Your say: Should crash-avoidance technology be mandatory? 34

Let's Talk


View Profile

If you’ve ever had a car accident, you’ll know just how upsetting they can be, especially if you know that it could have been avoided. The trouble with driving is that you can be a fantastic driver, but not everyone else on the road may be as good.

You put trust into others every time you get behind the wheel, but what if that didn’t have to be an issue? Would you be behind crash avoidance technology? Would you trust a computer to drive a car?

Currently, crash avoidance systems are only available in luxury cars but more and more people in the motor industry are looking into the possibility of installing these into everyday vehicles, and also trucks.

At the New York International Auto Show in March, Toyota unveiled a pair of crash avoidance systems that will focus on three areas of accident prevention, namely preventing collisions, keeping drivers within their lane, and nighttime driving safety.

Collision detection systems comprise of radars and cameras that determine if an accident is imminent and tells the driver through visual and audio alerts. It also brakes on top of the driver and can bring the vehicle to a complete stop. Importantly, the system corrects driver steering error if they drift into another lane.

And after a terrible truck accident on Wednesday in Atlanta, Georgia that saw five nursing students killed by a truck, advocates are begging car manufacturers to install the crash avoidance technology to save lives.

“That technology certainly would have, at the worst case, seriously reduced the violence of this crash and saved the lives of all those girls. I believe in most cases, it prevents the crash altogether,” said Road Safe America founder Stephen Owings.

The five Georgia Southern University students, in two separate cars, died when a tractor-trailer failed to stop for traffic.


Tell us today: Do you think crash-avoidance technology should be mandatory in all vehicles? Should the government pay for it to be in high-risk vehicles?

Starts at 60 Writers

The Starts at 60 writers team seek out interesting topics and write them especially for you.

  1. Ultimately it is the driver who determines how safe a vehicle is. Whilst safety technology may reduce the chances of an accident,total reliance on such features is in itself a danger. Better that driver education be a priority.

    1 REPLY
    • Exactly Rod, let’s face it, many drivers ignore the technology they already have in their cars, so they are only going to ignore this too.

  2. Last year I bought a car thus equipped and although I understand and appreciate the technology, there is one algorithm that needs to be changed. Instead of adaptive cruise being set to a distance, far better for it to be time. Three seconds will maintain an appropriate gap at all times, whereas 80m, e.g., can become too little as speed rises.

  3. It’s quite obvious drivers are not taking ” Driving ” seriously, most people do not even know that in fact We all drive a lethal weapon !!

    1 REPLY
    • when the young drivers received their licenses from the sergeant at the local police station his words were always, ” this is a license to handle a lethal weapon, young’n, use it responsibly” I still remember that, but don’t remember my 1st car. lol

  4. I have driven a truck with a crash avoidance system. It is totally useless on a freeway or local streets, because of cars cutting into or across your safety space. TRUCKS NEED SPACE & CAR DRIVERS NEED EDUCATION !

    2 REPLY
    • Saw an ad for a truck that had all the bells and whistles and could drive itself on the open highway. Wondered how good it would be if an idiot cut in front of it. You’ve answered that question.

    • Nothing like a 903 Cummins on the Jake to get their attention, Bob. Problem is, they’ll probably then stand on the picks in front of you!

  5. And here was I thinking that it was ME who had to be alert and the crash avoider for all these years.

  6. “And should the government pay for it to be in high-risk vehicles such as trucks? ” This sentence in the introduction disturbed me. Whether the technology becomes mandatory or not, why should the government be responsible for installing it in trucks? Like all new inovations there is usually a phase in process giving folk a year or two to get the installation done before it becomes totally mandatory. Thus giving people time to put the necessary funds aside. No the government should should not be responsible for private vehicles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *