Speculate about Adaptive Cruise Control

[digitalbliss]

That isn't what I said. At all.

People aren't distracted by the inclusion or use of these safety features. They're distracted by fumbling around on phones and gadgets while relying on said safety features to keep them in check. By staying off a phone while driving, keeping their eyes on the road, and checking their surroundings before changing lanes or making turns, ACC, lane departure warnings, and blind spot monitoring features are completely unnecessary. These features don't exist because most drivers are good. They exist because most drivers are bad.

Sorry if I misunderstood you but I do not believe these safety features are making people worse drivers. I also don't think most drivers are bad.

Sponsored

 

[The Great Grape Ape]

Sorry if I misunderstood you but I do not believe these safety features are making people worse drivers. I also don't think most drivers are bad.

What these safety features do is reduce people's abilities to drive without them. While it's nice to think these items are used in concert by most, they are more likely used to supplant existing activities, where the shoulder check is replaced by the blinking triangle, not used alongside it. All with a fundamental lack of understanding of how it works and why, and importantly for Cruise Control and ACC, when NOT to use it.

And yes, most drivers are bad. The level of accidents should be so dramatically reduced from the 70s as to be extremely rare. We haven't significantly changed the speeds, the roads are better, there's disk brakes instead of drums, ABS, ESC, sway-bars, better tyres, and yet the reduction in accidents isn't 20 fold, no it's about the same or maybe half.
Part of the reason for that is lack of respect due to all these improvements that allow many drivers to get lazy. It's similar to the situation with 4WD/AWD, where it definitely improves the capabilities of the vehicle, but often much of that is negated or overwhelmed by the arrogance of the driver who now thinks they no longer need to be concerned with road conditions because they're in a Subi (with nearly bald all-seaon tyres on).

If most drivers weren't bad, we'd test them every 5 years at license renewal (even if it was a 10 minute test), instead you're tested once, and given a lifetime pass despite the massive changes in vehicles from decade to decade.

As I mentioned before, I like the tech and it's great when used in conjunction with regular good driving habits, proximity sensors helped supplement my dad's eyesight for shoulder checks as he recovered from an illness, however he heightened his awareness to compensate, not become more sedated behind the wheel.
For far too many people it simply makes them more lazy, and the perfect candidates to not drive themselves, and instead just be passengers in autonomous vehicles.

 

[digitalbliss]

What these safety features do is reduce people's abilities to drive without them. While it's nice to think these items are used in concert by most, they are more likely used to supplant existing activities, where the shoulder check is replaced by the blinking triangle, not used alongside it. All with a fundamental lack of understanding of how it works and why, and importantly for Cruise Control and ACC, when NOT to use it.

And yes, most drivers are bad. The level of accidents should be so dramatically reduced from the 70s as to be extremely rare. We haven't significantly changed the speeds, the roads are better, there's disk brakes instead of drums, ABS, ESC, sway-bars, better tyres, and yet the reduction in accidents isn't 20 fold, no it's about the same or maybe half.
Part of the reason for that is lack of respect due to all these improvements that allow many drivers to get lazy. It's similar to the situation with 4WD/AWD, where it definitely improves the capabilities of the vehicle, but often much of that is negated or overwhelmed by the arrogance of the driver who now thinks they no longer need to be concerned with road conditions because they're in a Subi (with nearly bald all-seaon tyres on).

If most drivers weren't bad, we'd test them every 5 years at license renewal (even if it was a 10 minute test), instead you're tested once, and given a lifetime pass despite the massive changes in vehicles from decade to decade.

As I mentioned before, I like the tech and it's great when used in conjunction with regular good driving habits, proximity sensors helped supplement my dad's eyesight for shoulder checks as he recovered from an illness, however he heightened his awareness to compensate, not become more sedated behind the wheel.
For far too many people it simply makes them more lazy, and the perfect candidates to not drive themselves, and instead just be passengers in autonomous vehicles.

