
All the cell-phone talkers, texters and fast-food diners, not to mention the nail polishers and hair stylers are all going to pursue their drive-time avocations all the more fervently now that they no longer need to steer or brake.
These devices will, if anything, make the highways LESS safe.
paul34 1:52PM (7/03/2009)
So those idiots who just cover their face and curl up into the fetal position when faced with an impending accident, rather than braking, and neatly dodging around the obstacle,without hitting anyone else because you were watching your properly-adjusted mirrors like you should have, will be justified. Wonderful.
Just move to a I, Robot centralized computerized transportation system already.
Reply
inteller 8:09AM (7/04/2009)
I think you are thinking of Minority Report.....you know the part where they shut his car down and move it to the arrest lane.....yeah I don't want any of that either.
Silly Pickle 1:53PM (7/03/2009)
Someday they wont let you, now you must agree
The times they are a-telling, and the changing isnt free
Youve read it in the tea leaves, and the tracks are on tv
Beware the savage jaw
Of 1984
Theyll split your pretty cranium, and fill it full of air
And tell that youre eighty, but brother, you wont care
Youll be shooting up on anything, tomorrows never there
Beware the savage jaw
Of 1984
Courtesy David Bowie & George Orwell...that book should be required reading.
Reply
why not the LS2LS7? 1:55PM (7/03/2009)
I think 2011 is a much too aggressive timetable for mandating either of these systems.
Reply
bh 2:19PM (7/03/2009)
I think it's saying they'll make their decision in 2011, not that their decision would go into effect by 2011.
Aloysius Vampa 1:56PM (7/03/2009)
Yeah, I agree. Cars need to be more expensive, especially right now.
Reply
Jerry Hightower 1:58PM (7/03/2009)
So, dare I say that one of the easiest and less costly methods of reducing accidents is to lower the speed limit. Of course the backlash from such a move would be enormous and there's no one in Warshington brave enough to suggest such a move.
Reply
Brian 2:03PM (7/03/2009)
That's not necessarily true. Please point me to a study which demonstrates that lower marked speed limits has statistically shown a decrease in accidents?
pmalik 2:40PM (7/03/2009)
All the NHTSA studies I've seen show that speeding is very rarely the cause of accidents. Check out the progressive MyRate device blog http://www.progressive.com/MyRate/Blog/post/2009/01/28/The-Bad-e28093-and-good-e28093-of-speeding.aspx
Even the insurance company affirms that absolutely speed isn't a dominant factor in accident. They actually keep track your acceleration and how often you have to slam on the brakes etc.