Pre collision alert system

[Bikeman315]

^^^ most times in the sort of traffic that might call for a sudden stop you should already be aware of a car ahead of you not having any working brake lights.
Now that the safety part of NJ's periodic motor vehicle inspection has been done away with, it's all too common to notice cars for which one, two, or all three brake lights are inop. Just another thing to watch and adjust for, like it always used to be.

Norm

How do you adjust for something you cannot see?

Sponsored

 

[Norm Peterson]

Just being aware of the possibility is one part of it. Noticing a lack of brake light illumination when experience tells you that at least one brake light should have been lit is the other part. In the kind of traffic where a sudden stop is likely, you nearly always get both parts of your warning before you need them.

It helps if you can avoid following directly behind an SUV and can pick up cues from what traffic further ahead is doing.


Norm.

 

[Bikeman315]

Just being aware of the possibility is one part of it. Noticing a lack of brake light illumination when experience tells you that at least one brake light should have been lit is the other part. In the kind of traffic where a sudden stop is likely, you nearly always get both parts of your warning before you need them.
It helps if you can avoid following directly behind an SUV and can pick up cues from what traffic further ahead is doing.

Norm.

Norm, I love you, but are you saying that every scenario known to man can be anticipated. There is nothing in your entire life that has taken you by surprise? And if something other than your own brain could help you get out of a dangerous and possibly life endangering situation you wouldn't use it? Nope, I do not think so.

 

[WildHorse]

The first time an idiot without brake lights slams on them and your car does the same you will be singing a different tune

What they teach you in drivers ed about distance between you and the car your following? Also, if your tailgating & a dude without brake lights slams the brakes, you think the computer will stop any faster? If you don't tailgate, see my previous statement.

 

[shogun32]

The first time an idiot without brake lights slams on them and your car does the same you will be singing a different tune

and yet upteen cars behind you don't have autonomous braking and it's a 5+ car pileup now... Your front end might have been pristine but your ass sure isn't. And after you get walloped from the rear, the frontend is not going to buff out any more.

I don't mind a visual or even auditory emergency but I've seen plenty of false indications that I would be very unhappy if the brakes were applied without my say so. Thinning the herd of stupid is a required law of nature. It sucks if it's some kid, (adults I don't mind running over) but that's how the cookie crumbles.

 

[Michael_vroomvroom]

Ideally you will keep an eye out for the distance both to the car ahead and to the car behind, trying to leave a safe amount of space both in front and in the back. But even if you do, you obviously have no control over how fast the driver behind will react or how much attention he or she is paying, so there's not all that much you can do about what is behind you. Riding a bike, you only need to get hit once from behind before you start to get really paranoid about who's driving behind you and choosing to jump past the car in front, letting the idiot behind possibly hitting a car instead of killing you. Unfortunately you can't always do that in a car, so sometimes one just have to grind and bear it.

What you can control much better is what is in front of you. If you have to slam the brakes to avoid hitting the car in front, you have done your job (or, the driver assist has done it for you). If this leads the car behind you (and the car behind that) into slamming into you because the driver is slow and did not leave enough space between you and him, that is a most unfortunate problem, but at least financially, the problem will usually be for the driver of the car behind. He or his insurance will be out of pocket to fix your car, not the other way around, which is what will happen if you slam into the car in front.

The system, at least on my 2020 model, seems to work fine. No false positives to speak of, and I think, no active braking triggered either. One case I'm not sure about since that time I was hitting the brakes at the same time or a few milliseconds after the visual/audio warning. Unlike some other drivers here, I will admit that there may be half a second here or there where I have not paid 100% attention to the road. If something bad happens in that split second and the emergency braking triggers, I'd be damn happy.

Edit: and FWIW, at least on the 2020 model, there is an option in the sync3 terminal to disable active braking (or whatever it's officially called), as well as to adjust the sensitivity level. I guess it's for those who pay 100% attention 100% of the time.

 

[WildHorse]

I guess it's for those who pay 100% attention 100% of the time.

LOL. DRIVERLESS cars pay 100% attention 100% of the time too. How'd that turn out for some unfortunate souls?

 

[shogun32]

The so-called technology in these system is so bad they are pretty much worthless. Unless you're driving a Camry.