Meh, I own a Subie with all the safety features mentioned here and I feel as though I still go through the exact same checks as before. Although I can see where you are concerned with possible abuse/neglect, the reality is that most of these sins are already being perpetrated without the new safety features, which brings me to a good point. I have read enough of your posts to know that you are a man of math, science, and logic. Where are the case studies proving that these new safety features are making drivers lazy? What studies say that more than 50% of drivers are "bad"? Statistically, how many vehicles on the road have this tech? I will take that a step further and ask, statistically speaking, how many if thise vehicles are involved in an at fault accident? My guess is that the numbers will be lower than normal or lower than average. Indicating that the tech is making vechiles safer, not the other way around. Having 1st hand experience with this tech in a vehicle i own, i think that most of the negative concerne is fear based and not based on any solid data. IIHS backs this tech. Insurance companies are not in the habit of backing things that will end up costing them more.

 

[The Great Grape Ape]

Meh, I own a Subie with all the safety features mentioned here

That explains your defensiveness.

the tech is making vechiles safer, not the other way around.

The vehicles are safer, exponentially so, but the drivers are not. With the cumulative effect of improvements having a multiplier effect on each other we should see an exponential drop in crashes and fatalities, and like I said, it's about 30% drop for crashes, and 50% in fatalities or 50% again for miles traveled, meaning the crashes are more survivable, than being avoided.
Also, since the introduction of much of these assists, including lane departure & proximity warnings and ACC the rate has remained somewhat constant in the last ~ 7 years, or risen from 2014 to 2015 when these would've been in their 2nd, 3rd years for many platforms. The dramatic improvements to vehicle features and safety is undeniable, however that it is not reflected in an equally dramatic improvement in accident rates shows that there is an increasing deficiency elsehwere in the equation... the ever dumber driving populace.

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/general-statistics/fatalityfacts/overview-of-fatality-facts

Having 1st hand experience with this tech in a vehicle i own, i think that most of the negative concerne is fear based and not based on any solid data.

I have this in my Grand Cherokee, and play wih the tech underneath it all before it makes it to the manufacturers from the folks like TI, etc, so it's not about fear, it's about the Idicoracy that is the American public at large. Like I said, I like the tech, it's great, I just don't like that people turn off their brains to rely on it. Having the tech doesn't make a good driver bad, nor does it force a good driver to be lazy, however it does make it easier for the drivers that have no respect for their rolling death machine to be lazy and careless, and that affects the rest of us, even to good defensive drivers.

Insurance companies are not in the habit of backing things that will end up costing them more.

If you think that insurance companies don't know the data better than you or I, then you're fooling yourself. Insurance is a statistical game, whether people get dumber or not, they can always change the premiums or payouts to compensate. Oh sure, they will support features that attempt to reduce their claim rate, but as you can see from IIHS' own data, the impact is nowhere near what it should be for all the improvements, because unfortunately neither the IIHS/NHTSA nor DOT can fix Stupid. That is a condition that is growing faster than global warming, aided by those same safety features that are allowing the dumb ones to get in accidents and yet survie the Darwin self-selection process, to go on to create more former Darwin award winners.

 

[The Great Grape Ape]

BTW, I wasn't picking on Subies, other than they are fantastic tech... but far too often they are mated to tools that think simply buying one makes them invincible in snow & ice or buying a WRX without any training makes them a Rally or Drifting champion (yes I know RWD is better for drifting.. but many of them likely don't [thankfully or not there is thech for that to]).
Jeep suffers the same fate for snow & ice and off-roading too, so it's not just the one brand/make, it was just an easy example of next level tech defeated by futuristic stupidity.

Essentially it's not the car but the driver (and unfortunately those around him/her) that determines the result, and that's where all the vehicles are struggling to overcome the "Problem Existing Between Seat and Steering-wheel" / PEBSAS (reimagining of PEBKAC).
The vehicles are getting smarter, better, safer, but people are just getting dumber.

