Jump to content
William Maley

Industry News: NHTSA, IIHS, and 20 Auto Manufacturers Commit To Make Automatic Braking Systems Standard By 2022

Recommended Posts


A historic commitment was announced today by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, and twenty automakers to make automatic emergency braking (AEB) standard by 2022.

 

“It’s an exciting time for vehicle safety. By proactively making emergency braking systems standard equipment on their vehicles, these 20 automakers will help prevent thousands of crashes and save lives. It’s a win for safety and a win for consumers," said U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx.

 

This agreement comes as a result of mounting evidence that AEB systems can cut rear-end crashes by as much as 40 percent.

 

Back in September, NHTSA and IIHS announced that ten automakers - Audi, BMW, Ford, General Motors, Mazda, Mercedes-Benz, Tesla, Toyota, Volkswagen, and Volvo - agreed to have AEB systems standard on all their vehicles in the future. Since then, the various groups have been working out various details of the agreement. Plus, another ten automakers - Fiat Chrysler, Honda, Hyundai, Jaguar Land Rover, Kia, Maserati, Mitsubishi, Nissan, Porsche, and Subaru - have added their names.

 

All told, this group represents about 99 percent of U.S. light-vehicle sales.

 

The key thing to keep in mind is this isn't a government mandate. It is agreement between the between automakers and the government, something NHTSA says will cause widespread adoption three years sooner than a formal rule.

 

The agreement will come into effect in two phases. Phase 1 will require all vehicles with a gross weight under 8,500 pounds to have AEB by September 1, 2022. Phase 2 requires vehicles with a gross weight between 8,501 and 10,000 pounds to have AEB by September 1, 2025.

 

Source: NHTSA

 

Press Release is on Page 2


 

U.S. DOT and IIHS announce historic commitment of 20 automakers to make automatic emergency braking standard on new vehicles

 

Thursday, March 17, 2016

 

McLEAN, Va. – The U.S. Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety announced today a historic commitment by 20 automakers representing more than 99 percent of the U.S. auto market to make automatic emergency braking a standard feature on virtually all new cars no later than NHTSA’s 2022 reporting year, which begins Sept 1, 2022.

 

Automakers making the commitment are Audi, BMW, FCA US LLC, Ford, General Motors, Honda, Hyundai, Jaguar Land Rover, Kia, Maserati, Mazda, Mercedes-Benz, Mitsubishi Motors, Nissan, Porsche, Subaru, Tesla Motors Inc., Toyota, Volkswagen and Volvo Car USA. The unprecedented commitment means that this important safety technology will be available to more consumers more quickly than would be possible through the regulatory process.

 

AEB systems help prevent crashes or reduce their severity by applying the brakes for the driver. The systems use on-vehicle sensors such as radar, cameras or lasers to detect an imminent crash, warn the driver and apply the brakes if the driver does not take sufficient action quickly enough.

 

NHTSA estimates that the agreement will make AEB standard on new cars three years faster than could be achieved through the formal regulatory process. During those three years, according to IIHS estimates, the commitment will prevent 28,000 crashes and 12,000 injuries.

 

“It’s an exciting time for vehicle safety. By proactively making emergency braking systems standard equipment on their vehicles, these 20 automakers will help prevent thousands of crashes and save lives,” said U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx. “It’s a win for safety and a win for consumers."

 

Based on mounting evidence that AEB effectively reduced crashes and injuries in the U.S. and around the world, NHTSA and IIHS issued a challenge to industry in September 2015 to encourage automakers to voluntarily make AEB a standard feature. A series of meetings followed to establish details of the commitment.

 

“IIHS member companies strongly support the adoption of effective safety technologies,” said IIHS Board Chairman and CEO of American Family Insurance, Jack Salzwedel. “Deploying AEB on a wide scale will allow us to further evaluate the technology’s effectiveness and its impact on insurance losses, so that more insurers can explore offering discounts or lower premiums to consumers who choose AEB-equipped vehicles.”

 

“We’re getting these safety systems into vehicles much faster than what would have been otherwise possible,” said NHTSA Administrator, Dr. Mark Rosekind. “A commitment of this magnitude is unprecedented, and it will bring more safety to more Americans sooner.”

 

“The benefits of this commitment are far reaching,” said IIHS Executive Vice President and Chief Research Officer David Zuby. “From injuries and deaths averted to the recovery of productivity that would otherwise be lost in traffic jams caused by the crashes prevented. It also assures that all Americans will benefit from this technology.”

 

“With roadway fatalities on the rise, the commitment made today has the potential to save more lives than almost anything else we can accomplish in the next six years," said Deborah A.P. Hersman, president and CEO of the National Safety Council, who attended today’s announcement. "Including all models in the agreement ensures that safety isn't for just those who can afford it."

