Pre-collision alert went off, nothing there

[wynand32]

These systems have significant proven benefits for poor/inattentive/stupid/etc. drivers, while alienating those who can drive properly.
If they save you, then you shouldn't have been driving in the first place. The first time the system breaks for you for good reason, and actually saves you, you should turn in your driver's licence.

Just the other day, some idiot pulled in front of me and the proximity alert went off. I was quick enough in this instance to brake on my own, but I can easily imagine a scenario where I might not have been. The one thing a system like this should be able to do is to react more quickly than me in "brute force" situations like that (i.e., computers can be faster in some specific things, like in chess they can run through more possible moves than a human), so I'm glad it's there.

I'm okay with a false negative every now and then, although that IS dangerous because it causes me to look for something that's not there. Those split seconds of uncertainty can be disconcerting, which isn't good for safe driving. But as long as the system is working within parameters, I'll live with it.

Sponsored

 

[wynand32]

Did you get out and check to see if whatever you hit was already settling in the dust behind you?

In all seriousness, I did drive back to see what might have triggered it. There was nothing obvious that I could see, but I did notice that there was a guy loading his SUV on the left side of the road as the system triggered. Maybe his movement, which I didn't consciously notice, confused the system.

Also, no dust, because it's a residential neighborhood and I was going 25 max.

 

[Michael_vroomvroom]

I'm okay with a false negative every now and then, although that IS dangerous because it causes me to look for something that's not there. Those split seconds of uncertainty can be disconcerting, which isn't good for safe driving. But as long as the system is working within parameters, I'll live with it.

More dangerous is of course if your car suddenly brakes hard for no reason, causing the car behind to crash into you. That's why I (thought I had) set the system to give warnings only, but not actively brake.

Fortunately I have so far not experienced it braking actively, which I'm guessing means the criteria for braking is quite a bit stricter than the criteria for warning.

 

[Vlad Soare]

I don't agree. My sister's example is a good one. Plus NOBODY is perfect and we all make mistakes when driving no matter how good we think we are!

You're making it sound like getting your foot caught under the pedals were a normal driving event that could happen to any one of us. It's not. If this happens to you, then either you're wearing the wrong footwear (high heels, slippers, etc.), or your driving posture is wrong, or your technique is wrong, or maybe you're simply a poor driver. This is not a normal occurence. Your sister should concentrate on improving her technique rather than rely on the car to save her. She shouldn't see this event as "wow, this car is great and safe", but rather as, "oh, my God, I'm doing something seriously wrong; I must understand what that is and make sure I never do it again".

I stand by my belief that whoever needs this system shouldn't possess a driver's licence. Now, if you'd like to have it just as an insurance in case you might make an extremely unlikely mistake in the future, then sure, why not, go ahead, I'm fine with that. But if you feel you need it, then you should give up driving.

I'm not perfect and have made my share of mistakes over time. A lot of them. But never the kind of mistake that could have been avoided by this system. Whereas over just three years of Mk5 Mondeo ownership I had literally hundreds of false alerts (and no real one, none, zero, nada). I was already in full control each and every time, without exception. So to me the cost/benefit ratio is pretty bad. Two to three false alerts per week to insure against an event that hasn't happened even once in 26 years, that's unacceptable. It's like paying a thousand pounds a year for insurance against tsunamis when you live in the mountains.

 

[wynand32]

You're making it sound like getting your foot caught under the pedals were a normal driving event that could happen to any one of us. It's not. If this happens to you, then either you're wearing the wrong footwear (high heels, slippers, etc.), or your driving posture is wrong, or your technique is wrong, or maybe you're simply a poor driver. This is not a normal occurence. Your sister should concentrate on improving her technique rather than rely on the car to save her. She shouldn't see this event as "wow, this car is great and safe", but rather as, "oh, my God, I'm doing something seriously wrong; I must understand what that is and make sure I never do it again".

I stand by my belief that whoever needs this system shouldn't possess a driver's licence. Now, if you'd like to have it just as an insurance in case you might make an extremely unlikely mistake in the future, then sure, why not, go ahead, I'm fine with that. But if you feel you need it, then you should give up driving.

