Automatic braking.....wth?

[Cardude99]

What ever happened to paying attention. I will purposely not buy a car equipped with this package cause I don't want a computer driving for me. Maybe if I was in a camry, or accord but mustangs are meant to be driven.

Sorry my rant is over

Sponsored

 

[SpeedLu]

What ever happened to paying attention. I will purposely not buy a car equipped with this package cause I don't want a computer driving for me. Maybe if I was in a camry, or accord but mustangs are meant to be driven.

Sorry my rant is over

Agreed. I cringe as I think there might be a day when it's mandated that all cars drive themselves.

 

[kn7671]

It's a liability issue. Ford cannot in any way imply or state that the Auto Braking will occur, as the car and technology is not setup and sold that way, even if it does.

My wife has a 2014 Ford Flex with the same ACC and Collision Detection. You can turn off the Collision Detection if it annoys you, as I trigger it sometimes when passing a car in heavy traffic.

 

[1966 Sunbeam Tiger]

What ever happened to paying attention.

You guys are getting this all wrong. I just want to know why one and not the other.

BTW....my other Ride is a 1966 Sunbeam Tiger (google it). I have the original Ford 260 on a stand in the garage. It is powered now with a 454 HP Ford 347. It weighs 2500 lbs with 1960's technology. I do have power assisted brakes but that is it. I know all about paying attention.

 

[Higgs Boson]

You guys are getting this all wrong. I just want to know why one and not the other.

BTW....my other Ride is a 1966 Sunbeam Tiger (google it). I have the original Ford 260 on a stand in the garage. It is powered now with a 454 HP Ford 347. It weighs 2500 lbs with 1960's technology. I do have power assisted brakes but that is it. I know all about paying attention.

why one and not the other? because they use two completely different radars/sensors capable of detecting different distances which also means different speeds. cruise control also has control over the throttle and knows you aren't going to have your foot on the gas accelerating through autonomous braking and if you are giving it gas, braking is not going to activate.

 

[Norm Peterson]

You guys are getting this all wrong. I just want to know why one and not the other.

BTW....my other Ride is a 1966 Sunbeam Tiger (google it). I have the original Ford 260 on a stand in the garage. It is powered now with a 454 HP Ford 347. It weighs 2500 lbs with 1960's technology. I do have power assisted brakes but that is it. I know all about paying attention.

I really don't think you'd want to get in the habit of expecting automated braking to be present . . . and then climb into that Tiger without giving further thought.


Personally, I don't want to be driving around in a car where somebody else's idea of when or how hard to use the brakes is overriding mine. It's a recipe for losing confidence in your car's behavior, even though it might be well-intended and generally benign.


Many years ago I had visions of dropping a 289/4-speed combination into an Austin-Healey.


Norm

 

[Higgs Boson]

These systems deactivate with your input in all cases except one: when you are pushing the brakes and the car knows you're still going to crash....so unless you want to crash, I can't see "wanting control" at that point. Go ahead and push the pedal harder for me.

 

[Todd15Fastback]

You guys are getting this all wrong. I just want to know why one and not the other.

BTW....my other Ride is a 1966 Sunbeam Tiger (google it). I have the original Ford 260 on a stand in the garage. It is powered now with a 454 HP Ford 347. It weighs 2500 lbs with 1960's technology. I do have power assisted brakes but that is it. I know all about paying attention.

Excellent taste in cars!! Your Sunbeam is beautiful with a great sounding engine :cheers:

 

[Norm Peterson]

These systems deactivate with your input in all cases except one: when you are pushing the brakes and the car knows you're still going to crash....so unless you want to crash, I can't see "wanting control" at that point. Go ahead and push the pedal harder for me.

You know that this kind of system is going to be calibrated more conservatively than absolutely necessary, meaning that it will be entirely possible for it to intervene before somebody with decent braking skills needs any help. Sorry, but I just can't make being startled when you're already braking at least moderately hard (and instantly wondering what just broke) sound like a good thing.

Care to bet against there being more cases of being rear-ended with this? Don't expect this system to be smart enough to adjust to a new threat from behind and back off its braking a bit. I know I'd be a lot pissed if a safety system was itself directly responsible for getting me hit.


