Ask Yourself This Question About GM Safety Technology

[Gorehamj]

John Goreham
Contributing Writer, GM-Trucks.com
9-9-2019

In order to gauge how effective its various driver assist safety systems are, General Motors recently partnered with the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI). The resulting study shows the safety systems provide impressive safety gains. Perhaps the most notable is that forward collision prevention  has reduced accidents with the technology by 46% in rear-collisions. Ask yourself it you want that technology in the vehicle behind you, or the car behind your child's.

“This study is groundbreaking in terms of the broad range of vehicles and active safety and headlighting features examined,” said GM Safety Technical Fellow, Raymond Kiefer. “The results show that the GM active safety systems evaluated are addressing a wide range of common crashes that cause a staggering amount of injuries, property damage and cost to our customers and society, putting GM well on its way toward a vision of zero crashes.”

 

GM says that the study leveraged 3.7 million GM vehicles across 20 different models from 2013-2017. Fifteen different systems were evaluated using police report crash databases available to UMTRI from 10 states. The infographics list the impressive results. Previous studies involving GM and other manufacturers have shown similar safety gains.

 

Forward collision prevention and lane departure warning have been available on the Silverado and Sierra since 2014. The U.S. auto industry is about two model years away from having this technology standard on almost all vehicles. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Grumpy Bear]

This one could be interesting.

 

Attitudes about driving have created a problems technology THINKS it can fix. That's just a fact. Another fact is Technology can't fix a human attitude so I guess this is as good as it can get but, it WILL create more problems as people get comfortable RELYING on this technology to do what they ought be doing it the first place. The higher and more secure the fence the closer people like to stand to the cliffs edge. That sir is human nature. 

 

When people found out they could build a car that would circle Indy well over 200 mph and survive the crash...we had more and more violent crashes so.....they restricted the cars ability to do what the driver was inclined to want to do. Be stupid and self absorbed and engage in high risk behavior. Several times and they are not done yet. 

 

I love the back up camera in my wife's Terrain. Know what I would like better? A car I can see out of behind me. Love the forward crash braking. Don't love the fact a dark shadow crossing the road sets it off at 70 mph. Scared the crap out of her and nearly got her rear ended by????? A self absorbed stupid driver that thought his 70 mph was faster if he was so close as to draw the "Failure to stop in an assured clear distance' ticket.

 

Forward crash assistance does improve your response time and the other controls improve you stopping distance and stability. Granted, no argument. But it can't stop you from following at a distance that defies the physics...like 70 mph at 50 feet following distance. System will work and you WILL crash anyway. 

 

Problems with studies like this include but are not limited to.....the fact it's a controlled environment. You set a control and somebody will find a way to exceed that control. Heck EVERYBODY will. 

[aseibel]

I tried to find out more, but I can't. When they say reduced crash by X%, what is that compared to? the same model car without said technology? Or is it compared to all other cars on the road?

 

Thus far, to get a vehicle with this technology requires a high end trim. So the people driving them represent a certain subset of drivers. I'm betting relatively few teenagers are driving brand new top of the line models, and they account for a large percentage of all crashes. I could also hypothesize that 2015 and newer LTZ models are involved in 80% less crashes than any other car build before 2010, based solely on the people driving them.

 

So I'd like to understand this data a bit more.....

[Grumpy Bear]

11 minutes ago, aseibel said:

I tried to find out more, but I can't. When they say reduced crash by X%, what is that compared to? the same model car without said technology? Or is it compared to all other cars on the road?

 

Thus far, to get a vehicle with this technology requires a high end model. so the people driving them represent a certain subset of drivers. I'm betting relatively few teenagers are driving brand new top of the line models, and they account for a large percentage of all crashes. I could also hypothesize that 2015 and newer LTZ models are involved in 80% less crashes than any other car build before 2010, based solely on the people driving them.

 

So I'd like to understand this data a bit more.....

Okay, then there is that...…………...

