New auto safety tech - do you use it?

[gerntz]

Have everything discussed except park assist - use multi-cameras for that. Use & like them all - which is why I have them. Adaptive cc particularly useful/restful in heavy traffic except ours kick out when car fully stop.

Not mentioned, I find Brake Hold restful.

All this is why we have newer cars. Worth it to us.

I'd say the CR-V package is near the best & good value.

 

[ckelly78z]

I actually pay attention, and DRIVE my own vehicles. I hate the new Honda sensing nanny systems, they are very intrusive, and give you a false sense of security.

 

[audreyh1]

I love the backup camera and side lane occupied warnings in the rental car. Seems like that’s pretty old tech now. I do mean to replace my car and want new features like these, plus smart cruise.

 

[Alan]

I actually pay attention, and DRIVE my own vehicles. I hate the new Honda sensing nanny systems, they are very intrusive, and give you a false sense of security.

Don’t you think it is good that less capable drivers than yourself have these safety features to stop them running into the back of you or pulling into your lane as you overtake?

 

[Music Lover]

One feature I'd like would be a built in dash cam...I can buy one for $40 so it's not like the cost is prohibitive.

 

[WestUniversity]

I love the backup camera and side lane occupied warnings in the rental car. Seems like that’s pretty old tech now. I do mean to replace my car and want new features like these, plus smart cruise.

Ditto. One other use for the backup camera. I use it to get my car centered in a parking spot. I pull up the very front of a parking spot and then put the car in reverse. The the lines that appear in my backup camera allow me to see if my car is centered side to side. Also there is a warning line used for backing into a spot that I also use to line up with the back end of the parking space. I simply roll back until that warning line lines up with the back end of the parking space. When I get out and check, voila my car is centered in the space...

 

[mystang52]

My car has several safety features: BSM, rear camera/cross-traffic alert, parking assist, and even auto-braking in event of approaching car in front at too fast a speed. I'll take all the safety help available.

 

[Pellice]

Have everything discussed except park assist - use multi-cameras for that. Use & like them all - which is why I have them. Adaptive cc particularly useful/restful in heavy traffic except ours kick out when car fully stop.

Not mentioned, I find Brake Hold restful.

All this is why we have newer cars. Worth it to us.

I'd say the CR-V package is near the best & good value.

What is "brake hold"? I haven't heard of that before.

Also, to repeat my earlier (perhaps dumb) question: When you have "lane keeping" on, along with adaptive cruise control, where do you put your hands? I just rest mine lightly on the wheel, which I guess is what you are supposed to do, but that's hard to get used to when you generally just plunk them down on the wheel and the wheel supports the weight of your hands and arms.

 

[Cobra9777]

What is "brake hold"? I haven't heard of that before...

Our new 2019 Subaru Forester has "brake hold." I'm still a bit undecided on whether or not to turn this feature off. When you come to a full stop, you can take your foot off the brake and the brake stays on by itself. When you're ready to go, just step on the gas.

However, the Forester also has the gas-saving feature where the engine turns off when you come to a full stop. Ordinarily, the engine would restart when you take your foot off the brake. By the time you get your foot to the accelerator, the engine is running and ready to go. I'm OK with that.

But when combined with the brake hold, it's quite weird. When you step on the gas, there is a slight delay while the engine restarts. Then you start moving. I find this to be an undesirable combination, especially in stop and go traffic. I may use one feature or the other, but not both.

 

[RunningBum]

Can't you hold your hands as normal? I would not totally trust the system. There are any number of reasons you'd need to control the wheel, besides the obvious system failure or poorly marked lines. What if another car veered in your lane, or you hit a pothole that caused your car to veer, or if something was on the road you need to steer around, or any number of things? I'd assume I'm driving, with an assist from lane keeping to help keep me in my lane, rather than assume the car is driving with me having to take over as necessary. I don't have lane keeping so maybe I don't understand it.

Not sure what adaptive cruise control has to do with your hands.

 

[Pellice]

Can't you hold your hands as normal? I would not totally trust the system. There are any number of reasons you'd need to control the wheel, besides the obvious system failure or poorly marked lines. What if another car veered in your lane, or you hit a pothole that caused your car to veer, or if something was on the road you need to steer around, or any number of things? I'd assume I'm driving, with an assist from lane keeping to help keep me in my lane, rather than assume the car is driving with me having to take over as necessary. I don't have lane keeping so maybe I don't understand it.

Not sure what adaptive cruise control has to do with your hands.

