This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.SystemsWikipedia:WikiProject SystemsTemplate:WikiProject SystemsSystems articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer Vision, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computer Vision on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer VisionWikipedia:WikiProject Computer VisionTemplate:WikiProject Computer VisionComputer Vision articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer Security, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computer security on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer SecurityWikipedia:WikiProject Computer SecurityTemplate:WikiProject Computer SecurityComputer Security articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
[[Audi A8#Third generation (D4, Typ 4H; 2009–present)|Audi A8]] The anchor (#Third generation (D4, Typ 4H; 2009–present)) has been deleted by other users before.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 talk23:44, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
collision avoidance system vs AEB: Are there any other CAS than AEB?[edit]
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)[reply]
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 talk17:36, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.