AEB: the Next Big Thing?

With research indicating that a significant percentage of road accidents are attributable to distracted or inattentive drivers, the push is on to develop and refine systems that minimise the risks. At the forefront is Autonomous Emergency Braking, or AEB

Although Volvo brought Autonomous Emergency Braking (AEB) to public attention when it announced its City Safety system at the launch of the XC60 SUV in 2009, autonomous accident avoidance has really been brewing since Mercedes-Benz introduced automatic braking as part of its radar-based Distronic Plus cruise control system in 2005.

This was a technological breakthrough that aimed to minimise front-to-rear collisions through its ability to step in and brake the car independently of the driver if a collision was imminent. Mercedes-Benz saw auto-brake technology as yet another quiver in its bow as a safety pioneer.

In fact the German company got egg on its face after a Distronic Plus demonstration run in Germany, in which and S-Class made an unplanned impact into the back of a stationary car in full view of a group of observers. The incident was later found to be created as much by the failure of Distronic Plus in the (simulated) foggy conditions where surrounding steel walls interfered with the electronics, as the delayed reactions of the driver who had been quietly instructed by Benz, after previous system failures, to simulate the function by manually applying the brakes.

Scandal ensued, as did question marks over ethical credibility at Mercedes-Benz.

Volvo, although there was no nefarious activity involved, also suffered embarrassment with a failed media demo of its City Safety system in its then-new S60 sedan in 2010.

Regardless of the botched demonstrations, there seems little doubt AEB is set to become, in terms of car safety, the Next Big Thing.

In fact Victoria’s Transport Accident Commission (TAC) is heavily promoting AEB as a feature that should be looked for when buying your next car.

Although systems such as driver attention support, lane departure warning and blind spot alert are already working their way into onboard safety systems, it is the proactive nature of AEB that takes it all a step further.

Basically, the function is quite simple, although the electronics that make AEB work do need to be pretty on the ball.

Scanning the road ahead of the car, a radar system detects objects being approached while in-car computers make continual calculations of the speed and distance of the approach. If AEB calculates a collision is imminent, there is at first an audible signal to alert the driver and then, if no action is taken, the car’s brakes are applied to either avoid a crash completely, or at least minimise the force of actual impact.

Volvo made it clear at the launch of City Safety that the benefits were not just to in-car safety, but also to insurance premiums: If it could be shown that low-speed nose-to-tail crashes could be minimised, the company said some insurance companies were prepared to recognise the lower risk by reducing premiums for City Safety equipped cars.

Today, there are essentially three levels of AEB. They are summarised below.

Pedestrian
Where the system uses radar and cameras to detect pedestrians, animals (and even cyclist via shape recognition) then, if after calculating differntial movement and speed determines there’s a danger of impact, brakes the car.

As a minimalist approach, a number of car-makers are as a minimum building-in warning systems that alert the driver if a collision could be imminent. These systems (such as fitted to Holden Commodore) stop short of actually being able to apply the car’s brakes.

Authorities such as the National Highway Traffic Safety Institute and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety have embraced the system in the USA.

Organisations such as EuroNCAP also believe in the potential of AEB, quoting data suggesting accidents can be reduced by as much as 27 per cent in cars using the system.

Future EuroNCAP ratings will now embrace AEB, while the organisation will also be comparing the effectiveness of city and inter-urban systems.

The problem, as with any new safety innovation involving sophisticated electronics, is the expense: So far, very few cars at the lower end of the spectrum even mention it. And the tendency, even for some premium car-makers, is to offer AEB (whether urban or inter-urban) as optional.

As this article is written (August 2014), BMW lists low-speed AEB as standard only on a selection of models, mainly 5 Series, and optional on all others including 7 Series.

Audi offers a low-speed AEB as standard on A8 models and as optional on A3, A, S3 and A5 (high-speed).

Mercedes-Benz is more proactive. While A-Class and CLA-Class only offer warning systems, practically every other model across the line-up makes at least low-speed AEB standard.

Volvo lists its system as standard, generally, on S60, V40, V60, XC 60 and XC 70, while Volkswagen offers it as an option on Golf and Passat while standardising it on the Touareg SUV.

The Range Rover Evoke lists high-speed AEB as an option.

Other imports using AEB include Citroen on its Grand C4 Picasso, Infiniti on its Q50 (warning-only on the Q70 model though), Honda on its Accord, Lexus on ES300h and ES350 (low speed) and IS250 and IS350 (high speed), with warning-only for LS and RX models.

Fiat deserves a pat on the back for making city-style AEB standard its mini-MPV Panda.

Mazda offers AEB as standard or as an option (depending on model) on its Mazda3, Mazda6 and CV-5.

Subaru makes it standard on Forester, Liberty and Outback, as does Toyota with its Kluger SUV. Nissan’s Murano and Patrol only offer a warning system, as do Jeep’s Grand Cherokee and Holden on Commodore models and its allied brand, HSV.

Unquestionably the adoption of AEB will, sooner rather than later, become more widespread.

Volkswagen, for example, is flagging it for the next Polo light hatch and Hyundai is indicating it will be offered shortly in the large Genesis sedan.

The bottom line to all this though is that no system, regardless of how intrinsically clever, how painstakingly developed and tested, is infallible.

As much as a car-maker might be able to compensate for driver inattention or incompetence with ever-advancing technology, the responsibility, invariably, comes back to the person in charge of the vehicle.