Car safety features.

[cambsno]

Electronic Stability Control and ABS are designed to assist for circumstances beyond your control.

Speed Assist, Lane-Keep Assist, Automatic Emergency Braking, Drowsiness/Attention monitoring, Blind spot Monitoring etc are all for things within your control. That's the key difference.

There is also a difference between 'enhancements' (such as PAS, torque vectoring, brake wash, auto wipers/headlights etc) and 'assists'. I'm not against new tech if it enhances or improves your driving experience, however, many of the above "assists" whilst have most likely prevented many an accident, may also encourage bad habits/behaviour; which is a valid argument in my opinion.

But despite what some say, we all lose concentration from time to time, be that thinking what we need from shops, telling off kids in back, arguing with the Mrs or changing radio stations, or even just being a but tired on the way into work. It shouldn't happen but it does and it always will. I don't drive half asleep because I have lane assist but if I do stray it gets me back on track. Also it does help, lazy driving means I don't always indicate but because lane assist is so annoying when you don't that has improved.

You could argue that all these airbags and safety features make us all feel more safe so we drive worse than we would if the car was far more flimsy. Overall the tech is good for us and I see no reason to keep cars in the 1980s or 90s

 

[cambsno]

Those stats appear to show that cycling is now safer.

However, any look at the question should look at the big picture. There are other factors to be taken into consideration. Pollution, public health, for example.

Many cycle paths are not fit for purpose, especially if on a road bike and doing 20mph on a path with kids, and other hazards.

There is this thing called road sense. If people have it, accidents are minimised and that goes for pedestrians (walking 4 abreast filling up the shared bike/walking path), keeping control of kids/dogs, cyclists and car drivers too

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

However, any look at the question should look at the big picture. There are other factors to be taken into consideration. Pollution, public health, for example.

The big picture would also include, in that case, the danger that cyclists represent to pedestrians...

Cyclists kill or seriously injure 1,400 pedestrians since 2013

Former Tory leader Sir Iain Duncan Smith has vowed to close a loophole which can see cyclists who kill or injure pedestrians escape prosecution as they cannot be held to account, pictured, Brian Fitzpatrick.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Record numbers of pedestrians killed or seriously injured in crashes with cyclists

Last year’s total of 189 serious collisions is highest ever recorded

www.telegraph.co.uk

I find it odd that it's hard to find information on this from government sources. However...

Cyclist and pedestrian collisions

Questions to the Mayor: For the years 2015, 2016 and 2017, please can you provide the number of pedestrians killed by collisions with cyclists and the number of pedestrians injured by collisions with cyclists?

www.london.gov.uk

There is considerable anecdotal evidence that only a small proportion of all collissions between cyclists and pedestrians are ever reported. As an example, an ex-police inspector once told me that, in his experience, the report rate for cyclist-pedestrian collissions was probably around 5%,

 

[gman]

But despite what some say, we all lose concentration from time to time, be that thinking what we need from shops, telling off kids in back, arguing with the Mrs or changing radio stations, or even just being a but tired on the way into work. It shouldn't happen but it does and it always will. I don't drive half asleep because I have lane assist but if I do stray it gets me back on track. Also it does help, lazy driving means I don't always indicate but because lane assist is so annoying when you don't that has improved.

You could argue that all these airbags and safety features make us all feel more safe so we drive worse than we would if the car was far more flimsy. Overall the tech is good for us and I see no reason to keep cars in the 1980s or 90s

This is the important part (bold) because these points you are a making are indicative of driving without due care and attention. Mobile phone use has been clamped down on for similar reasons; it distracts.

Naturally, I appreciate the reality of the situation, so perhaps these "assist" systems should keep a log counter interventions and after a defined number some sort of consequence initiated? At least this way they will more applicable as a safety feature rather than a cover for bad driving.

Re. airbags and other safety feature, they typically don't come into play until it's absolutely critical, so I doubt people will be so engaged with them. Most of the "assist" features are more of an early warning feature, which has merits of its own but still doesn't negate that they can encourage poor driving.

Like I already said, tech which improves I am very much for, but we should still be mindful of the negatives.

 

[Pound Coin]

The big picture would also include, in that case, the danger that cyclists represent to pedestrians...

Cyclists kill or seriously injure 1,400 pedestrians since 2013

Former Tory leader Sir Iain Duncan Smith has vowed to close a loophole which can see cyclists who kill or injure pedestrians escape prosecution as they cannot be held to account, pictured, Brian Fitzpatrick.

www.dailymail.co.uk

I guess it is not surprising that The Daily Mail has such gems as "Cyclists do not have to stick to speed limits as they are excluded from road traffic legislation." (and as an aside, drivers ARE subject to speed limits, but it is not always apparent...)

Record numbers of pedestrians killed or seriously injured in crashes with cyclists

Last year’s total of 189 serious collisions is highest ever recorded

www.telegraph.co.uk

I find it odd that it's hard to find information on this from government sources. However...

Cyclist and pedestrian collisions

Questions to the Mayor: For the years 2015, 2016 and 2017, please can you provide the number of pedestrians killed by collisions with cyclists and the number of pedestrians injured by collisions with cyclists?

www.london.gov.uk

It's about relativity. Certainly one can get very wound up about cyclists, but in fact most (by a very long way) damage and death comes from motorised vehicles. cambsno says up thread that we all lose concentration from time to time. Something that should be recognised. If you lose concentration when driving for work, there's a whole lot more to answer for than if you do it as a private driver.

