4Runner will get Auto braking
- Thread starter wcjeep
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
Midnight Anvil
New member
May not be the end of 2017 but it will more than likely get it. I thought I saw an article stating the NHTSA (I think) mandated automatic braking for all automobiles and it's supposed to take effect within the next couple of years.
However, a quick search found that it was actually a collaboration among auto makers to implement it as a standard safety feature.
Automatic emergency braking coming to 99% of cars by 2022
However, a quick search found that it was actually a collaboration among auto makers to implement it as a standard safety feature.
Automatic emergency braking coming to 99% of cars by 2022
Lester Lugnut
New member
This may save lives.
It may also cost some, especially in the beginning 'til bugs are worked out.
Sensor detects something that's not actually occurring and the vehicles braking system locks up with an 18 wheeler 20 ft. off your rear bumper.
Thanks Big Brother.
I'm waiting for the mandatory robotized manikin that will replace the driver.
No more worrying about having a few-too-many at happy hour.
It may also cost some, especially in the beginning 'til bugs are worked out.
Sensor detects something that's not actually occurring and the vehicles braking system locks up with an 18 wheeler 20 ft. off your rear bumper.
Thanks Big Brother.
I'm waiting for the mandatory robotized manikin that will replace the driver.
No more worrying about having a few-too-many at happy hour.
I had autobraking on my Lexus NX200T and I hated it with a passion. The system was overly obnoxious and made thing worse by slamming on the brakes...which take you off guard....has loud beeping while it does it...which knocks your mind all over the place...and of course sets the person behind you up for wrecking into the back of you.
I know the advantages, but after having it first hand, I'll be furious to have it forced upon me in my next car.
I know the advantages, but after having it first hand, I'll be furious to have it forced upon me in my next car.
CoMtn4Runner
New member
No thanks. My wife has it on her forester and it has almost gotten me rear ended a few times by braking for a cars turning right when braking was not necessary. If they do go that route, hopefully you can manually disable it.
having fun
New member
Usually if a big rig is that close to you your not going fast enough for them. Some states, there only allowed to be in certain lanes only.
Key word was usually, then there are those idiots out there that are stupid for just doing it.
Going to take a few years to work this auto braking out.
Key word was usually, then there are those idiots out there that are stupid for just doing it.
Going to take a few years to work this auto braking out.
To everyone complaining about pre-collision braking systems: even in their current, early incarnation it is clear that they are saving a huge number of lives. Pre-collision braking reduces rear-end accidents by 40%! That is a huge, huge number.
If you think you are a more careful and attentive drive than a computer... well, you're wrong.
Yes there will be times when the car brakes unnecessarily, and it's possible that it will actually cause some accidents. But the number of injuries and deaths prevented will far exceed the number caused. (Also, if the car behind you also has auto-braking they are not likely to hit you anyway, no matter how abruptly you stop.) And the systems are improving literally every year.
It's just like seatbelts... people complained bitterly when they were installed in cars, saying that they were causing injuries. The same with anti-lock brakes, and airbags, and traction/stability control, and...
If you think you are a more careful and attentive drive than a computer... well, you're wrong.
Yes there will be times when the car brakes unnecessarily, and it's possible that it will actually cause some accidents. But the number of injuries and deaths prevented will far exceed the number caused. (Also, if the car behind you also has auto-braking they are not likely to hit you anyway, no matter how abruptly you stop.) And the systems are improving literally every year.
It's just like seatbelts... people complained bitterly when they were installed in cars, saying that they were causing injuries. The same with anti-lock brakes, and airbags, and traction/stability control, and...
nevada
Senior Member
as if the world wasn't over-populated enough as it was...
I call Bravo Sierra on the 40%. How would this metric even be tracked if the metric is not a reported statistic in every motor vehicle crash. Not that I don't think the auto braking is a good idea (because generally I do). But with 1,700,000 rear end collisions reported last year is only a .7% or 11,000 less than the previous year. That is a far cry from the 750,000 required to hit the claimed 40%. I think someone in the marketing department came up with that "projected 40%" to build a case.
I don't feel I am necessarily a more careful or attentive driver than a computer, but I am able to judge things the computer cannot recognize. For instance, what happens when this systems activates with a young driver behind the wheel on slick roads, or pulling a trailer, or when the vehicle is loaded down with seven passengers and luggage. Again I have no doubt the system will save millions of dollars and perhaps even a life or two. But as an alternative to proper driving, its fails. We keep adding systems to cars to make the drivers less and less in control, I have a bad feeling this is breading a generation of very sub-par drivers. 110 years ago cars did not have brakes, wipers, doors, seat belts and so on, I have a feeling in 100 years the crap we dive today is going to be as primitive.