 

NHTSA and IIHS also announced that Consumer Reports will assist in monitoring automaker progress toward meeting the AEB commitment. Jake Fisher, Director of Auto Testing for Consumer Reports, said, “We have been calling on automakers to make automatic emergency braking standard in all new vehicles, and today is an important step toward reaching that goal. This proven technology is among the most promising safety advances we’ve seen since electronic stability control almost two decades ago. We look forward to working with NHTSA and IIHS to help put this plan into action and hold automakers accountable for their commitments.”

 

Today’s commitment will make AEB standard on virtually all light-duty cars and trucks with a gross vehicle weight of 8,500 lbs. or less beginning no later than Sept. 1, 2022. AEB will be standard on virtually all trucks with a gross vehicle weight between 8,501 lbs. and 10,000 lbs. beginning no later than Sept. 1, 2025.

 

As NHTSA continues its regulatory work in this area, NHTSA will track the progress industry is making towards its commitment.

 

The commitment takes into account the evolution of AEB technology. It requires a level of functionality that is in line with research and crash data demonstrating that such systems are substantially reducing crashes, but does not stand in the way of improved capabilities that are just beginning to emerge. The performance measures are based on real world data showing that vehicles with this level of capability are avoiding crashes.

 

To encourage further development of AEB technology, NHTSA will accelerate its research on more advanced AEB applications, including systems that reduce the risk of collisions with pedestrians. In December, NHTSA announced plans to rate AEB systems and other advanced technologies under its 5-Star Safety Ratings beginning in model year 2018.


View full article

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not at all surprised by this.  Lane departure warnings, or even an autonomous steer system to avoid accidents will probably become mandated in the 2020s also.  This will of course keep pushing the cost of cars up.

 

On a related not, without meaning to get too political, we can mandate auto braking to cut down on the 35,000 people a year killed in car accidents, which I support.  But then we can't mandate a fingerprint or handprint recognition pad on the handle of every fire arm, so they can't be fired unless the registered owner's fingerprint is on it?  Seems like that would cut down the 35,000 gun deaths a year in the US.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So this means for those of us that are real gear heads, we hold onto our older auto's and keep them running so we do not have to deal with stupid nanny devices that will fail and cause bigger problems. 

 

Just imagine the stupid Nanny devices decides to fail and lock up all the wheels so you have a locked up auto causing a reending accident and incapable of being moved due to locked wheels blocking the highway until a recker comes and drags it onto the flatbed and creates flat spots on the tires.

 

Lovely, just hear the Dollars ringing up in repairs / replacement parts.

 

Idiots in DC!  :fryingpan:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a related not, without meaning to get too political, we can mandate auto braking to cut down on the 35,000 people a year killed in car accidents, which I support.  But then we can't mandate a fingerprint or handprint recognition pad on the handle of every fire arm, so they can't be fired unless the registered owner's fingerprint is on it?  Seems like that would cut down the 35,000 gun deaths a year in the US.

 

sorry but if i need my gun to go bang im not so inclined to hope it scans my hand or fingers quick enough to save my life, id just throw it at the assailant and go for my trusty every day carry auto knife and get to work. K.I.S.S. will always be the best practice in "need this to work now" situations...

 

now, back to the topic at hand, i saw a write up about this on car throttle or bangshift (dont remember which). certain insurance companies are starting to cut breaks to the owners of these safety feature equipped vehicles. sounds good at first, but then someone threw in the hypothesis that eventually what will happen is vehicles without such features will start falling into a higher insurance bracket in the years to come... an interesting conundrum to say the least. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im perplexed with all this technology...

 

When these cars are new....the technology will be flawless...

 

But when the automobile in question gets a few thousand miles on the odometer and a few years under the belt..an automobile is a machine...and machines break down and need maintenance, both scheduled and unexpected because machines...eventually break down and need fixin'.

 

So...what happens to the technology that is there to "save our lives" but needs regular maintenance and repair...and the CHEAP ASS owner DOES NOT DO the REQUIRED maintenance?

 

After all...some people forgo oil changes for Christ's Sake!!!

People dont even change a burnt light bulb...

SHYTE!!!  People dont even check their tire's air pressure....

 

I FEAR the future we are creating with this nonsense!!!

We assume that these technology filled life saving automobiles will be just as pristine and in good working order as the day the car left the assembly line....yet for 100 years plus..we KNOW that aint true...yet we INSIST to ignore...

 

I FEAR THE FUTURE WE ARE CREATING!!!!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Olds, OLDS!  Settle down a bit.  Just... unplug... you'll feel better.

