From 2022 every new car sold in the EU will be fitted with an automatic speed limiter, assisted braking and lane keeping assistance technology

[leadeater]

3 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

Assisted braking is a great feature that dramatically lowers chance of severe injuries.

That really still needs fixing though, many of the bigger brands, even luxury ones, that you would expect this type of feature to work most often don't. Tesla, actually one of the best at it still doesn't get it perfect nor quite close enough as some rather seemingly basic problems have still happened that logically should have been simple to detect.

[BigRom]

10 minutes ago, James Evens said:

reminds me of this: peopling thinking there car has the feature but it doesn't

 

Which reminded me of Mercedes' who actually had the feature....but forgot to turn it on....

 

 

[RejZoR]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

That really still needs fixing though, many of the bigger brands, even luxury ones, that you would expect this type of feature to work most often don't. Tesla, actually one of the best at it still doesn't get it perfect nor quite close enough as some rather seemingly basic problems have still happened that logically should have been simple to detect.

Sure, it's even more expected from big and expensive brands, but the point of this tech is to help, not be 100%. Seatbelts and airbags are there to help, but expecting them to 100% safeguard you, it's a bit silly. Brake assist is the same. It's meant to prevent running over kids when reversing, prevents you from hitting other cars at low speeds in city because you got distracted a bit or when parking and tries to predict collisions depending on speed and assumed distance and applies brakes if it thinks you won't apply them in time or with enough force to stop before collision. I think that's really cool stuff. But you shouldn't just assume they'll do the work instead of you, which is why I don't trust auto pilots. They just don't work yet. I take all this tech as "I'm still the driver, if something will really go horibly wrong, it might save me or someone else" and not as babysitting feature I'd actively rely on.

[leadeater]

10 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

It's meant to prevent running over kids when reversing, prevents you from hitting other cars at low speeds in city because you got distracted a bit or when parking and tries to predict collisions depending on speed and assumed distance and applies brakes if it thinks you won't apply them in time or with enough force to stop before collision.

Problem is these are the areas that fails the most, higher speeds more often work than at low speeds.

 

Edit:

A mandated safety feature needs to almost always work, that fact that's it's mandated means people will expect it to work and that expectation is dangerous if not actually true. Even a system such as ABS not working correctly is dangerous as current brake application teaching is hard and fast as possible, literally the worst thing to do with non functioning ABS. But that almost never fails.

[RejZoR]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

Problem is these are the areas that fails the most, higher speeds more often work than at low speeds.

Not really. EuroNCAP does high speed tests with obstruction divertion (basically you're driving fast following a car and that car moves to the side on different lane and in front of him opens up a stationary car). Most systems absolutely fail there. And there are quite few oher such situations. Something to which human eyes observing the road through the windows and cabin of car in the front is something automated systems probably don't do. But you can.

[leadeater]

4 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

Not really. EuroNCAP does high speed tests with obstruction divertion (basically you're driving fast following a car and that car moves to the side on different lane and in front of him opens up a stationary car).

And a person would fail the same test, the issue there is stopping distance not detection. The only thing that saves you there is swerving and nothing does that automatically currently. Auto breaking systems simply do not work currently, mandated safety features should never be below 95% chance of functioning as expected. See my edit above as well.

[dfsdfgfkjsefoiqzemnd]

A wise man once said "Speed has never killed anyone.  Suddenly becoming stationary, that's what gets you".

 

 

 

A hard limiter is okay only if it exceeds the maximum speed limit.  So for instance 140km/h if the speed limit is 120.  That gives you the ability to accelerate out of trouble even when you're driving at the speed limit. 

The problem then is that people will still be able to do 140 in a 30 zone ... except if you put GPS in every car and have a map with all the correct speed limits.  Seeing as these limits may change (they can be lowered as a result of bad weather or road works), that means that every car would need to regularly pull that data from a central server, which is an issue in itself (potential for tracking, what if someone hacks into the server and changes the limit to 5km/h nation-wide, etc)

You also need an option to disable it altogether in emergencies (sometimes you may need to get someone to a hospital and can't wait for an ambulance).  

 

Personally I'm okay with cars reporting to the authorities when they are speeding excessively.  If you have a valid excuse for speeding no judge will fine or convict you. 

 

As for automatic braking and lane assist etc, I have a feeling that most people will use those mainly as excuses to browse Facebook on the phone while driving.

 

 

[Teddy07]

41 minutes ago, Stormseeker9 said:

And your problem is ?

You are seriously asking me this on this topic.

[Ross Siggers]

1 hour ago, D13H4RD said:

Welp, time to find that BMW E36 M3

Better invest soon, prices have been rising for a few years now. 

[HomeBoi]

This has been discussed in Norway for the last 15 years or so, and yes it might seem a bit dull to get a speed limiter, but if it works like it was proposed in Norway it would allow headroom for acceleration beyond the speed limit for small amounts of time so as to facilitate a take over(?) And pass by another "slow" car or something then get limited back down after "x" amount of time. If done right it should not be an inconvinience and also the 0 death vision has been a thing in Norway for many years now, and it works wonders. We have not come to the 0 deaths point yet, but with such an absolute goal, very drastic measures have been allowed to happen and the government has a easier time doing stuff that can affect traffic in a positive way.

 

With that said i hope it has the same effect on europe as it has had here in Norway

[SkilledRebuilds]

Tesla Acceleration

Too Fast, Too Furious, Too Bad.

 

[samcool55]

Well it would help if the speed limit signs are correct tbh, which is currently not everywhere the case.

Let me explain.

