Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It makes total sense because the car can react faster than you can. Pretty often I'm changing stations on my radio and my collision warning system beeps so I look up and brake. If the car didn't beep, I would be more likely in those instances to not react in time
Yesterday a car stopped very quickly in front of me and the car braked on its own
So, what were you driving before the new cars came out with these features?
This study tells me that if you cannot pay attention while driving, do not drive.
Remove the idiots from the population that should not be driving and that number will be reduced even further.
This thread tells me that providing information to the willfully ignorant is of no use. They will push it away and stubbornly hang on to their biases.
These systems have obvious advantages for people who do not pay attention while driving. they simply annoy people who do pay attention and prefer to control the car themselves. However if they stop some bozohead from backing into my truck in the parking garage, what is the problem with having them?
I would prefer there be an option to disable them however. There may be times when I want/need to back into something. I do not want my vehicle telling me I cannot.
I like the back up radar beeper thing in my truck, but if it was a brake thing, it could be a problem. The beeper thing does not work when it is covered with snow or mud, or when the tailgate is down. Also the sensors/wiring fail at times on some vehicles and the default is to ac as if there is an object in your path. If it was putting on the brakes and preventing me from backing up, I would be stuck.
More government studies that will eventually be meaningless. Remember when the third brake light was introduced. I was supposed to reduce rear end crashes. Except we know they don't work very well for drivers stopping at a red light camera location.
The center mount brake light is a passive measure. Automatic emergency braking is an active measure. Big difference. The center mount light still required a driver to see it and then slow the vehicle down or bring it to a stop. Automatic emergency braking takes over if a driver doesn't react or doesn't react fast enough. You cannot draw a conclusion about one by using the data obtained from studying the other.
Just where is the study? I'd be interested in reading it.
All I'm seeing from the OP is a small article referencing something that is basically a one page slide. No data, no details.
As is usual for the internet, any googling for this just leads you back to the summary.
It seems to me that any safety feature that is a clear winner would be eased into standard features by insurance rates. Cars from the previous era would be impossibly expensive to insure. No need for government intervention in the market.
Just where is the study? I'd be interested in reading it.
All I'm seeing from the OP is a small article referencing something that is basically a one page slide. No data, no details.
As is usual for the internet, any googling for this just leads you back to the summary.
It seems to me that any safety feature that is a clear winner would be eased into standard features by insurance rates. Cars from the previous era would be impossibly expensive to insure. No need for government intervention in the market.
Jesus H Christ - it's not just you, I am just getting so fed up with irrational people here who don't recognize the benefits of some tech features and claim that those who do are "stupid" or "lazy" or "don't know how to drive"; or in your case here, positing a gubmint conspiracy to dismiss the quantitative evidence.
I don't believe your assertion that the IIHS has a strong interest in lying about the effectiveness of safety features, I think that's ridiculous. Moreover, you say it's impossible to find anything about these so-called studies, there's just nothing out there anywhere on the web and that's another red flag that this is a conspiracy - you don't even need Google, did you try clicking on the $@!$ link right on that page that says "Selected IIHS Bilbliography"??? Aye yi-yi.
I was driving cars that didn't have those features. Duh?
Thanks for clarifying that, couldn't figure that on my own!
My point was that maybe you should keep your eyes on the road more. You are changing stations on your radio and happy that the car is automatically braking for you, I do not think that is safe practice.
Thanks for clarifying that, couldn't figure that on my own!
My point was that maybe you should keep your eyes on the road more. You are changing stations on your radio and happy that the car is automatically braking for you, I do not think that is safe practice.
Duh back at you for not getting my sarcasm.
You might be surprised at how rare crashes are, and yet how consistently they happen on average. I've never rear ended anyone except in this car when a disabled vehicle was behind a blind curve. It's just a matter of chance. I probably would not rear end anyone due to just looking away a second to change the radio station, but if the auto braking reduces that chance from 1/1000 to 1/10,000 that's worthwhile
I'm sorry but I don't think it's reasonable to tell people not to change the radio station. That's a normal part of driving a car.
Jesus H Christ - it's not just you, I am just getting so fed up with irrational people here who don't recognize the benefits of some tech features and claim that those who do are "stupid" or "lazy" or "don't know how to drive"; or in your case here, positing a gubmint conspiracy to dismiss the quantitative evidence.
I don't believe your assertion that the IIHS has a strong interest in lying about the effectiveness of safety features, I think that's ridiculous. Moreover, you say it's impossible to find anything about these so-called studies, there's just nothing out there anywhere on the web and that's another red flag that this is a conspiracy - you don't even need Google, did you try clicking on the $@!$ link right on that page that says "Selected IIHS Bilbliography"??? Aye yi-yi.
No assertion, as an engineer I'm actually interested. I didn't spot the pointer to the papers. lol on the 'gubmint conspiracy' since I mentioned nothing like that. Reread if you like.
What I'd be interested in seeing is results for a line of cars (Dodge Challenger maybe?) that accrued those features and see if the insurance company actually lowers the rates accordingly.
As I mentioned, I'd prefer for the insurance companies to drive the bus here rather than the government.
BTW, I'm hearing Yosemite Sam when I read your post here.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
