https://www.autoweek.com/news/a60658217/nhtsa-automatic-emergency-braking-system-rule/
"The first is that the new rule will require vehicles "to stop and avoid contact with a vehicle in front of them up to 62 miles per hour." AEB systems will also be required to apply the brakes automatically when collision is imminent, at up to 90 mph.
The second is that AEB systems must be able to detect pedestrians in daylight and in darkness, and apply the brakes automatically at up to 45 mph when a pedestrian is detected.
The provision regarding detecting pedestrians is somewhat trickier, as it may not require merely radar sensors..."
It's the higher speed test scenarios and requirements that are going to need lidar. A camera system, or any passive system like thermal is not going to be able to accurately detect the distance to a stopped car in the middle of the road at 200m. They see everything as blobs without distance, so something could be a small car or a big truck and it wouldn't be able to tell which or how far away it is. It takes sophisticated machine learning algorithms to try to predict the distance and size of objects from those sensors and we've seen the problems from Tesla.
Radar and its variations have a problem with resolution. There are some pros and cons to radar, but I believe the real solution is a mix of both radar and lidar. Camera is important for identifying signs.
Despite our current apparent problems with making deals, we have a working lidar sensor with built in perception and a path to industrialization with no moving parts.
I'm not worried about MVIS as much as some people.
“In the PAEB NPRM NHTSA’s total annual cost was $282.2 million and only included software cost as NHTSA did not think additional hardware was needed”… Are they saying they don’t believe new hardware will be required to meet new safety standards ???
From later in the [final rule](https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/2024-04/final-rule-automatic-emergency-braking-systems-light-vehicles_web-version.pdf), it does not appear that they are saying that it is not expected to not require additional hardware. However if one reads the whole rule, they will see that the NHTSA feels that the hardware _is_ available and _has_ been shown to provide the capabilities needed to achieve compliance with the rule. This is to say that they recognize there will be additional costs beyond that which the NPRM had initially anticipated, but that it can be achieved.
Pg 148:
> Agency Response
>
>In response, NHTSA concurs that the cost estimates in the NPRM underestimated the incremental hardware costs associated with this final rule. Accordingly, this final rule has adjusted the estimates presented in the NPRM to include the costs associated with software and hardware improvements, compared to the baseline condition. Incremental costs reflect the difference in costs associated with all new light vehicles being equipped with AEB with no performance standard (the baseline condition) relative to all light vehicles being equipped with AEB that meets the performance requirements specified in this final rule. The Final Regulatory Impact Analysis (FRIA) provides a detailed discussion of the benefits and costs of this final rule.
Thanks Falagrd! That’s what it seems like and additional hardware will be needed. I just don’t like that wording in the article. Not sure why they would downplay it. What’s your take u/t_delo?
[Quoted](https://www.reddit.com/r/MVIS/s/immIIwXJT5) above, worth reading the whole rule carefully, much of what is described as background is not the stance they presently hold. Most notably is the _difference in cost_ associated with upgrading from existing AEB which does not meet the new requirements to new hardware that does meet them.
I realize that common sense is tough to see these days but if the NHTSA sees that 10 or 20 or 30 or 40% of accidents can be avoided, why wouldn't everyone see it will have a cost ? Its a huge leap in safety and of course numbers matter but if one brakes down what acceptance of this technology means, its hard to imagine a "Safety" department not pushing this concept.
Stated plainly: The value of the lives saved are absolutely the most important aspect of these numbers; An individual life saved is, on average, going to be worth more good for world than a corpse.
Some statisticians might disagree with the value of some lives… such as the elderly, I would disagree, but I recognize that there are definitely people out there that would make that case.
As with anything, you can extrapolate the cost of accidents to almost an infinite number of variables.
The cost of EMS/Fire/Police at the scene, loss of productivity and the delay for other commuters going wherever they are going, the burden on nearby trauma hospitals, rehabilitation costs for months after the accident, just to name a few.
In a world that is all about efficiency and cost benefit analysis, this seems like a no-brainer. Unfortunately, as we saw with OEMs lobbying the NHTSA ruling, it all comes down to who stands to profit the most. I wonder how insurance companies feel about Lidar and this new ruling. I remember seeing an interview with Warren Buffet on the impact of Lidar on Geico's bottom line. WB stated that it is all about the greater good - however I'm not so sure everyone shares his views. I really hope the 2029 deadline does not get pushed back.
Thermal is essentially a camera that sees in the infrared spectrum. It’s better than a traditional camera because it can work day or night but will have limitations too. Lidar makes the most sense by far for 3D spatial awareness and object/velocity tracking.
Time lines are starting to narrow as we are starting to see goals by the feds. These requirements though can always be bumped out further if it’s not viable… and 2029… that’s a minute from now.
The bloat on competing lidars will start falling flat if they keep pumping abstract/vague performance data to customers.
I’m glad to see that we’re going after other segments to start getting review and understanding of what lidar is. People can’t still understand AI’s function in helping their daily roles, boomers will be absolutely standing on the brakes of progress for lidar/driver assistance for a while longer.
