False step?
If you are a truck driver who has had bad experiences regarding automatic emergency braking technology, the time is now to let the U.S. Department of Transportation know about it.
On July 6, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration published a joint proposal that would require AEB systems and electronic stability control systems on new vehicles that weigh more than 10,000 pounds. The proposed standard would require the technology to work at speeds ranging between 6-50 mph.
The proposal calls for all Class 7 and 8 vehicles – those weighing more than 26,000 pounds – to be required to meet the automatic emergency braking standards three years after the rule takes effect. All Class 3-6 vehicles – those weighing 10,001-26,000 pounds – would be required to meet the automatic emergency braking and electronic stability control requirements in four years. Small-volume manufacturers would have until five years after the final rule took effect. The proposal would not require existing heavy vehicles to be retrofitted with automatic emergency vehicle technology.
The public has through Sept. 5 to comment on the proposed mandate.
“OOIDA has heard from drivers that AEBs routinely produce false activations and do not operate consistently in all types of road conditions,” the Association wrote in a Call to Action directed at its more than 150,000 members.
“Now is the time to submit comments opposing NHTSA/FMCSA’s proposed mandate. Tell the agencies that their AEB rulemaking must protect against false activations and develop more comprehensive safety standards.”
According to the agencies, the proposal would prevent 19,118 crashes, 155 fatalities and 8,814 injuries annually.
“Establishing AEB standards is a key component of the Department’s National Roadway Safety Strategy,” FMCSA Administrator Robin Hutcheson said in a news release. “This technology can enhance the effectiveness of commercial motor vehicle crash reduction strategies and reduce roadway fatalities.”
NHTSA also announced in May a proposal that would require AEBs on passenger cars and light trucks within three years of a final rule being published.
Opposition
Those opposed to mandating automatic emergency braking systems contend that the technology has not been perfected and point to reports of false braking, issues regarding inclement weather and negative feedback from drivers.
Opponents also question the timing as just about a month ago, NHTSA opened an investigation into false automatic braking on certain Freightliner and Western Star trucks.
There were 18 complaints of false automatic emergency braking activation “without an actual roadway obstacle.” In some instances, the false activation brought the truck to a complete stop in the travel lane. NHTSA did not report any crashes caused by the false braking.
The investigation, which could affect as many as 250,000 trucks, aims to determine if the alleged defect creates an unreasonable safety risk.
“The agency is aware that some current AEB systems may occasionally cause unwarranted braking events or false activations, which could lead to unintended consequences,” FMCSA and NHTSA wrote in the notice. “We are thus proposing two test scenarios which vehicles must pass without false activation of the AEB system.”
The agencies acknowledge in the notice, however, that the proposed false activation tests “establish only a baseline for system functionality” and that they “are not comprehensive, nor sufficient to eliminate susceptibility to false activations in the myriad of circumstances in the real world.”
The agencies also acknowledge in the notice of proposed rulemaking that the unintended consequences of false activations “cannot be quantified.”
“There are two potential unintended consequences that cannot be quantified: the impact of false activations on safety and the potential impact of sensor degradation over time on AEB performance,” the agencies wrote.
In addition, Daimler recently announced that it is recalling about 330 eCascadias over a problem with the electronic stability control. The issue can lead to insufficient braking force when activated.
OOIDA, which opposes an automatic emergency braking system mandate, says that the agencies must resolve any performance issues before attempting to move forward.
“As proposed, the rulemaking does not ensure AEB systems will be reliable for new commercial motor vehicles beginning in three to four years for Class 7 and 8 vehicles,” OOIDA wrote. “The proposal also fails to properly reflect consultation with commercial motor vehicle drivers regarding their experiences with AEB systems, including any malfunctions or false activations.”
Time to comment
The public was given a 60-day comment period starting on July 6. The agencies will then use those comments to determine whether to move forward with a final rule.
OOIDA encourages truck drivers to file comments and provide several questions to help form thoughts about the technology.
- Have you driven a truck equipped with AEB?
- Was the technology reliable?
- Did it work differently during the day vs. night?
- Did it work differently in wet or cold conditions?
- Is AEB necessary for you to operate safely?
- Do repair shops know how to perform maintenance on AEB trucks?
- Would you drive a truck if it was equipped with AEB?
To submit a comment, go to Regulations.gov by Sept. 5 and enter Docket Nos. FMCSA-2022-0171 or NHTSA-2023-0023. You also can go to FightingForTruckers.com, where OOIDA has made it easy for truck drivers to provide feedback to the agencies. LL