I guess that's what I'm asking, whether you CAN (or should) just rest the full weight of hands and arm on the wheel as you would do without lane keeping. The wheel makes gentle adjustments (which you can feel), moving independently, and I wonder if resting the hands and arms on the wheel "normally' would impede that.

[Edit] Also, when your hands are on the wheel "normally" you just naturally get to moving the wheel yourself, and also just naturally, your own slight adjustments might differ a tiny bit from the car's so then you are negating the car's wheel movements. Or does that fade with time? If you only lightly rest your hands, you are more likely to let the wheel slip through them. But that's hard to do, because you are holding some of the weight of your hands with your muscles for prolonged periods.

 

[Midpack]

Our ‘18 Outback and ‘19 Accord Hybrid both have full driver assistance packages, and I’ve experienced all the features for over a year now. The Honda and the Subaru features are essentially the same with one exception (noted below). My thoughts as shared on another forum:

While I don't regret choosing an Outback with Eyesight, after 7 months of use I've concluded it's really an unreliable novelty more than a robust solution to any problem. Not as useful as I thought it might be. Most functions aren't consistent enough to rely on. Right or wrong, my conclusions:

What I really do like:
- I do like the blind spot detector (nice reminder, thank goodness it doesn't beep too), and the reverse/cross traffic warning (often hard to actually see) systems. Since backing up is usually relatively low speed, the reverse automatic braking is OK if not overkill. e.g the audible alarm ought to be enough.

What I can't rely on or don't like:
- While lane centering as offered on some other brands/models might be useful, I don't see much use for Eyesight's lane keeping. Nothing wrong with an audible alarm noting you may be crossing a lane marker, but there's no need for the car to also nudge steering. I haven't turned LKA on since trying it in the weeks after I bought the car, useless IMO.
- And lane keeping and lane warning rely entirely on road markings, so it misses a lot, and sometimes give false alarms. And it's completely useless on ice/snow and even in heavy rain - I've had Eyesight shut off completely in heavy rain, a time when it would be most useful. [The Honda lane keeping/centering is more aggressive than the Subaru, it’s too much, and it’s wrong as often as right - it sometimes “sees” tar strips and various seams, old (construction) stripes and sometimes who knows what.]
- Adaptive Cruise Control is a mixed bag IME. It's taught me to change lanes much earlier when I'm approaching a slow moving vehicle as I'm certainly not interested in slowing and maintaining a lower speed just because a car ahead of me chooses to. I thought I'd like ACC, but it's not what I expected.
- I consider the ACC audible alarm that accompanies locking on a car ahead and unlocking from a car ahead a nuisance and totally unnecessary, why do I care to know? I turned off the beep.
- Pre-Collision Warning has also been a mixed bag. It's rare that it comes into play, but it's wrong almost as often as it's right IME. When going around a corner, it's sometimes fooled by a car in another lane, a parked car or even a sign or other obstacle that is straight ahead, but not in my intended (curved) path.
- And I don't know what the thresholds are for Pre-Collision Braking but I assume it's effective at low speed and not at some higher speed threshold where it could be the most useful - it hasn't been actuated on my car yet, hopefully I continue to pay attention and it's of no utility.
- Pre-collision braking has actuated a few times for me, wrong every time. It sees a car turning ahead of me and doesn't like the gap or closure rate and brakes unnecessarily. The other couple of times I was coming to a stop at an intersection and it decided I wasn't braking soon enough, even though I approach the same way all the time as far as I know?
- The Vehicle Ahead Has Moved is also wrong more often than not. If a car ahead of me inches ahead a couple feet while we're all still waiting for a red light to turn, it alarms even though I don't feel a need to inch forward too. It has yet to alarm when I was really distracted and not paying attention to traffic ahead. I guess I wish all the drivers who text at intersections should have it...

I am all for fully autonomous cars one day, and I suppose Eyesight and systems like it are a step in that direction - but a baby step at best, maybe 10% of the way to self driving.

I don’t consider backup cameras new. It’s nice but I refuse to rely on it entirely.

Neither of our cars have the automatic parallel parking feature. That’s nice but I’m able to parallel park correctly without an adjustment at least 75% of the time (sometimes I miss).

 

[Sojourner]

Don’t you think it is good that less capable drivers than yourself have these safety features to stop them running into the back of you or pulling into your lane as you overtake?