 

Stupid automatic braking.  One more nail in the coffin of driving enjoyment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ehh, survival of the fittest. More and more people just view cars as appliances. As such, even in commoditzed goods - you can still make a name for yourself.

 

I would only buy GE or Whirlpool or Kenmore for example

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Olds, OLDS!  Settle down a bit.  Just... unplug... you'll feel better.

 

Stupid automatic braking.  One more nail in the coffin of driving enjoyment.

 

alllllthough, if it keeps a soccer mom or some other ding dong doing everything but driving from hitting my impala while im trying to enjoy a drive i could bask in the assurance that it lessens the possibility of me having to commit manslaughter...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Olds, OLDS!  Settle down a bit.  Just... unplug... you'll feel better.

 

Stupid automatic braking.  One more nail in the coffin of driving enjoyment.

 

alllllthough, if it keeps a soccer mom or some other ding dong doing everything but driving from hitting my impala while im trying to enjoy a drive i could bask in the assurance that it lessens the possibility of me having to commit manslaughter...

 

Yeah...that is the upside with all this technology!

Glass half full / glass half empty situation...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 52 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online



  • Social Stream

  • Similar Content

    • By William Maley
      When the EPA and NHTSA unveiled the proposal for revised fuel economy standards, there was a key part that brought up a lot of debate: The claim that the new regulations would reduce the number of fatalities and crashes. As we pointed out in our story, there were a number of holes in that argument. It seems we were not the only ones questioning this.
      Yesterday, the review of the proposal done by the White House's Information and Regulatory Affairs was made public. In it are hundred of pages of correspondence, analysis, and drafts. Bloomberg went through the documents and found that EPA officials were questioning the rationale put forth by NHTSA on reducing crashes.
      The “proposed standards are detrimental to safety, rather than beneficial,” wrote EPA staff in a memo dated June 18th.
      Their basis for this was analysis done by the agency after making a number of corrections to a Transportation Department model. It showed that freezing fuel economy standards "would lead to an increase in traffic fatalities and boost the overall fatality rate."
      The EPA questioned the validity of the Obama administration standards “coincided with an increase in highway fatalities” claim.
      “What data supports the implication that the standards to date have led to fatality increases?” said the EPA in feedback on June 29th.
      Also, the EPA questioned NHTSA's model that overestimates the number of old and unsafe vehicles on the road if the new regulations go into effect.
      How the EPA and NHTSA came to an agreement is unclear at the moment. What it does reveal is that the dispute between the two agencies could affect plans to try and create a comprise that would appease both automakers and California regulators.
      “These emails are but a fraction of the robust dialogue that occurred during interagency deliberations for the proposed rule. EPA is currently soliciting comments on eight different alternative standards and we look forward to reviewing any new data and information,” said EPA spokesman John Konkus.
      Irene Gutierrez, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council sees it a bit differently.
      "...that even the EPA had deep reservations about the bogus safety arguments being pushed by the Department of Transportation. We know that automakers can make cars both more fuel efficient and safer; it’s heartening to find out EPA’s technical experts agree.”
      Source: Bloomberg

