source: I have tested this at ~30-40 mph and nothing about that experience leads me to believe that it would be safer if I had been going faster, and at full throttle.
So you're probably right, it's a stretch to call the handbrake something useful in emergencies when in reality it probably wouldn't perform that function.
I don't drive cars, so i have no idea if that would conflict with normal uses of the handbrake. Perhaps it could have a position beyond the normal brake-engaging position that did this? So that if someone panics and yanks on it as hard as they can, they get the result they probably want.
Yuck!
>Luckily most the features you listed are usually implemented in separate ECUs.
What concerns me would be how the systems handle unexpected inputs.
In the article it notes that the only way to end one unexpected acceleration event was to stop using the brakes. I'm not sure if the vehicle in question has separate controllers, but if it doesn't that's a real concern that unexpected input from one tickles a bug in another.
Vehicle tests confirmed that one particular dead task would result in loss of throttle control, and that the driver might have to fully remove their foot from the brake during an unintended acceleration event before being able to end the unwanted acceleration.
Every one of those approaches you suggested are, in many modern cars, fully software driven. And the article even shows an example of how a bug in the software can only be resolved through the exact opposite of what a rational person would do in a crisis.
I think the only actual mechanical failsafe left is the handbrake. Please tell me that's still sacred...