+1000

I honestly don't get the "anti new safety technology" viewpoint that some folks have expressed. To me, that sort of thinking is analogous to not wanting GPS mapping on your phone, preferring instead to do it the old fashioned way with paper maps. And that's not even a strong enough analogy, since GPS mapping doesn't typically make the process of mapping substantially safer for you and others around you. New auto safety tech, by contrast, routinely helps to prevent collisions that could cause serious injury or death. Sure, it may not help 100% of the time, but nothing is 100% foolproof. Would you refuse a potentially life-saving medical treatment because it's only 90% effective? Then why pooh-pooh and shun safety technology on newer cars? I have to believe that things like rear cross-traffic alerts, forward collision avoidance, and blind-spot monitoring/alerts have prevented tens of thousands of accidents and injuries over the years. Just because it's "high tech", not 100% perfect, and slightly alters the traditional driving experience shouldn't make it undesirable. IMHO, the fact that it makes driving demonstrably safer, statistically, for everyone on the road (and in parking lots, etc.) should be the primary consideration.

 

[Spock]

The flip side of all the tech is cost of repair.

"Bumpers" (don't know why they still call them that as they break instead) are already expensive. Pack it full of cameras and radars and BOOM! your wallet explodes.
Windshields with sensors can cost $1500 just for the wired up glass and then add installation.


The concern list starts growing to the point I see a growth market in antique cars:
* data uploads that you can't turn off
* driver monitoring cameras (cameras in the cab watching/recording you, not the road)
* "right to repair" firmware licensing rules - your factory dealer becomes the ONLY place you can take your vehicle.
* voice command to monitor your conversation... that tech isn't self-contained in the car (or home), the voice recognition is done on a cloud server.
In short, your car is becoming a smartphone with wheels. Handy. but with an enormous unrecognized cost.

 

[Music Lover]

+1000

I honestly don't get the "anti new safety technology" viewpoint that some folks have expressed. To me, that sort of thinking is analogous to not wanting GPS mapping on your phone, preferring instead to do it the old fashioned way with paper maps. And that's not even a strong enough analogy, since GPS mapping doesn't typically make the process of mapping substantially safer for you and others around you. New auto safety tech, by contrast, routinely helps to prevent collisions that could cause serious injury or death. Sure, it may not help 100% of the time, but nothing is 100% foolproof. Would you refuse a potentially life-saving medical treatment because it's only 90% effective? Then why pooh-pooh and shun safety technology on newer cars? I have to believe that things like rear cross-traffic alerts, forward collision avoidance, and blind-spot monitoring/alerts have prevented tens of thousands of accidents and injuries over the years. Just because it's "high tech", not 100% perfect, and slightly alters the traditional driving experience shouldn't make it undesirable. IMHO, the fact that it makes driving demonstrably safer, statistically, for everyone on the road (and in parking lots, etc.) should be the primary consideration.

You can't compare car tech to medical tech...no one in their right mind would turn down a 90% chance of a cure. But a 90% accuracy rate for car technology can be deadly if people trust it 100% of the time.

 

[craigbro63]

I really don't like the forward radar on the cruise control when highway driving. It can be set to different sensitivities but really effects your timing of having to change lanes which may not be possible because of traffic coming up from the rear. I typically just defeat it and use the regular cruise control.
All of the new tech will take some getting use to but by the time we are all settled in cars will drive themselves and we'll have a whole new set of things to discuss.

 

[Sojourner]

You can't compare car tech to medical tech...no one in their right mind would turn down a 90% chance of a cure. But a 90% accuracy rate for car technology can be deadly if people trust it 100% of the time.

True, it wasn't a great analogy, but new car safety tech works well enough that it can be trusted most of the time as an enhancement to (highly) imperfect human perception and reactions. Like almost any technology, one would be foolish to rely on it exclusively and expect 100% accuracy at all times, but even if it's "only" 98% accurate, it's still going to prevent a lot of accidents and injuries. Personally, I was very happy that my forward collision avoidance system automatically braked and prevented my rear-ending someone ahead of me who slammed their brakes unexpectedly a few years back. I find it puzzling why someone wouldn't want that kind of safety feature or would want to disable it if their car had it.

 

[Music Lover]

True, it wasn't a great analogy, but new car safety tech works well enough that it can be trusted most of the time as an enhancement to (highly) imperfect human perception and reactions. Like almost any technology, one would be foolish to rely on it exclusively and expect 100% accuracy at all times, but even if it's "only" 98% accurate, it's still going to prevent a lot of accidents and injuries. Personally, I was very happy that my forward collision avoidance system automatically braked and prevented my rear-ending someone ahead of me who slammed their brakes unexpectedly a few years back. I find it puzzling why someone wouldn't want that kind of safety feature or would want to disable it if their car had it.