Just like computers, you can make them faster, cheaper, infinitely more capable, and yet most people still play Candy Crush and InstaFace, etc on them. With the awesome promise of the internet in the early 90s (80s if you're old enough) resulting not in a greater global consciousness (other than to bring the truly isolated up to speed), but instead we got more cat videos, pictures of people's meals, low-res concert footage, and arguing about vehicles in forums instead of driving them.

 

[digitalbliss]

That explains your defensiveness.



The vehicles are safer, exponentially so, but the drivers are not. With the cumulative effect of improvements having a multiplier effect on each other we should see an exponential drop in crashes and fatalities, and like I said, it's about 30% drop for crashes, and 50% in fatalities or 50% again for miles traveled, meaning the crashes are more survivable, than being avoided.
Also, since the introduction of much of these assists, including lane departure & proximity warnings and ACC the rate has remained somewhat constant in the last ~ 7 years, or risen from 2014 to 2015 when these would've been in their 2nd, 3rd years for many platforms. The dramatic improvements to vehicle features and safety is undeniable, however that it is not reflected in an equally dramatic improvement in accident rates shows that there is an increasing deficiency elsehwere in the equation... the ever dumber driving populace.

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/general-statistics/fatalityfacts/overview-of-fatality-facts





I have this in my Grand Cherokee, and play wih the tech underneath it all before it makes it to the manufacturers from the folks like TI, etc, so it's not about fear, it's about the Idicoracy that is the American public at large. Like I said, I like the tech, it's great, I just don't like that people turn off their brains to rely on it. Having the tech doesn't make a good driver bad, nor does it force a good driver to be lazy, however it does make it easier for the drivers that have no respect for their rolling death machine to be lazy and careless, and that affects the rest of us, even to good defensive drivers.



If you think that insurance companies don't know the data better than you or I, then you're fooling yourself. Insurance is a statistical game, whether people get dumber or not, they can always change the premiums or payouts to compensate. Oh sure, they will support features that attempt to reduce their claim rate, but as you can see from IIHS' own data, the impact is nowhere near what it should be for all the improvements, because unfortunately neither the IIHS/NHTSA nor DOT can fix Stupid. That is a condition that is growing faster than global warming, aided by those same safety features that are allowing the dumb ones to get in accidents and yet survie the Darwin self-selection process, to go on to create more former Darwin award winners.

While I respect your opinion I will choose to believe my own anecdotal evidence over yours until you can show a true study demonstrating that the new safety features are actually exacerbating bad driving behaviors instead of reinforcing overall safety. Btw, I never thought people were actually scared of the tech itself, but more so the psychological factor of being scared that other people would use it for dumb and stupid behavior. That's really what I think this whole thing is about. The fear of losing control. Add that in with the fear that the guy next to you has voluntarily relinquished his own control in dependence on his vehicles safety tech and people lose their sh!t. Only, there is no proof that it's happening. Anyway, I think this horse has been beaten to death.

And as far as the Subie is concerned, it the wife's. I drive it occasionally and only got the eyesight because it happened to be on the white one with all the other options that she wanted. But I can tell you that it has turned me into a believer. I have no reason to defend the tech because I own a Subie that has it (as you inferred), but because I own a Subie with the tech, I do have experience enough with it to say the the claims above are overblown and overstated.

 

[Spank]

I'm so glad you brought up Subaru, because this commercial not only proves my point, but literally demonstrates what is wrong with these gimmicky "safety features."



That's right. Your kid, who is guaranteed to be an absolutely horrible driver, will be perfectly safe by relying on the amazing EyeSight(R) technology of Subaru that'll alert him when he's about to drive onto the sidewalk or plow directly into a cement barricade. You don't need a proper driving education that promotes being alert and exercising safe driving habits when EyeSight has you covered.

And yes, most drivers are bad. Most drivers are awful. I have a dashcam in my Jeep that I bought primarily for wheeling trips, but I wired it up to record whenever the Jeep is running and every single day I record some idiot, some doofus, some nitwit who is doing everything in their vehicle except driving. In fact, I captured this yesterday:

The front wheels were still spinning. I have no idea what he was doing that caused him to get his car up there, but like many of today's drivers, he was definitely NOT paying attention to the road.