I'm not perfect and have made my share of mistakes over time. A lot of them. But never the kind of mistake that could have been avoided by this system. Whereas over just three years of Mk5 Mondeo ownership I had literally hundreds of false alerts (and no real one, none, zero, nada). I was already in full control each and every time, without exception. So to me the cost/benefit ratio is pretty bad. Two to three false alerts per week to insure against an event that hasn't happened even once in 26 years, that's unacceptable.

I think this is something of a red herring. Everyone here appears to arguing for those abnormal situations that just happen, not that the system should be relied upon in normal driving conditions. I think it's unfair to characterize the "foot under the pedal" situation as the person's fault -- weird things happen to even the best drivers. That's why such a system is valuable to have, even if it's not ever used.

Now, the scenario that you experienced with that many false alerts is clearly a problem. But that's an extreme case.

 

[Vlad Soare]

That's why such a system is valuable to have, even if it's not ever used.

Yeah, but it's ultimately about the cost/benefit ratio. Like I said, if you're prepared to pay the high cost just for peace of mind, then by all means, do it, I've got nothing against it. But don't tell me you need it. If you need it then you shouldn't be driving.

Let's assume even the best of us could have their foot caught under a pedal. If it happens once in a lifetime, but you have to live through thousands of false alerts over said lifetime just to prepare for that one event, then the cost/benefit ratio is much too high. I'd rather crash the car once and be done with it than live my whole life in constant fear.
And if it happens more than once, then you're definitely doing something wrong. You may convince me that it could happen to anyone, but not more than once. Once might be bad luck; twice is driver error.

 

[Vlad Soare]

More dangerous is of course if your car suddenly brakes hard for no reason, causing the car behind to crash into you. That's why I (thought I had) set the system to give warnings only, but not actively brake.

A friend of mine nearly got killed by such a system (not a Ford vehicle, some other brand) when it braked by itself while he was overtaking a lorry.

Fortunately I have so far not experienced it braking actively, which I'm guessing means the criteria for braking is quite a bit stricter than the criteria for warning.

I have, though fortunately not as strongly as in the Mondeo.
So I can attest that it does indeed apply the brakes. I'm not sure if it's more refined than in the Mondeo (I expect it is, given that it's newer), or I was simply lucky. I never found out because I deactivated it for good soon thereafter.

 

[Rapid Red]

In all seriousness, I did drive back to see what might have triggered it. There was nothing obvious that I could see, but I did notice that there was a guy loading his SUV on the left side of the road as the system triggered. Maybe his movement, which I didn't consciously notice, confused the system.

Also, no dust, because it's a residential neighborhood and I was going 25 max.

The system tracks the driving habits, and the data gathered calculates any coming event that the driver could crash his car. Parameters monitored are speed, lag time standing at red lights, aka cellphone brain farts, ability to stay between the lines, and red light (yellow light) runners, there are other categories also, like how many times others blow their horns at the car cutting them off.

 

[wynand32]

Yeah, but it's ultimately about the cost/benefit ratio. Like I said, if you're prepared to pay the high cost just for peace of mind, then by all means, do it, I've got nothing against it. But don't tell me you need it. If you need it then you shouldn't be driving.

Let's assume even the best of us could have their foot caught under a pedal. If it happens once in a lifetime, but you have to live through thousands of false alerts over said lifetime just to prepare for that one event, then the cost/benefit ratio is much too high. I'd rather crash the car once and be done with it than live my whole life in constant fear.
And if it happens more than once, then you're definitely doing something wrong. You may convince me that it could happen to anyone, but not more than once.

Again, I don't think anyone is arguing that such a system is NEEDED. But I described a situation where, if I were just a split-second slower (which is entirely possible, and I consider myself a good driver), there would have been an accident. It's nice to know that the system exists for just such instances.

Again, the situation you describe of getting multiple false alerts a week is clearly counter-productive and, to me, indicates that something's broken. But that's not what anyone is talking about. Rather, we're talking about rare occurrences. And I'm glad to know that it does happen, even if rarely, so that I don't have to worry (at this point) about my system simply being defective.