AAA tested collision avoidance
(from https://arstechnica.com/cars/2019/1...bably-wont-stop-you-from-hitting-pedestrians/ which in turn is referencing https://www.aaa.com/AAA/common/aar/files/Research-Report-Pedestrian-Detection.pdf)

"Unfortunately, the results of the tests were very much a mixed bag. For the Chevy Malibu, while it detected the adult pedestrian at 20mph (32km/h) an average of 2.1 seconds and 63 feet (19.2m) before impact, in five tests it failed to actually apply the brakes enough to reduce the speed significantly before each collision took place. The Tesla Model 3 managed little better; it also hit the pedestrian dummy in each of five runs.

On average, the Chevy slowed by 2.8mph (4.5km/h) and alerted the driver on average 1.4 seconds and 41.7 feet (12.7m) before impact. In two runs, there was no braking at all, even though the system detected the pedestrian dummy.

The Honda Accord performed better. Although it notified the driver much closer to the pedestrian (time-to-collision at 0.7 seconds, distance 32 feet/9.7m), it also prevented the impact from occurring in three of five runs and slowed the car to 0.6mph (1km/h) in a fourth.

Best of all was the Toyota Camry. It gave a visual notification at 1.2 seconds and 35.5 feet (10.8m) before impact. But the Camry also stopped completely before reaching the dummy in each of five runs."

So Tesla's 6 year advantage in electronics results in 100% kills. Well done Tesla.

About all the technology is good for is car to car crashes.

 

[Norm Peterson]

Norm, I love you, but are you saying that every scenario known to man can be anticipated. There is nothing in your entire life that has taken you by surprise?

Nothing that any pre-collision alert or active braking would have "saved" that I didn't save all by myself. And that includes having a few "brake jobs" thrown at me over the years.

Understand that I've been driving since 1963, and that the vast majority of that driving has been in the complete absence of any sort of braking assist (other than the completely-dumb vacuum-booster pedal force assist). Plus, "back in the day", brake lights weren't nearly as bright as many of today's brake lights are, brakes weren't nearly as good as today's, and even the 3rd high-mounted brake light was no more than a futuristic dream.

Currently, the score stands at 2 minor rear-endings due to brake system faults (low/nonexistent booster vacuum), zero due to driving fault. About 30 years apart, both under 5 mph.

One of the things I picked up pretty early was to rely on more than just the brake lights of the car ahead of me. That's something that gradually became of somewhat greater value as more cars became fitted with automatic transmissions, where the driver tends to either ride the brakes or constantly taps them just to maintain speed and never actually slows down much. Think about this for a moment - are those brake lights on "for real" or just for speed maintenance? How do you react?

And if something other than your own brain could help you get out of a dangerous and possibly life endangering situation you wouldn't use it? Nope, I do not think so.

Let's just say that based on my own personal experience and driving record, I'm comfortable with however much added risk might be involved. I'm more afraid of allowing only that much reliance on these systems to develop, where I might pass on needing to maintain whatever it is that's got me to this point without any such help. Unintended consequences.

It's not just within the automotive area where people have become far more risk-averse than they used to be. But that's something you can't really see unless you'd been there when risks were unquestionably higher and people learned ways of dealing with it other than having it done for them.


Norm

 

[m3incorp]

I've been wondering since I see that collision avoidance is also on the manuals with the safe and smart option; Let's say you are in first gear and it does the braking, does this cause the car to choke off, due to the clutch not being engaged?

 

[shogun32]

does this cause the car to choke off, due to the clutch not being engaged?

of course. Unless you have a GT500 with the DCT which for the purposes of that scenario is an automatic.

 

[m3incorp]

of course. Unless you have a GT500 with the DCT which for the purposes of that scenario is an automatic.

I guess my question was more that I've never heard of anyone with a manual have it kick in to that extent.

 

[Michael_vroomvroom]

The so-called technology in these system is so bad they are pretty much worthless. Unless you're driving a Camry.

AAA tested collision avoidance
(from https://arstechnica.com/cars/2019/1...bably-wont-stop-you-from-hitting-pedestrians/ which in turn is referencing https://www.aaa.com/AAA/common/aar/files/Research-Report-Pedestrian-Detection.pdf)

"Unfortunately, the results of the tests were very much a mixed bag. For the Chevy Malibu, while it detected the adult pedestrian at 20mph (32km/h) an average of 2.1 seconds and 63 feet (19.2m) before impact, in five tests it failed to actually apply the brakes enough to reduce the speed significantly before each collision took place. The Tesla Model 3 managed little better; it also hit the pedestrian dummy in each of five runs.