 

[digitalbliss]

I'm so glad you brought up Subaru, because this commercial not only proves my point, but literally demonstrates what is wrong with these gimmicky "safety features."



That's right. Your kid, who is guaranteed to be an absolutely horrible driver, will be perfectly safe by relying on the amazing EyeSight(R) technology of Subaru that'll alert him when he's about to drive onto the sidewalk or plow directly into a cement barricade. You don't need a proper driving education that promotes being alert and exercising safe driving habits when EyeSight has you covered.

And yes, most drivers are bad. Most drivers are awful. I have a dashcam in my Jeep that I bought primarily for wheeling trips, but I wired it up to record whenever the Jeep is running and every single day I record some idiot, some doofus, some nitwit who is doing everything in their vehicle except driving. In fact, I captured this yesterday:

The front wheels were still spinning. I have no idea what he was doing that caused him to get his car up there, but like many of today's drivers, he was definitely NOT paying attention to the road.

Actually, that commercial literally doesn't even show any of the Subaru eyesight safety features, nor does it talk about them, save for a 3 second pause at the end with text telling you that Subaru models equipped with eyesight are a IIHS top safety pick. And if it was true, that most (meaning more than half) of all drivers out there are bad, then there is no way that these new "gimmicky safety features" are making it worse.

And yes, that guy is an idiot and I'm not surprised you see something stupid everyday. But most people I know, ride with, travel with, etc... are not bad drivers. Do they have some bad moments? I'm sure they do. If most drivers were bad, most people I and you know should also fall into the same statistical break down. I think what happens, is that you actually dont notice MOST drivers because they are doing what they are supposed to (they dont raise any warning flags). You see one idiot (or maybe more), get all pissed and then proclaim that to be true of most people, but that doesnt make it so.

Either way, you are entitled to your opinion. If you can show me facts, endorsements, recommendations, etc.. from reputable places that say otherwise, I would certainly reevaluate my own.

 

[WXman]

Any feature that removes the driver's engagement in the act of driving is lending to a MORE dangerous transportation network. It's not really helping anything in the long run.

Back in the days when people had a hand on the wheel, a hand on the shifter, and both feet on a pedal...they were in tune with the act of driving, and therefore knew how to drive and were safer because of it. It was a win-win for everyone.

Now days they're trying to turn vehicles in living rooms with internet, satellite, screens, driving nannies, etc. and then they wonder why crash statistics and safety recalls are increasing like wildfire. Hmmm... does it really take a rocket scientist to figure this out? If you're driving, then you need to be DRIVING, not relaxing with a latte thinking "the car will save me if I screw up".

 

[The Great Grape Ape]

I'm so glad you brought up Subaru, because this commercial not only proves my point, but literally demonstrates what is wrong with these gimmicky "safety features."

I prefered the "Love" one that linked after the one you posted completed.



It made me (and a few folks at work) chuckle and also gave us ammunition to taunt the lady who's giving their old Forester to her son. Funny thing is I recommended their first then newly revamped Forester to her in 2003/2004 when her child was born. Like I said, I have high regard for the brand, just not the assumptions and actions of some owners due to the halo the PR creates from the admittedly great underlying tech.

And yes, most drivers are bad. Most drivers are awful. I have a dashcam in my Jeep that I bought primarily for wheeling trips, but I wired it up to record whenever the Jeep is running and every single day I record some idiot, some doofus, some nitwit who is doing everything in their vehicle except driving.

Yep, same here, my collection during snowy days in-town, or even just a touch of rain, is mind boggling. Even City Buses and Taxi drviers, both of whom's jobs are to drive have demonstrated epic fails that are obviously just attention / situational awareness fails. It's just another reason I would like the JL to come with a standard HD+ TrailCam/Dashcam.

I've found it also pays for itself with regards to traffic tickets, etc. Just at the beginning of the month I had a $135 speeding ticket thrown out because my dashcam showed it was impossible for the officer to have tagged me as he said when I was keeping time with the vehicle in front of me.

