‘Very dangerous’
Carrie Moore still can’t help but get emotional when she tells the story.
It was the winter of 2022, and Moore was traveling on a snowy Michigan highway around midnight.
“I had been on a straight stretch for a while,” she said. “Then I started to approach a gentle curve on the highway with a guardrail.
“One second I was in control, and then …”
Moore, who has been a truck driver for 10 years, was operating a Freightliner equipped with an automatic emergency braking system.
She recounted that as she approached the curve, the guardrail tricked the technology into believing a crash was imminent. The AEB system then slammed on the brakes, causing her truck to jackknife on the icy road.
“It was a full application,” she said. “That sent the truck sideways. I barely kept it out of the median. The only thing that saved me was hearing the voices of my parents, who were both truck drivers. They taught me that the last thing you want to do in that situation is to hit the brakes. Instead, you tap the gas to get out of it.”
Miraculously, Moore was able to avoid crashing the truck, as no cars were around at the time. Still, the near-crash prompted her to pull over and recover from the emotion of the incident.
“I called the company to tell them that I wanted the camera footage and that I want out of this f–king truck,” Moore said. “When I stopped crying and came together, I told them that I needed to be in a new truck. I said, ‘I’m not kidding. I’m not doing this anymore.’”
Proposal
Moore’s specific tale is likely more dramatic than most, but she isn’t the only truck driver who has experienced a false activation while using automatic emergency braking technology. Moore, as well as hundreds of other truckers, shared those experiences in response to a recent proposal that would mandate the tech on new heavy vehicles.
In July, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and 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 proposal calls for all Class 7 and 8 vehicles – those weighing more than 26,000 pounds – to be required to meet the AEB 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 AEB and electronic stability control requirements in four years. Small-volume manufacturers would have until five years after the final rule takes effect.
The rulemaking would not require existing heavy vehicles to be retrofitted with AEB technology.
NHTSA and FMCSA gave the public through Sept. 5 to comment on the proposal.
OOIDA’s comments
Representing more than 150,000 truckers, the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association told the agencies that going through with a mandate before the technology is perfected would jeopardize the safety of its members.
“The notice of proposed rulemaking mandates AEB systems without sufficiently addressing false activations, properly consulting with professional truck drivers or completing ongoing research programs,” OOIDA wrote in comments signed by President Todd Spencer.
Congress mandated the agencies to issue a regulation on AEB systems. However, OOIDA noted that Congress also required the agencies to consult with representatives of commercial motor vehicle drivers regarding their experiences with the systems.
“Frankly, the notice of proposed rulemaking tries to hastily meet the congressional deadlines imposed within the bipartisan infrastructure law at the expense of satisfying the requirements for driver consultation and safety,” OOIDA wrote. “As drivers have often seen, given a choice between listening to truckers and mandating alleged safety technology, NHTSA and FMCSA seem poised to ignore the operational experience and concerns of those who make their living behind the wheel. Instead, DOT should listen to truckers and take all the time necessary to address the shortcomings of these systems.”
OOIDA also used its comments to relay truck drivers’ negative experiences with the technology. Drivers who have used the technology often complain of false braking because the system mistakes shadows from a bridge overpass or a guardrail along a curve as a threat.
“While there are many operational concerns about AEB systems, truckers are especially worried about the potential for false activations,” OOIDA wrote. “As you can imagine, drivers are alarmed the 80,000-pound truck they are driving could unexpectedly brake to a complete stop for no reason.”
Investigation
The timing of the proposal is perplexing, as NHTSA opened an investigation into false automatic braking on certain Freightliner and Western Star trucks earlier this year.
There were 18 complaints of false AEB 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.
Despite the investigation of false braking, NHTSA and FMCSA still plan to move forward with the proposal.
“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.”
OOIDA asked the agencies to address the false activation problems before implementing a mandate.
“We urge NHTSA to adopt more safeguards before any AEB mandate is implemented,” OOIDA wrote. “Any final rule must incorporate additional layers of performance testing to mitigate false activation alerts. NHTSA should require further documentation from manufacturers demonstrating that process standards were followed specific to the consideration of false application of automatic braking. If DOT fails to correct each of these shortcomings, the final AEB rule will jeopardize our members’ safety and create needless highway safety risks.”
Truckers’ feedback
The two agencies received about 1,100 comments on the proposal. Many of them came from truck drivers who say they have had bad experiences with the technology.
“The technology isn’t ready,” Michael Beyer wrote. “I had that system on a truck before. The false positives I got were staggering. Emergency braking (activated) because I was passing a vehicle around a curve or because a vehicle that had exited was slowing on a ramp in my right … If something comes in front of a vehicle on a snowy or icy road, a full brake application would be disastrous.”