Automatically braking a car may not cause a collision...but there is always the risk of people assuming that technology will take care of them which leads them to becoming less observant of their surroundings.

For example, there are documented cases of driverless cars in test drives being involved in collisions because the tester wasn't paying attention. So, even unproven technology can give some people a false sense of security.

 

[Sanstar]

I love the new vehicle safety tech and use it all. Too many years working in a trauma ICU to resist any vehicle safety solutions. After test driving trucks two weeks ago, to purchase one with all the safety bells and whistles and two package for TT, we liked the GM ride and looks better but went with the F150 King Ranch to get adaptive cruise control. Adaptive CC won’t be in GM trucks until next year and that was a deal breaker for me since so much of my time is spent freeway driving through the west. I think the latest auto drive, park,cruise, brake functions will prepare me for a self-driving car in the future. Hopefully, this means the kids won’t have to have have the “give us the keys” talk[emoji57]

I remember when seatbelts were thought by many to be unsafe; in case getting thrown from the car is your best chance to avoid injury or worse. Same for air bags. Like all change there will be the usual early adopters, wait and see group and never in a million years crowd.

 

[jimandthom]

As others have said--- we do like the back-up beeper and camera. Extra set of eyes and ears but nothing beats the originals.

Our beastie also has lane change warning, although I'm not certain if its turned on.

 

[Midpack]

+1000

I honestly don't get the "anti new safety technology" viewpoint that some folks have expressed. To me, that sort of thinking is analogous to not wanting GPS mapping on your phone, preferring instead to do it the old fashioned way with paper maps. And that's not even a strong enough analogy, since GPS mapping doesn't typically make the process of mapping substantially safer for you and others around you. New auto safety tech, by contrast, routinely helps to prevent collisions that could cause serious injury or death. Sure, it may not help 100% of the time, but nothing is 100% foolproof. Would you refuse a potentially life-saving medical treatment because it's only 90% effective? Then why pooh-pooh and shun safety technology on newer cars? I have to believe that things like rear cross-traffic alerts, forward collision avoidance, and blind-spot monitoring/alerts have prevented tens of thousands of accidents and injuries over the years. Just because it's "high tech", not 100% perfect, and slightly alters the traditional driving experience shouldn't make it undesirable. IMHO, the fact that it makes driving demonstrably safer, statistically, for everyone on the road (and in parking lots, etc.) should be the primary consideration.

You make a valid point, but IMO there may be a downside in that the technology only works some of the time in my experience - leading to a false sense of security? Some drivers may relax their attention because they don’t realize how spotty and unpredictable many of today’s driver assistance features are - and it may result in an accident. It may be that despite less driver attention by some, driver assistance saves more lives than otherwise - I don’t pretend to know.

Maybe not a fair analogy but several Tesla drivers have been killed now because they assumed the autopilot feature was more capable than it is. In fairness for those who don’t know, the Tesla “autopilot” package is significantly more capable than the drivers assistance systems offered by many (e.g. the Honda and Subaru we own).

 

[Midpack]

+1000

I honestly don't get the "anti new safety technology" viewpoint that some folks have expressed. To me, that sort of thinking is analogous to not wanting GPS mapping on your phone, preferring instead to do it the old fashioned way with paper maps. And that's not even a strong enough analogy, since GPS mapping doesn't typically make the process of mapping substantially safer for you and others around you. New auto safety tech, by contrast, routinely helps to prevent collisions that could cause serious injury or death. Sure, it may not help 100% of the time, but nothing is 100% foolproof. Would you refuse a potentially life-saving medical treatment because it's only 90% effective? Then why pooh-pooh and shun safety technology on newer cars? I have to believe that things like rear cross-traffic alerts, forward collision avoidance, and blind-spot monitoring/alerts have prevented tens of thousands of accidents and injuries over the years. Just because it's "high tech", not 100% perfect, and slightly alters the traditional driving experience shouldn't make it undesirable. IMHO, the fact that it makes driving demonstrably safer, statistically, for everyone on the road (and in parking lots, etc.) should be the primary consideration.

You make a valid point, but IMO there may be a downside in that the technology only works some of the time in my experience. Drivers may adopt a false sense of security because they don’t realize how spotty and unpredictable many of today’s driver assistance features are - if they drop awareness at all, it may result in an accident.