On average, the Chevy slowed by 2.8mph (4.5km/h) and alerted the driver on average 1.4 seconds and 41.7 feet (12.7m) before impact. In two runs, there was no braking at all, even though the system detected the pedestrian dummy.

The Honda Accord performed better. Although it notified the driver much closer to the pedestrian (time-to-collision at 0.7 seconds, distance 32 feet/9.7m), it also prevented the impact from occurring in three of five runs and slowed the car to 0.6mph (1km/h) in a fourth.

Best of all was the Toyota Camry. It gave a visual notification at 1.2 seconds and 35.5 feet (10.8m) before impact. But the Camry also stopped completely before reaching the dummy in each of five runs."

So Tesla's 6 year advantage in electronics results in 100% kills. Well done Tesla.

About all the technology is good for is car to car crashes.

Only an idiot, of which there unfortunately are some driving/being driven by "autonomous" cars, would rely on these systems today. Particularly the report mentioned at https://spectrum.ieee.org/cars-that...-car-crash-reveals-lax-attitude-toward-safety is a depressing read on the state of this software, and it's almost unbelievable such cars are allowed on the road, with idiot "drivers" to boot.

What Ford's system - at least in my limited 6 week experience - does is monitor what's ahead, and sometimes it has given me an heads up that there's something requiring extra attention. So far it has not been of any use as we all try to pay attention to what's ahead.
Hopefully it will continue to be of no use, but everyone may have a momentarily lapse of attention for some reason, and that's what its current use is for. Maybe, just maybe, it will work well enough to help at that time. If it does not, that's bad luck, but it's still just my own fault for not paying proper attention.

Treat it as a minor aid that may or may not help you, and all is fine. Rely on it and you're sure to kill someone.

 

[Michael_vroomvroom]

I've been wondering since I see that collision avoidance is also on the manuals with the safe and smart option; Let's say you are in first gear and it does the braking, does this cause the car to choke off, due to the clutch not being engaged?

I think the intent is that you will also be braking manually yourself (the system beeps and flashes to alert you), and hitting the clutch too, so the car will not necessarily stall. Only if you are so absent-minded or sick (e.g., heart attack) that you will not start braking yourself also would I expect the car to stall.

Since I have a MT with this system (standard in Europe), I could try, but I'm not immediately sure on how I could try it in a safe manner. Perhaps driving through a big cardboard box and see what happens would work, but don't think I'm curious enough about it. In any case I doubt it's a much of a priority to not have the engine stall if the system thinks a crash is imminent and brakes have to be applied.

 

[Vlad Soare]

If the detection algorithm is perfect, and it never freaks out for no reason, and it never brakes unless it is absolutely clear, without any shadow of a doubt, that it's too late for any human being to possibly react anymore, then you can treat it as a minor aid, and all is fine.
But if it brakes while you're in control, then it's not a minor aid, but a major nuisance.
If your reaction after it brakes is "oh my God, lucky me, it has saved me", then all is fine.
If your reaction is "holy shit, why on Earth are you braking, you stupid crap?", then all is not fine.

Since I have a MT with this system (standard in Europe), I could try, but I'm not immediately sure on how I could try it in a safe manner. Perhaps driving through a big cardboard box and see what happens would work, but don't think I'm curious enough about it. In any case doubt it's a much of a priority to not have the engine stall if the system thinks a crash is imminent and brakes have to be applied.

Cardboard boxes will either not work at all (i.e. will not be detected), or will work perfectly (i.e. the car will brake at the very last moment, just on the verge of touching the box). It wouldn't be a relevant test.
The system works correctly in clear-cut situations. Namely, when the car in front of you stops suddenly, and you don't show any intention of slowing down. Where it gets it awfully wrong is when the car it detects is moving laterally. Let's say I'm doing 40-45 mph. A car coming the other way wants to turn left, about 150 yards ahead of me. I can see it, and I can determine that it will have more than enough time to clear the way long before my arrival at that point. Consequently, I decide not to slow down. At that moment the alert might flash (which is correct). If, however, that car slows down a bit, but I don't because I estimate that it can still clear the way in time (or maybe I decide to pull a bit left and to go around it), it will brake automatically, and extremely violently at that. The car will stop dead in its tracks. I can't even begin to describe how maddening that is. And dangerous for that matter.

On one such occasion the driver behind me was caught by surprise. Luckily we were in the second lane, and the first lane was clear, so he was able pull right at the very last moment and to swerve around me. But it was a very close call. I opened the window and apologized - told him I didn't mean to do that, but the stupid car has a mind of its own.

Sponsored