Norm

 

[Higgs Boson]

You know that this kind of system is going to be calibrated more conservatively than absolutely necessary, meaning that it will be entirely possible for it to intervene before somebody with decent braking skills needs any help. Sorry, but I just can't make being startled when you're already braking at least moderately hard (and instantly wondering what just broke) sound like a good thing.

Care to bet against there being more cases of being rear-ended with this? Don't expect this system to be smart enough to adjust to a new threat from behind and back off its braking a bit. I know I'd be a lot pissed if a safety system was itself directly responsible for getting me hit.


Norm

Yes I would bet against it....this is not new technology just because Ford finally got on board.

look how far behind they are:
http://techcenter.mercedes-benz.com/en/pre_safe_plus/detail.html
http://techcenter.mercedes-benz.com/en/result.html?c=Safety

 

[Norm Peterson]

That it isn't new doesn't matter if it's not smart enough to cope with an impending crash from the rear because the guy behind you hasn't got the chops to get himself stopped in time. Don't assume that he's got any kind of brake assist, or that if he does that it's equally conservative, or that his tires can support the required braking performance. Your computer's straight-to-ABS braking logic will collect him.

Don't assume that just because a computer is involved that it's incapable of ever doing the wrong thing. Fallible humans programmed it . . .


Norm

 

[Higgs Boson]

That it isn't new doesn't matter if it's not smart enough to cope with an impending crash from the rear because the guy behind you hasn't got the chops to get himself stopped in time. Don't assume that he's got any kind of brake assist, or that if he does that it's equally conservative, or that his tires can support the required braking performance. Your computer's straight-to-ABS braking logic will collect him.

Don't assume that just because a computer is involved that it's incapable of ever doing the wrong thing. Fallible humans programmed it . . .


Norm

I don't think anyone thinks it is "infallible." And if someone rear ends you because the car hit the brakes when you weren't paying attention, it is no different from someone rear ending you because you hit the brakes when you were paying attention....

You are being resistant to change, technology averse, and alarmist. I have been around and using this technology for 15 years and have been in the auto industry for 25 years. Even though you say "that it isn't new doesn't matter" your concerns are congruent with concerns when it was new, which means your concerns are 15 years old. 15 years is a long time for technology....Windows 98 was out.

 

[awmustang]

That it isn't new doesn't matter if it's not smart enough to cope with an impending crash from the rear because the guy behind you hasn't got the chops to get himself stopped in time. Don't assume that he's got any kind of brake assist, or that if he does that it's equally conservative, or that his tires can support the required braking performance. Your computer's straight-to-ABS braking logic will collect him.

Don't assume that just because a computer is involved that it's incapable of ever doing the wrong thing. Fallible humans programmed it . . .


Norm

Have you not seen the commercials for these systems by other automakers? The car stops within inches of the object. INCHES. That means that you wouldn't want to let up on the brakes even if there was an impending rear collision because then you'd slam into the guy in front going that much faster and causing that much more damage. Go watch one of the many videos where someone puts the system to the test with one of those inflatable cars. In some cases the systems were unable to prevent an impact, but lessened the severity. [ame] As the video points out the systems activate very late to prevent you from relying on them. These systems are last resorts. They are not to be used instead of the brake pedal. This isn't automated driving or automated braking. And most, if not all systems give an audible and visual warning before they hit the brakes, so that your attention can snap back to where it should have been in the first place and you can apply the brakes.

I'm all for paying attention when you drive, put the phone down and all that. But it's a great big world out there and things catch your eye and your attention. This is just an additional safety net. Don't tell me that you have never looked away from the road ahead even for a split second. I won't believe you. You need to change the radio station, adjust the climate controls, or a sweet Mustang is going the other way and you turn to check it out. It happens. These systems are analogous to airbags. You don't ever want to actually use it but you'll be thankful you have it if you ever need it.

 

[Norm Peterson]

M6G automated braking

I don't think anyone thinks it is "infallible."

That's surely the impression I get from the way it's being pitched. Of course, nobody is going to present any possible shortcomings . . . it'd be career suicide just for starters.

And if someone rear ends you because the car hit the brakes when you weren't paying attention, it is no different from someone rear ending you because you hit the brakes when you were paying attention....

You're assuming a bit too much here. I'm not the guy in the current TV advertisement who is 'saved' from hitting a parked car as he was about to drop his daughter off at school and was momentarily distracted.