 

[Gregs24]

You're making it sound like getting your foot caught under the pedals were a normal driving event that could happen to any one of us. It's not. If this happens to you, then either you're wearing the wrong footwear (high heels, slippers, etc.), or your driving posture is wrong, or your technique is wrong, or maybe you're simply a poor driver. This is not a normal occurence. Your sister should concentrate on improving her technique rather than rely on the car to save her. She shouldn't see this event as "wow, this car is great and safe", but rather as, "oh, my God, I'm doing something seriously wrong; I must understand what that is and make sure I never do it again".

I stand by my belief that whoever needs this system shouldn't possess a driver's licence. Now, if you'd like to have it just as an insurance in case you might make an extremely unlikely mistake in the future, then sure, why not, go ahead, I'm fine with that. But if you feel you need it, then you should give up driving.

I'm not perfect and have made my share of mistakes over time. A lot of them. But never the kind of mistake that could have been avoided by this system. Whereas over just three years of Mk5 Mondeo ownership I had literally hundreds of false alerts (and no real one, none, zero, nada). I was already in full control each and every time, without exception. So to me the cost/benefit ratio is pretty bad. Two to three false alerts per week to insure against an event that hasn't happened even once in 26 years, that's unacceptable. It's like paying a thousand pounds a year for insurance against tsunamis when you live in the mountains.

It may not be a 'normal occurrence' but it did happen and my sisters car was not damaged because of the system saving her (not a Ford). Suggesting she should surrender her driving license because of it is risible.

Things happen to you for a first time all the time, you learn from those experiences, but to not use the benefit of others experiences in terms of safety systems is ludicrous.

There is a difference from 'needing' AEB to get down the road in one piece and benefitting from it in unusual and extreme cases, whether caused by you or others, which is why it is fitted.

 

[Gregs24]

The system tracks the driving habits, and the data gathered calculates any coming event that the driver could crash his car. Parameters monitored are speed, lag time standing at red lights, aka cellphone brain farts, ability to stay between the lines, and red light (yellow light) runners, there are other categories also, like how many times others blow their horns at the car cutting them off.

It really doesn't - but then I think you know that

 

[wynand32]

A friend of mine nearly got killed by such a system (not a Ford vehicle, some other brand) when it braked by itself while he was overtaking a lorry.

It's also true that in some accidents wearing a seatbelt is harmful. And it's possible for a person to be injured by the airbag deploying where they wouldn't be injured otherwise. Those are outlier cases, though, and don't argue for abandoning the technologies themself.

This is just one anecdote. I'd have to see far stronger statistics before I'd believe that having such a system is inherently dangerous compared to its potential value.

 

[Gregs24]

Again, I don't think anyone is arguing that such a system is NEEDED. But I described a situation where, if I were just a split-second slower (which is entirely possible, and I consider myself a good driver), there would have been an accident. It's nice to know that the system exists for just such instances.

Again, the situation you describe of getting multiple false alerts a week is clearly counter-productive and, to me, indicates that something's broken. But that's not what anyone is talking about. Rather, we're talking about rare occurrences. And I'm glad to know that it does happen, even if rarely, so that I don't have to worry (at this point) about my system simply being defective.

It also preloads the brakes meaning when you do brake they really work hard. A common cause of accidents is that the driver fails to put enough pressure through the brake pedal to reach optimum deceleration. The reason for brake boosters (not just servos)

 

[Gregs24]

Collision avoidance system - Wikipedia

Interesting data on the reduction in accidents, especially rear ending by around 50%. It was also interesting that the Berlin truck atack lorry was brought to a halt by the AEB system!

Should every rear end accident driver have their license revoked?

 

[Vlad Soare]

There is a difference from 'needing' AEB to get down the road in one piece and benefitting from it in unusual and extreme cases

In that case, I would expect it to be optional. The fact that the authorities make it mandatory for all new cars, and manufacturers make it cumbersome to turn off temporarily and impossible to turn off permanently, means that they consider it needed.
That's what I have a problem with. Not with the system itself, but with having it shoved down my throat.

Sponsored