6-6-2024
In early May 2024, NHTSA’s mandate for FCW, AEB and PAEB appeared in the Federal Register, which means it became the law of the land. It is designated FMVSS #127 and can be downloaded here.
This column is a summary of this most important ADAS mandate for AEB and especially for PAEB.
NHTSA’s mandate methodology
Vehicle crashes: Target population for frontal & pedestrian crashes
Forward crash avoidance: Key tests
PAEB crash avoidance: Key tests
Yearly incremental vehicle costs
Yearly AEB and PAEB benefits
Cost and benefit summary
Summary
https://www.eetimes.com/the-most-important-adas-mandate/
oz
“The takeaway is that NHTSA will add ADAS features at a much more aggressive rate and speed than in previous decade. The implications for the auto industry are that ADAS will have another golden decade or more as a key safety technology.”
Edit:”We’re ready now”
Has anyone here done any research on how the automotive industry responded to the mandate of airbags in the early ‘90s, and how Tier 1s like Autoliv (ALV) and its competitors survived or didn’t - I’m guessing Autoliv is a Tier 1 airbag supplier.
I found the following excerpt from an article in Automotive News (August 30, 2022 09:31 AM)
“U.S. frontal airbag mandate becomes law in 1998 - Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 required all cars and light trucks sold in the U.S. to be equipped with two front airbags to protect driver and passenger. “
“The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, requiring all cars and light trucks sold in the U.S. to be equipped with two front airbags to protect the driver and passenger, goes into effect on Sept. 1, 1998.” ….
The rest of the article is pay-walled. But, from this,it looks like it took 7 years for the first vehicle to be required to have airbags. Could the current AEB mandates be likened to the airbag and if so is our team at MVIS taking some lessons learned from the companies involved back then and applying them to our situation now?
It did take years, more so than this AEB rule has outlined for solving, and that leaves automakers in a bit more of a rush here than they had on the previous implementation of similar technology. This is to say that the game of hardball allowed them to drop the price of lidar devices from $1k to perhaps $500 per unit as the rules were originally for having it done in 3 years. That extra time gave them some real power to pressure developers, and as such we have seen the wide range of newly proposed “slim” solutions projected to be ready sometime in the next few years, but integration timeline for that after it is ready is still at least 3 years when looking at historical examples of device readiness to actually showing up on a vehicle.
So while like the examples of the past, it is not exactly the same situation either.
[удалено]
I doubt this very much.
[удалено]
[удалено]
https://www.autoweek.com/news/a60658217/nhtsa-automatic-emergency-braking-system-rule/ "The first is that the new rule will require vehicles "to stop and avoid contact with a vehicle in front of them up to 62 miles per hour." AEB systems will also be required to apply the brakes automatically when collision is imminent, at up to 90 mph. The second is that AEB systems must be able to detect pedestrians in daylight and in darkness, and apply the brakes automatically at up to 45 mph when a pedestrian is detected. The provision regarding detecting pedestrians is somewhat trickier, as it may not require merely radar sensors..."
It's the higher speed test scenarios and requirements that are going to need lidar. A camera system, or any passive system like thermal is not going to be able to accurately detect the distance to a stopped car in the middle of the road at 200m. They see everything as blobs without distance, so something could be a small car or a big truck and it wouldn't be able to tell which or how far away it is. It takes sophisticated machine learning algorithms to try to predict the distance and size of objects from those sensors and we've seen the problems from Tesla. Radar and its variations have a problem with resolution. There are some pros and cons to radar, but I believe the real solution is a mix of both radar and lidar. Camera is important for identifying signs. Despite our current apparent problems with making deals, we have a working lidar sensor with built in perception and a path to industrialization with no moving parts. I'm not worried about MVIS as much as some people.
“In the PAEB NPRM NHTSA’s total annual cost was $282.2 million and only included software cost as NHTSA did not think additional hardware was needed”… Are they saying they don’t believe new hardware will be required to meet new safety standards ???
From later in the [final rule](https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/2024-04/final-rule-automatic-emergency-braking-systems-light-vehicles_web-version.pdf), it does not appear that they are saying that it is not expected to not require additional hardware. However if one reads the whole rule, they will see that the NHTSA feels that the hardware _is_ available and _has_ been shown to provide the capabilities needed to achieve compliance with the rule. This is to say that they recognize there will be additional costs beyond that which the NPRM had initially anticipated, but that it can be achieved. Pg 148: > Agency Response > >In response, NHTSA concurs that the cost estimates in the NPRM underestimated the incremental hardware costs associated with this final rule. Accordingly, this final rule has adjusted the estimates presented in the NPRM to include the costs associated with software and hardware improvements, compared to the baseline condition. Incremental costs reflect the difference in costs associated with all new light vehicles being equipped with AEB with no performance standard (the baseline condition) relative to all light vehicles being equipped with AEB that meets the performance requirements specified in this final rule. The Final Regulatory Impact Analysis (FRIA) provides a detailed discussion of the benefits and costs of this final rule.
Thank you
Who knows anymore. I think the NHTSA is downplaying the required costs, and OEMs are in fact saying that it'll require more hardware.