There is a difference, as I can (and do when the situation arises) gauge my braking according to both what I'm trying to not hit in front of me and what I'm trying to not let hit me from behind. Sort of "rubberbanding" the overall distance between the guy ahead and the guy behind. It's a useful skill to have, and not something that these systems are described as having. Not yet, at least.

You are being resistant to change,

I'll give you this, though I'm pretty sure I've got the driving record to back it up.

technology averse,

Technology that accomplishes something useful and which stays out of my way while it's doing its thing is one thing. Technology that would fight with me over control of my car is something else entirely.

That may well be the answer for those whose concept of driving is limited to starting their cars up, slapping them into 'D' or 'R' as applicable, aiming more or less down the black stuff, and periodically putting gas in the tank. But I'm not that kind of driver.

Let me ask a question here . . . how many people here ever brake much harder than necessary just to "stay current" with what hard braking feels like? Sure, you have to make sure that you aren't in traffic, but can you put your car on the verge of ABS without quite engaging it?

and alarmist.

All I did was point out a potential weakness. I'm not the least bit sorry for not being all starry-eyed over technology that substitutes another human's thought processes for my own thoughts and experience.

I have been around and using this technology for 15 years and have been in the auto industry for 25 years. Even though you say "that it isn't new doesn't matter" your concerns are congruent with concerns when it was new, which means your concerns are 15 years old. 15 years is a long time for technology....Windows 98 was out.

ABS is arguably the most mature active safety technology to date, and even that one still can't get it right under certain circumstances.

Since you mentioned it, Win98 had everything I needed, with the possible exception of maybe not being able to handle a spreadsheet that stores at 4.6MB but which is dynamically about 25MB in its current state of development (it's an acceleration simulation, in case you were wondering). I don't need Win10's bells, whistles, and spyware-on-steroids.


Norm

 

[Norm Peterson]

Have you not seen the commercials for these systems by other automakers? The car stops within inches of the object. INCHES. That means that you wouldn't want to let up on the brakes even if there was an impending rear collision because then you'd slam into the guy in front going that much faster and causing that much more damage. Go watch one of the many videos where someone puts the system to the test with one of those inflatable cars. In some cases the systems were unable to prevent an impact, but lessened the severity. As the video points out the systems activate very late to prevent you from relying on them. These systems are last resorts. They are not to be used instead of the brake pedal. This isn't automated driving or automated braking. And most, if not all systems give an audible and visual warning before they hit the brakes, so that your attention can snap back to where it should have been in the first place and you can apply the brakes.

I'm all for paying attention when you drive, put the phone down and all that. But it's a great big world out there and things catch your eye and your attention. This is just an additional safety net. Don't tell me that you have never looked away from the road ahead even for a split second. I won't believe you. You need to change the radio station, adjust the climate controls, or a sweet Mustang is going the other way and you turn to check it out. It happens. These systems are analogous to airbags. You don't ever want to actually use it but you'll be thankful you have it if you ever need it.

You can always configure a demonstration to show a product in at least generally favorable light, and that's easy when it's reasonable to fear the suggested alternative. Having a video commentator given to enthusiastic support of said product certainly doesn't hurt. You'll notice that he didn't dwell on the failures.

Actually, I'm very much aware of what I'm doing as a driver and what the car is doing or has margin left to do - makes me a poor conversationalist on most drives. No, I can't say I never look away momentarily, but in 50+ years of driving I guess I never picked a bad time to do so. I'm not lucky enough to have gotten by on that alone for this long. But maybe only buying manual transmission cars and never using cruise control are things in my favor . . . I have to pay more attention that way.

In that time, I've had about half a dozen stops that were as close as the successful ones in your video link, and maybe about one more per set of tires I've ever bought that wasn't quite as close. Many more where it was easy to rubberband my car's spacing.

I've had some bad to go along with the good . . . in 1966 I had a 3 mph incident at the exit to a college parking lot, and later that year a much more serious crash involving black ice (that no nanny short of forward-facing JATO bottles could have saved me from). Had a guy roll back into me on a hill, and been rear-ended while stopped a couple of times. Yeah, I suppose I should wish that the first guy had had Hill Start Assist and that the others had the braking technology under discussion here, but there wasn't enough damage to matter in any of those.


Serious but simple questions . . . do you think these systems are calibrated for dry conditions or wet? Why might it matter, and do you think you should know which condition your car's system was developed for?


Norm

Sponsored