"The developing industry of automotive has largely emphasised on the development of the vehicles that are fast and safe. Brakes have become an important and crucial part of any vehicle so as to ensure the safety which becomes very essential when the demand of speed is increasing steadily. Being commonly used in different automobiles an automotive brake system comprises a brake device having different components (such as brake pads, brake shoes, brake drum, rotor, piston, calliper, master cylinder, and brake booster) which are used for decelerating a vehicle.
The growth in automotive industry is anticipated to fuel the growth of global automotive brake system market along with the increasing concerns over safety and resulting government pressures that have upturned the OEM’s towards the launching of higher technology content, thereby driving the demand for global automotive brake systems across the globe.”
"The global collision avoidance system market will reach USD 18.97 billion by 2025, says a study conducted by Grand View Research, Inc. The updated ratings of safety agencies and incorporation of anti-collision systems in mass-market models are expected to propel the market growth over the next six years. Accounting for over 33% of the market, Europe is expected to continue its market lead.
Collision avoidance systems enable vehicles to carry out semi-autonomous and autonomous decision-making. The rising need for security from consumers and governments is also expected to drive the collision avoidance systems market growth.
Strict legal and regulatory standards have mandated the inclusion of sensors in motor vehicles. This is further estimated to drive the collision avoidance systems market. However, the high costs of long-range radars and LiDAR-based systems may restrain the market growth as low-price carmakers may abstain from adding onto the cost of vehicles, the market researcher believes.
The key industry players in the market for Collision Avoidance Systems include Bosch, Continental, Delphi, Denso, Autoliv, and ZF subsidiary TRW.”
"The National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration (NHTSA) concluded a months-long investigation of a fatal crash in Florida last May, and reported Thursday that the agency found no defects in Tesla’s Automatic Emergency Braking (AEB) and Autopilot systems.
Definitely, Tesla is exonerated.
Did NHTSA let Tesla off the hook too easily? Absolutely. What lessons or guidance, if any, did NHTSA’s findings offer to the rest of the automotive industry? Very little.
It’s important to point out that nobody is saying that NHTSA didn’t do a thorough investigation. It did. NHTSA’s report, however, exposed limitations in the scope of their probe. The investigation revealed the difficulties regulators face in dealing with highly software-dependent automated driving systems.
Further, problematic was the tardiness of the investigation. Tesla was able to move much faster than the regulator to fix some of the problems (if not all of them) via over the air (OTA) software updates. That’s a good thing, but it rendered the NHTSA probe less than remarkable.
After reading the report, Mike Demler, senior analyst at The Linley Group, complained that NHTSA “largely just matched up the parameters of the incident with the information Tesla provides in owner’s manuals, along with cockpit warnings.”
NHTSA calls the report issued Thursday “ODI (Office of Defects Investigation) Resume.” A defect is an imperfection, or a weakness, noted Demler. But in his opinion, he sees little evidence that government agency actually focused on the weaknesses within Tesla’s Model S at the time of the accident.
“The critical issue here is that the Tesla fatality involved the combination of AEB and Autopilot,” said Demler. As the report shows, NHTSA “already accepts that AEB reduces accidents, and that the Tesla AEB performed according to the current state-of-the-art,” he explained. “But what happens when you combine AEB with Autopilot?”
He noted, “It would be different if Autopilot just added lane-centering to Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC) and AEB. [If that’s the case], Autopilot’s primary function isn’t safety, but it’s convenience. ”
"After explosions, recalls, and months of bad press, Samsung is attempting to put the drawn out Galaxy Note 7 saga behind it once and for all, with the long-promised official release of the findings of its internal investigation.
Samsung mobile chief DJ Koh kick off a packed press conference in Seoul by “deeply” apologizing to customers and business partners, before adding on a somewhat positive note that some 96-percent of of the three million Note 7 devices sold had been returned.
Koh followed with an explanation of the company’s internal testing methodology, nothing that Samsung built a standalone testing facility to isolate the case of the explosions, testing wired and wireless charing, iris scanning and the USB-C connector. And while none of those were determined to be the root cause of the Note explosions, he added that the company will be instituting future safeguards to be extra careful.
The company specifically investigated safety as it pertained to the assembly line manufacturing process, testing that occurred from November of 2016 to earlier this month. The group found “no detection of weakness or concern” during the manufacturing and found that the tested batteries met the international safety requirements – far and away the least conclusion for the three third-party investigations.”
"The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has announced that it will not seek a recall of Tesla's Autopilot driver-assist feature following a six-month investigation into a crash that resulted in the death of a driver. Joshua Brown, 40, was killed in May 2016 while using the feature in a Tesla Model S during a collision with a trailer of an 18-wheeler that crossed the road in front of the Model S.
During the course of its investigation the agency determined that Brown had been using Autopilot, but that the Automatic Emergency Braking (AEB) did not warn the driver or activate in the moments prior to the collision. The NHTSA also determined that Brown did not attempt to brake or steer in the moments prior to the collision.
The NHTSA action essentially clears Tesla in regards to a safety-related defect trend, though the agency also states that despite the decision to close the investigation "The closing of this investigation does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that no safety-related defect exists." That's as close to an investigation closure as this particular event gets, with the nuance being the lack of finding a specific safety-related trend, which could have eventually led to a recall. ”