Jalopnik
The Institute for Highway Safety has concluded a study that shows the crash avoidance technology like blind-spot sensors, forward collision automatic braking, lane-departure warnings, emergency brake assistance and adaptive headlights won't significantly help prevent fatal car crashes and it is mostly due to the drivers. So much for PReVENT. The study shows that the crash-avoidance technology won't be cared about and ignored by the drivers. They technology also causes the drivers to be more reckless and careless while driving.
Blind-spot detection, emergency brake assistance and adaptive headlights were the worst of the crash-avoidance technologies by being able to prevent 428, 3,079 and 2,553 fatal crashes annually. The forward collision with automatic braking and lane-departure warnings did better by being able to prevent 7.166 and 10,345 fatal crashes annually. There is between around 42,000 automobile deaths annually.
The IIHS found these numbers by analyzing all of the crash data from 2002 to 2006 that could be affected by these types of technology and highlighting how many crashes were fatal. Tom Baloga, BMW's vp of engineering said that the IIHS's figures have "significant limitations in accuracy" and adding that as more manufacturers include this technology, the numbers will go up. In other words, he's saying once the non-luxury cars begin including the technology, the figures will change. [USA Today]
Comments
There is between around 42,000 automobile deaths annually.
WAT.
I have my own built-in Crash Avoidance Technology.
It works amazing.
WILLWARNETT to the rescue!
[www.transportblog.com] This has great all round visibility,can't see it catching on though.
Just because it does more harm than good doesn't mean it won't become mandatory equipment someday.
"They(sic) technology also causes the drivers to be more reckless and careless while driving." No doubt. Look what ABS, traction control and all wheel drive have done for the average motorist here in the US of A. Given them more freedom to yammer on the phone, send texts VIA Blackberry, put on makeup, read the paper and atch a movie on their in-dash DVD player. Simultaneously. While tailgating you at 90 in the left lane.
I thought all legally licensed drivers came equipped with common sense... /shrug
[Teen, sheepishly]: "Mom, Dad, I kind of wrecked the car. It's kind of wrapped around a tree trunk. It kind of jumped out from nowhere. I kind of was texting Judy..."
Called it.
[jalopnik.com]
@brownie:Because it does more harm than good means it will become mandatory.
Government had good intentions when the first generation air-bags were killing short people. Thank God they had good intentions.
Imagine the "Must Read" one will go through prior to starting the car.
@Nayrlladnar: Where did you get that idea?! What country are you from? Welcome to America!
I'm from Naive-istan.
@brownie: If it prevents (or could prevent) crashes, then it's doing good. What's happening is that these technologies are doing less good than people said they would, not doing more harm than good.
Why do we need lane departure warning systems? Isn't that what the road reflector bumps are for?
@elwood: Correct. The IIHS is saying that there is the possibility they could lead to more reckless driving. Obviously there is NO proof of that.
I thought the number of fatal crash reductions by the lane departure and frontal avoidance systems was very significant.
if you really want to prevent accidents all you need to do is outlaw automatic transmissions, power steering, dashboard-gps and car stereos
all i can see this type of device leading to is an increase of lawsuits by idiots against car manufacturers
What happens to insurance rates if cars dont crash?
IIHS is the insurance industry. Of course they are against crash avoidance.
why did they only study fatal crashes? isn't blind spot detection primarly to prevent side swipes and fender benders?
Also no estimate of repair costs saved by purchasing the option vs not?
that's a surprisingly rotten study by IIHS, who usually does ok work. Or maybe its USA Today's reporting that's rotten, like it mostly always is.
There is noone on a cell phone smart enough to use this system.
@drewheyman:
FOLLOW THE MONEY!
The IIHS only cares about saving money for its companies. It is the worst industry shill that always hooks dumbass reporters with the snazzy car crash videos...
These are the same corp nimrods who complain about cars costing too much to fix in 5mph crashes yet do not compare the fuel economy received by not having 1980's "rail road track" bumpers attached to shock absorbers on cars...
How do you measure the number of fatal crashes that didn't happen? Their explanation of how they came up with the numbers is really pretty thin.
Don't get me wrong, I hate electronic nannies, but the study seems a bit weak.
@charles_barrett: If my nephew said that, I would need to call in the police to help me lock down all my guns, b/c my bro would shoot him at least once with each one.
Start a discussion:
Login with your username and password below. Or comment on this post via email.
Forgot your username or password? New User?