“The technology for that system is not ready,” Mike Wells wrote. “I retired from a company that started using it and had a lot of false braking issues from ramps and overpasses. It is not ready to be mandatory.”
“(The) automatic emergency braking system is dangerous,” Joshua Campbell wrote. “It picks up shadows, barriers and SLAMS on the brakes! (It’s) very dangerous on winter roads. Consider this comment documentation in case something is to happen. This system has and will continue to cause accidents.”
“I have (automatic emergency brakes) on my truck now. It is very dangerous,” Mark Harris wrote. “Multiple times it has slammed on the brakes because of an overpass or a highway sign that I go under. Slamming on your brakes on snow is the single most dangerous thing you can do, but I have no control over this as the truck does it all by itself. I have told my wife if I get killed because of this to get a lawyer and sue everyone involved.”
“These systems only work in ideal conditions; with snow or even the least bit of ice, they can and will cause more accidents,” Michael Moonie wrote. “I drive one of these trucks now, and often it will go off for no reason, usually when going under an overpass, where I guess it mistakes the shadows as an object. And, yes, I have had it hit the brakes in those cases, causing a close-call incident.”
Supporters
While many truckers oppose a mandate, safety groups have long pushed for the requirement.
“Large truck automatic emergency braking is a game-changing, proven technology that can drive down the disturbing prevalence of truck crash deaths and injuries,” the Truck Safety Coalition wrote in its comments. “Requiring this technology on commercial motor vehicles is long overdue … The final AEB rule must be issued by May 2024, or it risks intolerable further delay that will result in thousands of lives lost.”
According to the agencies, the proposal would “conservatively prevent an estimated 19,118 crashes, save 155 lives and reduce 8,814 non-fatal injuries annually once all vehicles covered in this rule are equipped with AEB and electronic stability control.”
The National Transportation Safety Board also supports the proposal despite the technology’s current limitations.
“While manufacturers may continue to improve AEB systems, only a regulation will ensure that all heavy vehicles are equipped with an AEB system that can avoid a collision,” the NTSB wrote in its comments. “We appreciate the opportunity to provide this response, and we urge NHTSA and the FMCSA to expedite the rulemaking process.”
Repeating history?
In 1969, NHTSA began the regulatory process to mandate anti-lock brakes for trucks. By 1975, the technology was required.
It didn’t take long for the problems with the technology to reach the mainstream media. Some drivers shared their experiences with The New York Times in a story published Sept. 28, 1975.
“Some of the men found themselves catapulted into the steering wheel in short stops. A number of trucks pulled hard to one side, then veered suddenly to the other, sometimes crossing entire lanes of traffic,” the Times said.
“If you’re in a curve, and you have to stop quickly, there’s no way you can hold your lane,” one driver explained.
Later, Consolidated Freightways, one of the largest carriers in North America, reported 65% of its anti-lock systems had malfunctioned.
Paccar Inc. and the American Trucking Associations sued NHTSA over the anti-lock mandate. They claimed the agency had overstepped its bounds and was “using public highways as a testing ground for an unproven system,” the Times reported.
In April 1978, the court decided against NHTSA. The anti-lock rule was overturned. NHTSA’s mandate was a costly, dangerous debacle. It would not mandate anti-lock brakes for trucks again until 1997. By then, the technology was greatly improved.
OOIDA believes automatic emergency braking technology also needs more time before it’s ready for a mandate.
“DOT must overhaul the notice of proposed rulemaking in the interests of all motorists, and in particular the professional drivers who travel our highways,” the Association wrote in its comments.
‘I’d be done’
For Carrie Moore, the argument isn’t theoretical.
She said her near-crash experience due to the technology was enough to ensure that she won’t drive another truck equipped with automatic emergency brakes.
“I have specifically sought out companies and opportunities that do not use that tech after that incident,” Moore added.
She hopes regulators will listen to her story, as well as similar tales from other drivers. She also wrote about the incident in her submitted comments.
“A computer decided that my eyeballs and situational awareness of the curve didn’t matter, only that metal was ahead and if it didn’t slam on the brakes, I would hit it,” Moore wrote. “It sent me into a jackknife, and I was barely able to recover the skid before going off the road because the computer assumed I would go straight instead of with the curve. If others were next to me, I would’ve hit them. It would have been a multivehicle accident caused entirely by a computer.”
Moore said she won’t allow that to happen again and will turn in her keys rather than be forced to use the technology before it’s ready.
“If they pass a law to retrofit all trucks with it, I’d be done.” LL
Land Line’s John Bendel contributed to this report.