[Gorehamj]

Studies of this type are pretty simple to understand. Models in which the technology is optional were compared to see the accident report rate differences between VINs equipped with the system and those that were not. So in other words, a specific model of the same year with and without the system are compared.  You can read the full report here.  It includes, "The GM safety content dataset contained VIN-linked data on 3,785,419 vehicles across 22 models
(across all GM brands, including Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, and GMC) and five Model Years (Model Year
2013-2017). GM provided data for a model/model-year pair only when a (forward) Automatic
Emergency Braking (AEB) system was available on at least one trim level for that model/model-year pair.
This was done to enable comparing the relative field effectiveness of active safety systems that range
from camera systems (e.g., rear vision camera) to “alert only” systems (e.g., forward collision alert, lane
change alert with side blind zone alert, rear cross traffic alert, and park assist) to automatic controloriented systems (e.g., AEB, reverse automatic braking, and lane keep assist with lane departure). As
seen in Table 1, during this period of emerging active safety roll-out (which as mentioned earlier is ideal
for assessing system effectiveness), this meant that the majority of models were only included for a
subset of the Model Years examined. It also means that the vehicles available for matching increased
sharply for later Model Years (as seen in Table 2). Overall, this analysis included 3,785,419 Model Year
2013-2017 vehicles."

[KARNUT]

I’ve only one at fault accident ( they said) there’re were mitigating factors and two red light runners that hit me within two weeks 40 years ago. I was a professional driver and high mileage driver accumulating over two million miles. The only safety feature I appreciate is antilock brakes. Even with those it take some avoidance away from skilled drivers. I can see the advantages of traction control for most drivers. Most people don’t realize the Horsepower that’s available to them and really couldn’t handle it without nannies. Again losing avoidance with skilled drivers. All the other latest technology makes people lazy less attentive to driving. You would think there would be more training in school before they unleash these idiots on the road. You get a moving violation for unsafe driving back to driving school. Driving is a privilege and should be treated that way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Gorehamj]

In Massachusetts, if a driver on a contingent license, under 18, gets a speeding ticket the penalty is exactly that. Loss of license and a special school, plus a retake of exam.  The basic drivers' Ed class is 40 hours in-person and 12 hours with an instructor in vehicle.  The parents also have to take a class. Distracted driving is hammered home constantly.  Other states have different requirements.  

[Grumpy Bear]

In Illinois you can be run over by a cop in a intersection that doesn't know the basic laws of the state. I can tell they don't. They enforce few of them EXCEPT if there is a fatality OR meeting a quota with a road side "random" safety check. Kid you not. I pull off I-90 in the middle of a 'photo enforced' work zone with a speed limit of 45 mph to keep from getting run over by those doing 65 in an otherwise 60 mph zone. This is an overpass situation and there is a State Trooper standing at the rail with a cup of Micky D's coffee so I ask him what the speed limit is right here. He says what he can say. 45 mph as he watches and never cracks a smile. 

 

It's hard to get a ticket here for speeding unless you are doing more than 20 over the limit. We have a new distracted driving law. Lady, RICH lady in a BMW convertible is talking on her phone bold as brass and the cop she pulls up next to asked her to turn her radio down. WHAT!!!!! 

 

 

[rbrjr1]

Studies have shown that actually paying attention to the road (checking mirrors, watching pace of travel, using signals) reduces accidents by ALL.

 

MOST people I pass on the road are either looking at a phone or trying to hide the fact that they're looking at a phone.

[Grumpy Bear]

1 hour ago, rbrjr1 said:

 

MOST people I pass on the road are either looking at a phone or trying to hide the fact that they're looking at a phone.

About three times a week this happens that has me in a scramble. Technology, IMHO gives them PERMISSION to be idiots. 

[aseibel]

22 hours ago, rbrjr1 said:

MOST people I pass on the road are either looking at a phone or trying to hide the fact that they're looking at a phone.

I was going to joke before you brought this up that they wanted to do a test to see how much accidents were reduced when people put their phone on "do not disturb" but they couldn't get any volunteers to test it.

[StinkyCheese]

Yet another reason vehicle prices keep skyrocketing.  Forcing "safety" features on those of us who have no desire to have them.  I guess I'm old fashioned in my young age but I was taught to drive by paying attention.  Did I make mistakes?  Sure, none of which ever went on my record, no at fault on there either.  My '73 C10 custom deluxe's safety feature was steel and the idiot behind the wheel.  Worked fine for me.  Bounced off a guard rail once, spun off a highway, and I was rear ended twice in that truck.  I had a Tahoe as a loaner once and that safety garbage almost caused me to get into an accident.  Scared the crap out of me.  Computer or no computer if the idiot behind me can't keep proper distance to be able to stop in time they'll meet my old school tech, a hitch.  The hitch has won every time

[rbrjr1]

14 hours ago, Chevyguy85 said:

 Forcing "safety" features on those of us who have no desire to have them.

that is the main reason I went with a Silverado LT and not an LTZ.  I dont need all the "safety and convenience" packages they put on them.  It's nearly impossible to find an LTZ or SLE or Denali that doesn't vibrate or beep or flash at you every 30 seconds in Atlanta traffic.

