Jump to content

Feds open investigation into 2014 Impala braking problem


NickF1011

Recommended Posts

http://www.autoblog.com/2014/04/22/2014-chevy-impala-investigation-braking-issue-report/

 

Have always been a bit worried about these automated braking systems doing just this without warning. Most systems on a car are passive, and if they malfunction will only result in inoperability of that feature. Active systems are another story and deserve more scrutiny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although to be honest an emergency stop whether intended or not should not result in an accident.

Shouldn't, but as we know, everybody tailgates. Having a car stop for no reason in front of you can lead to trouble.

 

It's a pet peeve of mine. I really try not to tailgate in traffic, but everyone in the other lanes sees my safe following distance as an invitation to merge in front of me so I end up tailgating whether I try to or not.

Edited by NickF1011
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.autoblog.com/2014/04/22/2014-chevy-impala-investigation-braking-issue-report/

 

Have always been a bit worried about these automated braking systems doing just this without warning. Most systems on a car are passive, and if they malfunction will only result in inoperability of that feature. Active systems are another story and deserve more scrutiny.

 

This is 1 complaint. In a rental. To my understanding, only the LTZ trim has the automated braking system (collision avoidance alert is available but the part when the car fully brakes on its own is only available in the LTZ, and I doubt the rental was an LTZ). My suspicion here is the collision alert went off, freaked out a driver who didn't know a single thing about the car and reacted with "OMG, WE'RE GONNA DIE!" and slammed on the brakes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It only takes one event. I sure wouldn't want a rental jamming on the brakes for no reason

and then having to explain a hit up the ass..... could you imagine the paperwork at the airport...

 

If you don't have a half-assed insurance company or you bought the CDW, you don't need to explain anything. File the claim and move on.

Edited by BrewfanGRB
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If you don't have a half-assed insurance company or you bought the CDW, you don't need to explain anything. File the claim and move on.

 

 

 

Especially when it's the other guy's fault.

In New York State, if you are rear-ended, it is automatically the person doing the rear-ending that is at fault .....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

In New York State, if you are rear-ended, it is automatically the person doing the rear-ending that is at fault .....

 

That's pretty much universal since you're supposed to be following at a safe enough distance to stop no matter what the car in front of you does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is 1 complaint. In a rental. To my understanding, only the LTZ trim has the automated braking system (collision avoidance alert is available but the part when the car fully brakes on its own is only available in the LTZ, and I doubt the rental was an LTZ). My suspicion here is the collision alert went off, freaked out a driver who didn't know a single thing about the car and reacted with "OMG, WE'RE GONNA DIE!" and slammed on the brakes.

It's easy to dismiss it as driver error in a rental car, but apparently NHTSA had enough information to think otherwise. Black box data, perhaps?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In New York State, if you are rear-ended, it is automatically the person doing the rear-ending that is at fault .....

 

That's pretty much universal since you're supposed to be following at a safe enough distance to stop no matter what the car in front of you does.

There's really no such thing as automatic "at fault". Say you're driving at a safe distance from the car in front of you. A car from the adjacent lane merges directly in front of you and hits the brakes. You were entirely unable to get your vehicle to a "safe following distance" in that situation. The investigators will look at every incident individually.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But that's no different than a car pulling out in front of you from a side street. Suffice it to say if you're following a vehicle and a vehicle stops suddenly and you hit it - it's going to be your fault.

But you're "following" it when it cuts in front of you all the sudden, whether you were planning to or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's really no such thing as automatic "at fault". Say you're driving at a safe distance from the car in front of you. A car from the adjacent lane merges directly in front of you and hits the brakes. You were entirely unable to get your vehicle to a "safe following distance" in that situation. The investigators will look at every incident individually.

 

Yep, that's 'not yielding to oncoming traffic'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But you're "following" it when it cuts in front of you all the sudden, whether you were planning to or not.

 

If you're FOLLOWING a car and the car stops suddenly you have to be able to stop yourself. Period. If someone pulls out in front of you or merges in front of you that's a totally different scenario.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're FOLLOWING a car and the car stops suddenly you have to be able to stop yourself. Period. If someone pulls out in front of you or merges in front of you that's a totally different scenario.

If they merged in front of you, aren't you then following them? :poke:

 

Either way, just about nobody follows at a far enough distance all the time to avoid a vehicle that goes from cruising speed to zero almost instantly (assuming there are cars in the adjacent lanes that prevent swerving around it. Yes, I try to keep a good distance when possible, but frankly, on today's crowded roads "safe following distance" is often an impossibility.