Maybe not a fair analogy but several Tesla drivers have been killed now because they assumed the autopilot feature was more capable than it is. In fairness for those who don’t know, the Tesla “autopilot” package is significantly more capable than the drivers assistance systems offered by many (e.g. the Honda and Subaru we own).

FWIW older drivers views may not be representative. When I took delivery of my ‘18 Outback the dealer walked me through all the features, including all the driver assistance bells & whistles. He told me many (older) customers come back two weeks after they take delivery and ask ’how do I turn off all this @&*#$ safety sh—?’

 

[Sojourner]

Automatically braking a car may not cause a collision...but there is always the risk of people assuming that technology will take care of them which leads them to becoming less observant of their surroundings.

Certainly true, but my point is that there is a greater risk of not utilizing new safety technologies, since their use results in fewer accidents and injuries, statistically speaking, over the entire population. There will always be some people who foolishly/carelessly utilize new safety tech, leading to accidents that would not have otherwise happened. But I believe the data would show that the net gain in overall safety makes this a minor concern.

Perhaps a better analogy (than my earlier medical one) would be the advent of collision avoidance technologies in the aviation industry. Systems such as ACAS and TCAS have been in widespread use for several decades, and their use has been mandated for certain categories of aircraft in the U.S. since the mid '80s. I imagine there were some pilots who didn't like these new, automated systems, and preferred the old way of avoiding mid-air collisions by relying on their skills, training, and experience. However, the fact is that mid-air collisions have dropped to virtually nil since these new safety technologies were put in place and their use became widespread. Obviously there are differences between professional pilots flying commercial planes and average, recreational car drivers, but my point is that new safety tech does make us all safer—in general, over time—and that, IMHO, rejecting it simply because one doesn't "like" it or prefers the "old fashioned way" is somewhat irrational.

 

[ERD50]

The prospect of getting all that safety tech to do the driving tasks that I am used to handling on my own, is part of why I haven't bought the new SUV I have been talking about. I will buy the least amount of safety tech possible, but honestly they all have a huge amount of it and I'd rather that it wasn't there. .... I'd rather drive it myself!

My 2017 Buick Encore got it about right I think - it has some of the warnings, but never actually takes control of everything, I do the driving.

I consider the warnings a nice "second set of eyes". I don't/won't depend on them, but it's nice to see/hear the warnings when I'm also sensing things are getting close. And it has also convinced me that this current level of tech really isn't ready to take over, there are too many false alarms (not enough to be irritating to me, but I sure would not want it taking over every time it beeps/flashes at me).

Another thing, some of us wonder about our capabilities degrading with age, and I think if these warnings were coming up and I wasn't already aware of the problem and prepared, and I saw it wasn't a false alarm, that might be a sign that I should not be driving any more. So far, every warning is something I saw and was prepared for (like a slow car ahead with a turn signal on, but I've already got my foot hovering over the brake, prepared if he doesn't speed up or turn), or it was a false alarm.

Don’t you think it is good that less capable drivers than yourself have these safety features to stop them running into the back of you or pulling into your lane as you overtake?

+1000

I honestly don't get the "anti new safety technology" viewpoint that some folks have expressed. ....

It depends. This gets back to some of the earlier discussions on self-driving cars. If (and that is an 'if') the imperfect safety features cause enough people to get lazy and depend on them, then maybe ( note - 'maybe') we would see more accidents. I don't think we will know without more data.

I like a system that keeps the driver engaged - I think there are some that monitor your eye/head movement. Until SDC tech is near perfect, I think that is the way to go - good warning systems to add to a good, attentive driver, rather than take over for the driver.

The flip side of all the tech is cost of repair.

"Bumpers" (don't know why they still call them that as they break instead) are already expensive. Pack it full of cameras and radars and BOOM! your wallet explodes.
Windshields with sensors can cost $1500 just for the wired up glass and then add installation ....

Agree, repair costs for a minor thing can be crazy high. Not such a big deal for those of us who have some savings, but I pity the poor guy/gal just starting out, dependent on their car to get to work, and having a legitimate problem getting a decent emergency fund together - they get a huge bill like this for a fender bender (edit - or just a sensor malfunction, but it forces the car to a stop!), and it's painful. In the old days, we could just drive a clunker, and it wasn't so expensive to replace.

-ERD50

 

[zinger1457]

Really like the adaptive cruise control and HUD (heads up display) on my new vehicle. Can see things like current speed and a speed limit sign right on the windshield, helpful and not distracting at all.