As far a seat belts, I don't think people complained when they were put in cars (fun fact: Seatbelts were first used in a car called the Tucker and were not adopted mainstream until 7 years after the demise of the tucker.) at all, generally people who wanted to be safe used them and others did not. The issue with seatbelts is when it became a crime not to use one people simply lost their mind and blamed them for everything from rashes to death.
With the adoption of most new tech, there will be a portion of the population that refuse to give up any further control. We know things like seat belts, laminated glass wind screens (thanks again Tucker) and crumple zones all help reduce the cost per motor vehicle accident, but stuff like automatic braking, lane change guidance and auto parking is asking too many people to give up too much control for them to be comfortable.
FYI... I only pretend to own a 4Runner so I can play online. I really drive a AMC Eagle 4x4 with manual tranny, windows, steering, brakes and defrost... because I never let go of control. :lookout:
There are multiple studies of accident data that show a dramatic reduction. And you don't need every police department to keep track of auto-braking systems in order to do a study. Plus there may be other sources of information (insurance claims, VIN lookups, etc).
Also nobody claimed that there was was a 40% drop in ALL crashes... just a 40% drop in crashes for vehicles with pre-collision braking, which right now is a very small fraction of all cars.
BlackWorksInc
New member
Out of those 40% how many were possibly life threatening collisions vs. Careless fender benders? If the car can brake for you, why should a novice or experienced driver bother braking anymore? I mean people don't use their mirrors already and probably less now they have a distracting light telling them they're gonna run someone of the road when they don't look when merging.
I'm all for safety, but much of these accidents are the result of bad drivers who should never have passed their drivers test let alone operate a vehicle. These systems only continue to give the lazy the escape from self responsibility that this country has disappointingly embraced wholeheartidly.
I don't know if the study broke out the severity of injury but in addition to a ~40% reduction in accidents there was a corresponding 42% reduction in injuries. So it's not just minor fender-benders that were prevented.
Also, interestingly, the auto-braking systems had the greatest reduction in accidents (54% reduction) on roads with speed limits of 40-45 mph. That is not exactly stop-and-go urban traffic.
I only looked up the last couple years rear impact crashes. My numbers are based on rear end crashed ONLY. So if what you are saying is true "a 40% drop in crashes for vehicles with pre-collision braking" the previous year (or whenever this metric was tracked) 40% more vehicles THAT WERE USING pre-collision braking has crashes? So in the base study the vehicles with the system, were experiences failures?
I thought you were saying that the auto braking was reducing rear end crashes by 40%. I have no doubt the collision avoidance will save lots of money and injuries. I only raised an eyebrow to the 40% number since the sample group alone (vehicle with vs vehicles without)could not possibly net a usable result this early in the technology.
I'm not even going to teach my kids what the brake is, by time there are driving, all they will need to know is how to sync their iPhone 9 and how to get out.
Actually there is enough data to get statistically-significant results. The IIHS study I am referring to looked at the crash rates for vehicles that are available with and without pre-collision braking and found that those with the auto-braking were 40% less likely to be in a rear-end crash, even controlling for other factors like driver demographic and location. (It is not a year-over-year comparison.)
Here is a link to the IIHS study, which to my knowledge is the most recent and largest study. It is based primarily on police reports that have been augmented by using the VIN and model trim of the vehicles to determine whether pre-collision braking was installed:
Effectiveness of Forward Collision Warning Systems with and without Autonomous Emergency Braking in Reducing Police-Reported Crash Rates, January 2016
I have not read the whole thing and do not know whether traffic studies are subject to the same scrutiny as peer-reviewed "hard science" research but it appears to be pretty detailed in its analysis.
(There have also been several studies using insurance claim data from the HLDI and others.)
Tleahcim
New member
Well that was probably the nerdiest way I could have spent my break. It's interesting when you look at the breakdown between automakers the data suggest that there's no significant difference between automakers in terms of RR, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the tech is equally good across the board. It would be interesting to see how that might change as sample size increases. The irony/catch-22 is that in order for n to increase, you'd need more accidents which would also suggest that perhaps the tech isn't that great in preventing collisions. I suppose you could go with an absence of evidence mentality there but we all know how faulty that type of logic is.
The 2017 4Runner will not , the 2018 6th gen Will have this new tech for sure.