Edited by NickF1011
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But you're "following" it when it cuts in front of you all the sudden, whether you were planning to or not.

 

You're being decidedly pedantic here. I think you pretty clearly know the point being made. And I can tell you, because it's my career, in the situation we all know what we're talking about here, no matter WHY the person in front of you slams on the brakes, the following vehicle by definition could not have allowed a safe following distance if they collide with the stopping vehicle. The "merge into your lane and slams on their brakes" is not the same. In a contributory negligence state, you (assuming "you" is the "following" car) could have some negligence attributed for failing to maintain a safe lookout, failing to take evasive action, but not for following too closely.

 

So let's refocus, hmm? No matter WHAT happened with the Impala, assuming the Impala and the following vehicle didn't change lanes or make any other negligent moves, the driver of the following vehicle is at fault for failing to maintain a safe distance. Period. It's true whether there was a technical/electronic or human error with the Impala.

 

Re: the Impala, I think the Toyota SUA incidents show the NHTSA will open the investigation to determine whether it's vehicle or human error. And I'd think that's particularly true with a newer/developing/evolving technology.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few years ago I dealt with a constituent who was cited by the police for deliberately slamming on the brakes and causing the vehicle following him to hit his car. The police apportioned part of the blame for the accident to him, which is why he called our office. We couldn't do anything to help him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Giving someone part of the blame for an intentional act is one thing - they still charged the following driver with following too closely.

 

As for the guy who deliberately slammed on his brakes to cause an accident - why would you have tried to help him anyway? He deserved blame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the guy who deliberately slammed on his brakes to cause an accident - why would you have tried to help him anyway? He deserved blame.

 

As does (nearly) everyone that gets a speeding ticket, DUI, etc. Yet, lawyers don't mind taking money to help those who are clearly in the wrong get out of their punishment. I would never have made a good lawyer...I have a conscience.

 

 

I know, not all lawyers are that way, but they are stereotyped for a reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Try telling that to the officer as he writes the ticket for following too closely.

That would certainly be up to the officer's discretion, and could certainly also be argued in court if such a citation is written. Drivers can't be assumed to be psychic. Do we also cite drivers for animal cruelty and hunting violations when deer jump in front of their cars?

 

So let's refocus, hmm? No matter WHAT happened with the Impala, assuming the Impala and the following vehicle didn't change lanes or make any other negligent moves, the driver of the following vehicle is at fault for failing to maintain a safe distance. Period. It's true whether there was a technical/electronic or human error with the Impala.

That kind of distracts from the point of the investigation though. Vehicles shouldn't be stopping themselves for no reason.

Edited by NickF1011
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That would certainly be up to the officer's discretion, and could certainly also be argued in court if such a citation is written. Drivers can't be assumed to be psychic. Do we also cite drivers for animal cruelty and hunting violations when deer jump in front of their cars?

 

 

That kind of distracts from the point of the investigation though. Vehicles shouldn't be stopping themselves for no reason.

 

 

You're not getting it Nick. You are required to maintain a safe following distance so that even if the vehicle in front of you slams on their brakes you have room to stop. Period. End of story. Your following distance is entirely within your control. If you don't leave enough room it's your fault. Now if the driver does something stupid they may also be partially at fault but it doesn't relieve you of your liability.

 

The fact that people routinely follow too closely doesn't change the liability if an accident occurs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're not getting it Nick. You are required to maintain a safe following distance so that even if the vehicle in front of you slams on their brakes you have room to stop. Period. End of story. Your following distance is entirely within your control. If you don't leave enough room it's your fault. Now if the driver does something stupid they may also be partially at fault but it doesn't relieve you of your liability.

 

The fact that people routinely follow too closely doesn't change the liability if an accident occurs.

Unless your vehicle can defy the laws of physics, there's no way to instantaneously create a "safe following distance" if a vehicle merges an unsafe distance directly in front of you. It doesn't matter what kind of distance you are trying to maintain. That is entirely out of your control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless your vehicle can defy the laws of physics, there's no way to instantaneously create a "safe following distance" if a vehicle merges an unsafe distance directly in front of you. It doesn't matter what kind of distance you are trying to maintain. That is entirely out of your control.

 

Wow. Really? We're not talking about someone pulling in front of you - that's a totally different scenario. That's failure to yield right of way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...