Talk:Collision avoidance system

Source for Regulation of AEB system

It looks like this article does deal too much with Regulation of AEB system.

Here there is one source which provide piece of information on non standardisation and regulation of the AEB, by EuroNCAP and ISO.

https://www-esv.nhtsa.dot.gov/proceedings/24/files/24ESV-000395.PDF — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.67.188.170 (talk) 21:54, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Criticism

There is no information here about criticism, or accidents caused by collision avoidance system (e.g. car brakes unexpectedly due to collision avoidance system, then gets rear-ended by the next car whose driver was taken by surprise). I would add such info if I knew where to look... I was actually hoping to find it here. 165.225.38.84 (talk) 15:32, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

There is some difference between criticism, or accidents caused by collision avoidance system.

• In your example, I assume that if the next car whose driver was taken by surprise crash in the leading car, it is the fault from next car's driver and not the one of the leading car which has a right to brake!?

What I meant was that my car (with collision avoidance) sometimes brakes abruptly because of something it detects ahead, but it is something that I could easily avoid by applying the brakes more gradually. Because my car stopped so abruptly, I was nearly rear-ended by the car behind me, whose driver was so shaken up (having missed me by an inch) that he was nervous about resuming his commute. (It didn't do me any good either.) This would not have happened if my car's braking system had not overreacted to the non-crisis in front of me (someone was slowly turning into a parking lot). I doubt this is a rare occurrence. I unfortunately feel I have to keep the emergency braking turned off most of the time now. It needs a lot more work. And yes I have shared my thoughts with Subaru as well. 165.225.38.84 (talk) 15:47, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

• Critics exist, for instance against Nissan: https://www.forbes.com/sites/tanyamohn/2019/03/29/2017-2018-nissan-rogue-automatic-emergency-braking-presents-unreasonable-risk-safety-group-says/#6fd7810676c3

Perfect, thank you, this is just what I was looking for. 15:47, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

• Specifically there is one case which present a risk of accident: "driving over a train crossing, the car just stopped. Luckily I was able to get it moving before a train came. Very scary!" No fatalities in this case, compared to 37,806 US fatalities without AEB in 2016 (See Motor vehicle fatality rate in U.S. by year) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.104.149 (talk) 20:10, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

source: https://www.carcomplaints.com/Nissan/Rogue/2018/investigations/

Might be the ESS could avoid the rear end? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.136.154.64 (talk) 16:45, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

This article does not deal with collision avoidance system : Rename?

This article does not deal with collision avoidance system but with collision avoidance system in automobiles. Collision avoidance system is an expression used for aircrafts with Traffic collision avoidance system and Airborne collision avoidance system.

This Collision avoidance system is not a good name for automobile. I suggest the titles collision avoidance system in automobiles.

This article does not deal mainly with collision avoidance system but with AEB. I suggest to rename it as AEB, with a specific section for collision avoidance system if needed. I beleive the AEB name is better, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.136.154.64 (talk) 11:28, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I suggest automobiles Collision avoidance system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.136.154.64 (talk) 12:26, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I would suggest renaming to collision avoidance system (automobiles). This is a common naming scheme for related topics. Of course, there should be an article with the old name mentioning other types and linking to the new name.  Stepho  talk  23:44, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

It is also understandable — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.136.214.45 (talk • contribs)

Some write: Automotive Collision Avoidance System, fr instance, for the U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT-VNTSC-NHTSA-06-01 DOT HS 810 569, in March 2006, "Evaluation of an Automotive Rear-End Collision Avoidance System" by the Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, Cambridge, MA 02142-1093. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.136.214.43 (talk) 07:07, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

collision avoidance system vs AEB: Are there any other CAS than AEB?

Are there any other CAS than AEB? Could we say that CAS is a few regulated not well defined open concept while AEB is a standardized concept following defined regulations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.136.154.64 (talk) 12:37, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

The article mentions both avoidance by braking (AEB) and avoidance by steering. Other variations include Blind spot monitor and lane departure systems. So renaming this article as AEB would be wrong.  Stepho  talk  23:41, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

What do we mean by avoidance by steering? Is this existing on some vehicle or just a new research concept? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.136.214.45 (talk) 12:00, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't know of any production systems that actively steer around an obstacle. There is much potential for trouble - steering to one side might hit pedestrians, steering to the other side might hit cars coming in the opposite direction. Perhaps the original editor meant lane following (the car warns if you leave the lane or the car steers itself to stay in the lane) and blind spot monitoring (the car monitors your steering and warns if you are about to steer into another car). Self parking cars could also be considered collision avoidance because they park without hitting the cars in front and behind (unlike some "park by feel" drivers who park by reversing until they hit the car behind the parking bay).  Stepho  talk  17:36, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I can agree there can be various definitions about what CAS can be. However, I believe some piece of references is needed to say that such or such feature might be considered by some organization or not considered by some other organization as a CAS system. This might be important if that might impact the structure this article.

I do believe that Lane departure warning system cannot be considered as a CAS because it was not merged with CAS while AEB is the most CAS system because it was merged with CAS. Anyway, other argument(s) could question this view.

Regulation UNECE No. 79 does not describe lane technologie as a way to avoid collision, while regulation 131 considers AEBS can « detect potential forward collision (...) with the purpose of avoiding (...) a collision » which sounds like CAS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.136.214.45 (talk) 19:10, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, there are other CAS: ALKS is a recent regulations that provide some CAS avoidance features.

This manoeuvre shall decelerate the vehicle up to its full braking performance if necessary and/or may perform an automatic evasive manoeuvre, when appropriate.
If failures are affecting the braking or steering performance of the system, the manoeuvre shall be carried out with consideration for the remaining performance.
During the evasive manoeuvre the ALKS vehicle shall not cross the lane marking (outer edge of the front tyre to outer edge of the lane marking).
After the evasive manoeuvre the vehicle shall aim at resuming a stable position.

— ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2020/81

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:City safety which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:06, 26 January 2024 (UTC)