 

In belgium they decided that the default speed limit outside towns is 70km/h instead of 90km/h (and some other stupid changes) because most roads were 70 anyway, but they needed signs for that.

 

So, they changed that and got rid of all those 70 km/h signs, problem is that they took away waaay to many of them!

Result is, piece of road is 50km/h, with sign. Speed changes to 70 km/h because there's a junction but most people still think "oh it's 50 here" and keep driving 50 when it's 70.

 

So those stupid assistants will be stuck at 50 when it's incorrect soo yea...

 

And i really don't want to be in a car that's going 90 and suddely sees a 30 sign, that's going to be a massive problem... (which is possible when you see road works)

[HomeBoi]

5 minutes ago, samcool55 said:

Well it would help if the speed limit signs are correct tbh, which is currently not everywhere the case.

Let me explain.

 

In belgium they decided that the default speed limit outside towns is 70km/h instead of 90km/h (and some other stupid changes) because most roads were 70 anyway, but they needed signs for that.

 

So, they changed that and got rid of all those 70 km/h signs, problem is that they took away waaay to many of them!

Result is, piece of road is 50km/h, with sign. Speed changes to 70 km/h because there's a junction but most people still think "oh it's 50 here" and keep driving 50 when it's 70.

 

So those stupid assistants will be stuck at 50 when it's incorrect soo yea...

 

And i really don't want to be in a car that's going 90 and suddely sees a 30 sign, that's going to be a massive problem... (which is possible when you see road works)

That can be fixed with those ditigal signs, probabøy exspensive but oh so much more futureproof

[TetraSky]

But, if cars automatically regulate their speed.... You'll have idiots with their foot pressing down on the pedal at all time believing the car will do the job for them... But what if they enter a construction zone...

 

 

Or more like, how will cops make money?!

[samcool55]

1 minute ago, HomeBoi said:

That can be fixed with those ditigal signs, probabøy exspensive but oh so much more futureproof

Yeeaa that's not going to happen. At least not on B-roads.

Highways do have them at some places but that's it.

 

The condition of some roads is really bad, like absolute crap.

They "solved" it with a sign that says "road is in bad condition", which is stupid.

Like, why spend money on a sign to tell us that the road is in bad condition instead of doing something about it?

It has been a crappy road for at least 10 years and they recently fixed 1/3 of it, but the worst part is still not fixed soo yea...

 

If they don't even have money to fix bad roads and solve them with stupid signs and are even going so cheapskate to change the default speed limit to save on normal signs, i doubt we are going to get some digital signs anytime soon...

 

Also, nobody has a list of all the traffic signs. The gov asked for such list from every town and the amount of towns that have a complete up-to-date list was like, a handful.

Most don't even have any list at all so the idea of having a central system where it can download all signs isn't going to happen.

[Master Disaster]

I foresee one good thing about this law...

 

It would mean the end of those terrible Fast And Furious movies

[Liltrekkie]

I wonder what their definition of a "speed limiter" will be, any car that has fuel injection has a speed limiter, they call it a governor, typically its either 120 MPH or 155 MPH, (192kmh / 250kmh), some sports/hyper cars dont have a governor or speed limiter. Although typically the speed limiter can be modified in the cars tune, which most people wont do unless they are a car enthusiast anyway. 

[RejZoR]

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

And a person would fail the same test, the issue there is stopping distance not detection. The only thing that saves you there is swerving and nothing does that automatically currently. Auto breaking systems simply do not work currently, mandated safety features should never be below 95% chance of functioning as expected. See my edit above as well.

I don't know about you, but I regularly look through the cabins of cars in front of me, including brake lights. You can see like 3-4 cars ahead if they are suddenly stopping while car right in front of you isn't even racting to it yet. Problem these days is everyone is using big ass SUV's where this doesn't work. Or vans and trucks where you can't see through...

[cj09beira]

11 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

I foresee one good thing about this law...

 

It would mean the end of those terrible Fast And Furious movies

no, they will just flash their cars in the movies to remove the limiter (as people already do for some cars)

[cj09beira]

1 minute ago, RejZoR said:

I don't know about you, but I regularly look through the cabins of cars in front of me, including brake lights. You can see like 3-4 cars ahead if they are suddenly stopping while car right in front of you isn't even racting to it yet. Problem these days is everyone is using big ass SUV's where this doesn't work. Or vans and trucks where you can't see through...

you just have to get a big ass suv too

[straight_stewie]

2 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

It's part of a campaign to try and reduce road deaths to 0 by 2050.

Yeah. There's no point in doing anything other than making cars illegal. They will never get close to that goal, even with full automation. If there are cars, there will be car related deaths.

[RejZoR]

2 minutes ago, cj09beira said:

you just have to get a big ass suv too

Which is why everyone has these stupid SUV's nowadays...

[GoldenLag]

2 hours ago, Eniqmatic said:

Having said that, I saw a tweet earlier from someone saying that this has been taken out of context by news companies and that the article has been amended so that it warns or alerts the driver but doesn't do anything, how true that is I'm not sure!

Probably plays an annoying sound like when you dont wear a seatbelt. This is enough to keep people from breaking the speedlimit to go faster 

[GoldenLag]

5 minutes ago, straight_stewie said:

Yeah. There's no point in doing anything other than making cars illegal. They will never get close to that goal, even with full automation. If there are cars, there will be car related deaths.

You forgot the word "Try"

 

Though im sure you are just writing something sarcastically. 

[Camoxide]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47715415

 

Some highlights:

The system can be overridden by pushing hard on the accelerator

There's likely to be an on/off switch which defaults to on every time you turn the car on.

 

This hasn't been formally approved (yet)