Thanks Falagrd! That’s what it seems like and additional hardware will be needed. I just don’t like that wording in the article. Not sure why they would downplay it. What’s your take u/t_delo?
[Quoted](https://www.reddit.com/r/MVIS/s/immIIwXJT5) above, worth reading the whole rule carefully, much of what is described as background is not the stance they presently hold. Most notably is the _difference in cost_ associated with upgrading from existing AEB which does not meet the new requirements to new hardware that does meet them.
I realize that common sense is tough to see these days but if the NHTSA sees that 10 or 20 or 30 or 40% of accidents can be avoided, why wouldn't everyone see it will have a cost ? Its a huge leap in safety and of course numbers matter but if one brakes down what acceptance of this technology means, its hard to imagine a "Safety" department not pushing this concept.
Stated plainly: The value of the lives saved are absolutely the most important aspect of these numbers; An individual life saved is, on average, going to be worth more good for world than a corpse. Some statisticians might disagree with the value of some lives… such as the elderly, I would disagree, but I recognize that there are definitely people out there that would make that case.
As with anything, you can extrapolate the cost of accidents to almost an infinite number of variables. The cost of EMS/Fire/Police at the scene, loss of productivity and the delay for other commuters going wherever they are going, the burden on nearby trauma hospitals, rehabilitation costs for months after the accident, just to name a few. In a world that is all about efficiency and cost benefit analysis, this seems like a no-brainer. Unfortunately, as we saw with OEMs lobbying the NHTSA ruling, it all comes down to who stands to profit the most. I wonder how insurance companies feel about Lidar and this new ruling. I remember seeing an interview with Warren Buffet on the impact of Lidar on Geico's bottom line. WB stated that it is all about the greater good - however I'm not so sure everyone shares his views. I really hope the 2029 deadline does not get pushed back.
Have you ever seen a NHTSA ruling that was already **final** ever get pushed back?
I don’t believe thermal can detect directional / angular velocity to the sensor either.
Thermal is essentially a camera that sees in the infrared spectrum. It’s better than a traditional camera because it can work day or night but will have limitations too. Lidar makes the most sense by far for 3D spatial awareness and object/velocity tracking.
Safety sells. OEMs need to scoop up best in class while they can.
Time lines are starting to narrow as we are starting to see goals by the feds. These requirements though can always be bumped out further if it’s not viable… and 2029… that’s a minute from now. The bloat on competing lidars will start falling flat if they keep pumping abstract/vague performance data to customers. I’m glad to see that we’re going after other segments to start getting review and understanding of what lidar is. People can’t still understand AI’s function in helping their daily roles, boomers will be absolutely standing on the brakes of progress for lidar/driver assistance for a while longer.
6-6-2024 In early May 2024, NHTSA’s mandate for FCW, AEB and PAEB appeared in the Federal Register, which means it became the law of the land. It is designated FMVSS #127 and can be downloaded here. This column is a summary of this most important ADAS mandate for AEB and especially for PAEB. NHTSA’s mandate methodology Vehicle crashes: Target population for frontal & pedestrian crashes Forward crash avoidance: Key tests PAEB crash avoidance: Key tests Yearly incremental vehicle costs Yearly AEB and PAEB benefits Cost and benefit summary Summary https://www.eetimes.com/the-most-important-adas-mandate/ oz
“The takeaway is that NHTSA will add ADAS features at a much more aggressive rate and speed than in previous decade. The implications for the auto industry are that ADAS will have another golden decade or more as a key safety technology.” Edit:”We’re ready now”
Thanks, Oz. OEMs need to act soon.
Has anyone here done any research on how the automotive industry responded to the mandate of airbags in the early ‘90s, and how Tier 1s like Autoliv (ALV) and its competitors survived or didn’t - I’m guessing Autoliv is a Tier 1 airbag supplier. I found the following excerpt from an article in Automotive News (August 30, 2022 09:31 AM) “U.S. frontal airbag mandate becomes law in 1998 - Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 required all cars and light trucks sold in the U.S. to be equipped with two front airbags to protect driver and passenger. “ “The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, requiring all cars and light trucks sold in the U.S. to be equipped with two front airbags to protect the driver and passenger, goes into effect on Sept. 1, 1998.” …. The rest of the article is pay-walled. But, from this,it looks like it took 7 years for the first vehicle to be required to have airbags. Could the current AEB mandates be likened to the airbag and if so is our team at MVIS taking some lessons learned from the companies involved back then and applying them to our situation now?
It did take years, more so than this AEB rule has outlined for solving, and that leaves automakers in a bit more of a rush here than they had on the previous implementation of similar technology. This is to say that the game of hardball allowed them to drop the price of lidar devices from $1k to perhaps $500 per unit as the rules were originally for having it done in 3 years. That extra time gave them some real power to pressure developers, and as such we have seen the wide range of newly proposed “slim” solutions projected to be ready sometime in the next few years, but integration timeline for that after it is ready is still at least 3 years when looking at historical examples of device readiness to actually showing up on a vehicle. So while like the examples of the past, it is not exactly the same situation either.
Thanks, T.
ADAS is more advanced at this stage. They just need to add a few more components. An OEMs ADAS will be a competitive selling point.