      View full article
    • By William Maley
      When the EPA and NHTSA unveiled the proposal for revised fuel economy standards, there was a key part that brought up a lot of debate: The claim that the new regulations would reduce the number of fatalities and crashes. As we pointed out in our story, there were a number of holes in that argument. It seems we were not the only ones questioning this.
      Yesterday, the review of the proposal done by the White House's Information and Regulatory Affairs was made public. In it are hundred of pages of correspondence, analysis, and drafts. Bloomberg went through the documents and found that EPA officials were questioning the rationale put forth by NHTSA on reducing crashes.
      The “proposed standards are detrimental to safety, rather than beneficial,” wrote EPA staff in a memo dated June 18th.
      Their basis for this was analysis done by the agency after making a number of corrections to a Transportation Department model. It showed that freezing fuel economy standards "would lead to an increase in traffic fatalities and boost the overall fatality rate."
      The EPA questioned the validity of the Obama administration standards “coincided with an increase in highway fatalities” claim.
      “What data supports the implication that the standards to date have led to fatality increases?” said the EPA in feedback on June 29th.
      Also, the EPA questioned NHTSA's model that overestimates the number of old and unsafe vehicles on the road if the new regulations go into effect.
      How the EPA and NHTSA came to an agreement is unclear at the moment. What it does reveal is that the dispute between the two agencies could affect plans to try and create a comprise that would appease both automakers and California regulators.
      “These emails are but a fraction of the robust dialogue that occurred during interagency deliberations for the proposed rule. EPA is currently soliciting comments on eight different alternative standards and we look forward to reviewing any new data and information,” said EPA spokesman John Konkus.
      Irene Gutierrez, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council sees it a bit differently.
      "...that even the EPA had deep reservations about the bogus safety arguments being pushed by the Department of Transportation. We know that automakers can make cars both more fuel efficient and safer; it’s heartening to find out EPA’s technical experts agree.”
      Source: Bloomberg
    • By William Maley
      A new audit released by the U.S. Transportation Department’s Office of Inspector General rips the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) over its handling of the Takata airbag recall.
      In the report, the Inspector General says NHTSA's recall monitoring process "does not ensure that remedies are reported completely and in a timely manner," nor does it "verify recall completion rates, although it has the authority to do so." Other issues the audit found included the long time it took the agency to determine the scope of the Takata recall and missing documents due to limited monitoring and inadequate procedures.
      "In June 2014, RMD [NHTSA's Recall Management Division] received a recall notification for Takata airbag inflators in over 140,000 vehicles. The notification stated that the manufacturer planned to tell owners to take their vehicles to dealerships for repairs in February 2015. However, as of February 2018, RMD had not received the manufacturer's remedy documents, and [the Office of Defects Investigation's] recall recordkeeping system does not indicate that RMD staff requested those documents," the report said.
      The Inspector General makes six recommendations including better training for staff, creating a system to handle missing documents and communications, and documenting various lessons from the Takata recall.
      NHTSA in a letter said it "did not endorse all of the report’s findings," but did agree to some of the recommendations.
      The agency has come under fire for a number of years due to its poor handling of various auto safety issues, including Toyota's unattended acceleration crisis and GM's ignition switch mess. This latest audit is fourth since 2011 by the inspector general. The last audit done in 2015 said NTHSA failed to investigate safety issues carefully, hold automakers accountable, and adequately train their staff which resulted in “significant safety concerns being overlooked.”
      Source: Reuters

      View full article
    • By William Maley
      A new audit released by the U.S. Transportation Department’s Office of Inspector General rips the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) over its handling of the Takata airbag recall.
      In the report, the Inspector General says NHTSA's recall monitoring process "does not ensure that remedies are reported completely and in a timely manner," nor does it "verify recall completion rates, although it has the authority to do so." Other issues the audit found included the long time it took the agency to determine the scope of the Takata recall and missing documents due to limited monitoring and inadequate procedures.
      "In June 2014, RMD [NHTSA's Recall Management Division] received a recall notification for Takata airbag inflators in over 140,000 vehicles. The notification stated that the manufacturer planned to tell owners to take their vehicles to dealerships for repairs in February 2015. However, as of February 2018, RMD had not received the manufacturer's remedy documents, and [the Office of Defects Investigation's] recall recordkeeping system does not indicate that RMD staff requested those documents," the report said.
      The Inspector General makes six recommendations including better training for staff, creating a system to handle missing documents and communications, and documenting various lessons from the Takata recall.
      NHTSA in a letter said it "did not endorse all of the report’s findings," but did agree to some of the recommendations.
      The agency has come under fire for a number of years due to its poor handling of various auto safety issues, including Toyota's unattended acceleration crisis and GM's ignition switch mess. This latest audit is fourth since 2011 by the inspector general. The last audit done in 2015 said NTHSA failed to investigate safety issues carefully, hold automakers accountable, and adequately train their staff which resulted in “significant safety concerns being overlooked.”
      Source: Reuters
    • By William Maley
      The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has sent a cease-and-desist letter to Dolder, Falco and Reese Partners LLC, the company behind an aftermarket device called the Autopilot Buddy.
      Autopilot Buddy is a small, weighted device that clips onto either side of the wheel to place minor amounts of torque. This fools the Autopilot system into thinking that a driver has their hands on the wheel. The company markets the device as "nag reduction device", reducing the amount of warnings to tell driver to keep their hands on the wheel.
      The company has a disclaimer on Autopilot Buddy that states,
      This would be ok if a video demonstrating the product didn't appear to be on a public road of sorts. 
      “A product intended to circumvent motor vehicle safety and driver attentiveness is unacceptable. By preventing the safety system from warning the driver to return their hands to the wheel, this product disables an important safeguard, and could put customers and other road users at risk,” said NHTSA Deputy Administrator Heidi King in a statement.
      NHTSA has given Dolder, Falco and Reese Partners LLC till June 29th to respond and certify to NHTSA "that all U.S. marketing, sales, and distribution of the Autopilot Buddy has ended."
      Source: Roadshow, NHTSA

      View full article
  • My Clubs

  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Reader Rides

About us

CheersandGears.com - Founded 2001

We ♥ Cars

Get in touch

Follow us

Recent tweets

facebook

×