In fact, I captured this yesterday:

The front wheels were still spinning. I have no idea what he was doing that caused him to get his car up there, but like many of today's drivers, he was definitely NOT paying attention to the road.

I like to think, similar to the second Subie link, he was enjoying some stress relief similar to that in the movie 'Parenthood', and like Steve Martin, he was just surprised.

 

[Klausvanwinkle]

Anyone heard rumors about when they'll start to offer this? It sounds like it's already an issue in the Australian market. I hope that pressures them to add it sooner than the mandated 2022.

This is the only next gen safety feature I actually want. Blind spot, rear cross, seem unnecessary to me. But with all the stop and go driving here in West LA, AEB would be pretty useful. I haven't rear ended anyone yet, but I also wouldn't mind that extra level of crash prevention.

 

[The_Phew]

If you think that insurance companies don't know the data better than you or I, then you're fooling yourself. Insurance is a statistical game, whether people get dumber or not, they can always change the premiums or payouts to compensate. Oh sure, they will support features that attempt to reduce their claim rate, but as you can see from IIHS' own data, the impact is nowhere near what it should be for all the improvements, because unfortunately neither the IIHS/NHTSA nor DOT can fix Stupid. .

I call B.S. Autonomous braking (a required component of, but independent technology from adaptive cruise control) has been demonstrated to reduce rear-end collisions by 40%:

http://www.autonews.com/article/201...ing-reduces-rear-end-crashes-iihs-study-finds

If this technology was making drivers as inattentive as you claim, the difference wouldn't be so dramatic. I have AB/ACC in my daily driver, and it's very well implemented; it responds instantly if someone slams on the brakes for no reason on the highway, much faster than any human could react. And in the rare case it has a false positive, it's easy to override (just keep driving with your foot on the accelerator, and the system quickly realizes that it was wrong).

 

[JLWF Dealer Guy]

I don't doubt at all it will be a future option. The new steering wheel already has the unused empty spots for it. Inside, right opposite of where the blutooth on the left is.

 

[The_Phew]

I don't doubt at all it will be a future option. The new steering wheel already has the unused empty spots for it. Inside, right opposite of where the blutooth on the left is.

I have it on good authority that those blanks will be for the upcoming "Mall Crawl" and "Bro Doze" modes.

 

[The Great Grape Ape]

I call B.S. Autonomous braking (a required component of, but independent technology from adaptive cruise control) has been demonstrated to reduce rear-end collisions by 40%:

http://www.autonews.com/article/201...ing-reduces-rear-end-crashes-iihs-study-finds

If this technology was making drivers as inattentive as you claim, the difference wouldn't be so dramatic. I have AB/ACC in my daily driver, and it's very well implemented; it responds instantly if someone slams on the brakes for no reason on the highway, much faster than any human could react. And in the rare case it has a false positive, it's easy to override (just keep driving with your foot on the accelerator, and the system quickly realizes that it was wrong).

Understand the point people are making, not that Automatic braking doesn’t impact the part that the Dumber Human now no longer controls, it’s the impact overall beyond just that feature, due to relaxed awareness. Did other thins go up, they didn’t say. Sure the impact of rear-ends is 40% less in the automated braking... but shouldn’t it be higher, considering it is no linger left to just the chair moisteners to intervene? With just a warning it’s 13%, so that’s saying more than double the imoact is due to a comouter doing it instead of the inattetive HoOoman who can’t do it with just a warning.

Those stats within the study itself, don’t support a greater attention level, it still did way better without the human. That’s the point, not whether automated systems aren’t good in and of themselves (see prior comments of such) nor that they aren’t saving ever poorer drivers vehicles/lives. Just that there is also a negative effect that lowers the bar for drivers.

Remember with Automatic Braking, you’re at the very beginning where it’s all benefit, and the poor habits, laziness and inability hasn’t had a chance to catch up yet, give it a few years and look at the overall picture, not just the stuff that can be mostly automated.

Sponsored