 

and turning all that stuff off (that can be turned off) essentially means you are wasting $7,000-$10,000 worth of "upgrades" on your truck..

[StinkyCheese]

10 hours ago, rbrjr1 said:

that is the main reason I went with a Silverado LT and not an LTZ.  I dont need all the "safety and convenience" packages they put on them.  It's nearly impossible to find an LTZ or SLE or Denali that doesn't vibrate or beep or flash at you every 30 seconds in Atlanta traffic.

 

and turning all that stuff off (that can be turned off) essentially means you are wasting $7,000-$10,000 worth of "upgrades" on your truck..

Exactly.  Which is why it's so frustrating to be given the "option" to build your own truck yet you can't actually build your own truck...

[bg1988]

On 9/9/2019 at 8:00 AM, Grumpy Bear said:

This one could be interesting.

 

Attitudes about driving have created a problems technology THINKS it can fix. That's just a fact. Another fact is Technology can't fix a human attitude so I guess this is as good as it can get but, it WILL create more problems as people get comfortable RELYING on this technology to do what they ought be doing it the first place. The higher and more secure the fence the closer people like to stand to the cliffs edge. That sir is human nature. 

 

When people found out they could build a car that would circle Indy well over 200 mph and survive the crash...we had more and more violent crashes so.....they restricted the cars ability to do what the driver was inclined to want to do. Be stupid and self absorbed and engage in high risk behavior. Several times and they are not done yet. 

 

I love the back up camera in my wife's Terrain. Know what I would like better? A car I can see out of behind me. Love the forward crash braking. Don't love the fact a dark shadow crossing the road sets it off at 70 mph. Scared the crap out of her and nearly got her rear ended by????? A self absorbed stupid driver that thought his 70 mph was faster if he was so close as to draw the "Failure to stop in an assured clear distance' ticket.

 

Forward crash assistance does improve your response time and the other controls improve you stopping distance and stability. Granted, no argument. But it can't stop you from following at a distance that defies the physics...like 70 mph at 50 feet following distance. System will work and you WILL crash anyway. 

 

Problems with studies like this include but are not limited to.....the fact it's a controlled environment. You set a control and somebody will find a way to exceed that control. Heck EVERYBODY will. 

Paying attention  prevents more crashes ... I prevented 2 crashes  if I was not paying attention  I would have gotten hit pretty bad

 

1st .. by a Stoned driver (he ran a stop sign while I was going  50MPH  in a 55 zone  )  if you been to Los Angeles   it's the CA-110 northern section  with stop sign entrances. 

for sure i would have been dead  as it would have flipped the SUV over and over..
Very precise movements were required.. I pushed the SUV to the limits that time .. I was able to maintain perfect control.. 

 

Props to the  electrical power steering and ABS   ...

 

 

 

 

luckily the other two lanes were clear(i had just checked my mirrors) I had a gut feeling  he was going to run the stop sign which is why i checked my mirrors (i check them very often to keep my options open)   if there was other cars i would have just plowed into him... NO way was i going to hit others  to try and clear the dumb ass  and let him get away with it  (i would have been aiming for the tires to break his axle  or pull wheel)

 

 

I had been practicing on rural roads lately  (once a week)   to gain more experience... 

 

there is one road i have been taking that has hair pin turns...

 

 

 

 

 

 

2nd another doing a burn out and almost t boned me on a dual left turn...  I was able to drift the rear end of the SUV 

As soon as i heard the squealing of his tires  It was a split second i floored to RED line 6,000RPM...    giving enough slip on the  rear end to drift it  with Traction control on and stabilitrac on

 

 

 

there is sooo much torque  so it's possible ... to do it

 

that drift gave me an extra 2 feet (was not going very fast hence only getting 2 feet of extra clearance)

basically i was off angle as if I was making a right turn (the intersection had cameras no worries )

 JUST barely was missed me  by a few inches...

 

 

My biggest Suggestion is to keep an escape path available 100% of the time,   even if you are in bumper to bumper traffic  it can still be done 

 

NEVER trap yourself in traffic  

if you trap your self in  bumper to bumper traffic you increase the risk of a crash significantly.

 

in the last 8 years I have driven over 100,000 miles..