There is considerable anecdotal evidence that only a small proportion of all collissions between cyclists and pedestrians are ever reported. As an example, an ex-police inspector once told me that, in his experience, the report rate for cyclist-pedestrian collissions was probably around 5%,

I would suggest that taking the view of one ex-policeman is not a great way to formulate traffic and road legislation.

 

[cambsno]

This is the important part (bold) because these points you are a making are indicative of driving without due care and attention. Mobile phone use has been clamped down on for similar reasons; it distracts.

Naturally, I appreciate the reality of the situation, so perhaps these "assist" systems should keep a log counter interventions and after a defined number some sort of consequence initiated? At least this way they will more applicable as a safety feature rather than a cover for bad driving.

Re. airbags and other safety feature, they typically don't come into play until it's absolutely critical, so I doubt people will be so engaged with them. Most of the "assist" features are more of an early warning feature, which has merits of its own but still doesn't negate that they can encourage poor driving.

Like I already said, tech which improves I am very much for, but we should still be mindful of the negatives.

But that part in bold is real life - is it really without due care and attention, can anyone with 100% certainty say they are always at 100% focus and attentiveness? I will admit there are many times my life whether walking, cycling and driving that my levels have not been at 100% but I don't think we need to criminalise them. Only the other week I was on my way somewhere but took a wrong turn as it was slightly different to my normal route. We have all done it.

Accidents will always happen, and new tech will not get rid of them but may reduce them in a small part and it all adds up.

 

[gman]

But that part in bold is real life - is it really without due care and attention, can anyone with 100% certainty say they are always at 100% focus and attentiveness? I will admit there are many times my life whether walking, cycling and driving that my levels have not been at 100% but I don't think we need to criminalise them. Only the other week I was on my way somewhere but took a wrong turn as it was slightly different to my normal route. We have all done it.

Accidents will always happen, and new tech will not get rid of them but may reduce them in a small part and it all adds up.

I doubt anyone is at 100% all of the time, but just how low does this number need to go before you drift out of your lane etc? Driving without due care or attention is already a criminal offence, just like holding and using a mobile phone. But I wouldn't advocate such for "assist" features kicking in, however, it could be linked with insurance premiums, just like a black box is.

As I've said, things like Stability Control, ABS etc can help protect against things outwith your control such as black ice, blowout etc. But these "assist" features are there to help against what is essentially poor driving. The driving factor behind the two are very different. Excuse the pun.

 

[Pound Coin]

But that part in bold is real life - is it really without due care and attention, can anyone with 100% certainty say they are always at 100% focus and attentiveness? I will admit there are many times my life whether walking, cycling and driving that my levels have not been at 100% but I don't think we need to criminalise them. Only the other week I was on my way somewhere but took a wrong turn as it was slightly different to my normal route. We have all done it.

Accidents will always happen, and new tech will not get rid of them but may reduce them in a small part and it all adds up.

Far fewer "accidents" would happen if private drivers were faced with penalties similar to those that employed drivers do. If the licence was treated as a privilege, rather than a right, there would be far fewer "lapses in concentration".

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

I guess it is not surprising that The Daily Mail has such gems as "Cyclists do not have to stick to speed limits as they are excluded from road traffic legislation."

I am not an advocate for the Daily Mail or the Telegraph but in this case they are reflecting an opinion which the Guardian and such like do not appear to consider worth reporting.

Certainly one can get very wound up about cyclists, but in fact most (by a very long way) damage and death comes from motorised vehicles.

If you consider the high rate of non-reporting and the much lower number of cyclists than drivers, then I think it's reasonable to assume that bad cyclists are as big a menace as bad drivers.

I would suggest that taking the view of one ex-policeman is not a great way to formulate traffic and road legislation.

I have known several police officers well, both serving and retired. My experience is that, as a group, they are seldom likely to exagerate.

As I have mentioned several times on this site, I used to cycle daily and saw that most cyclists are both careful and courteous but there are too many who are the opposite. For whatever reason, British legislators have given cyclists a free pass when it comes to safety and that results in unnecessary injury or or even death.

It's stupid really, because being a safe rider is easy and so many practice it...

 

[cambsno]

Far fewer "accidents" would happen if private drivers were faced with penalties similar to those that employed drivers do. If the licence was treated as a privilege, rather than a right, there would be far fewer "lapses in concentration".

But where do you draw the line - people that drive at 40mph in a 60 when there are no adverse conditions? People that hog the middle lane? People that stop or slow down on a motorway slip road or stop or pull out at the wrong time at roundabout? All of those are my pet hates but it would be impossible in the short term to police this - you would need retrospective additions to all vehicles, and I am sure there are ways to bypass.

Also knowing governments it would be used as a tax mechanism - I doubt anyone would get a rebate on it for driving well, just additional cost.

 

[Pound Coin]

But where do you draw the line - people that drive at 40mph in a 60 when there are no adverse conditions? People that hog the middle lane? People that stop or slow down on a motorway slip road or stop or pull out at the wrong time at roundabout? All of those are my pet hates but it would be impossible in the short term to police this - you would need retrospective additions to all vehicles, and I am sure there are ways to bypass.

Also knowing governments it would be used as a tax mechanism - I doubt anyone would get a rebate on it for driving well, just additional cost.

Not sure what you mean about drawing the line. 60 is a limit not a target. Middle lane driving can be prosecuted. Pulling out on a roundabout too.

You’ve gone from talking about “accidents” to talking about your pet hates. Ending up with cost.

 

[Pound Coin]

I am not an advocate for the Daily Mail or the Telegraph but in this case they are reflecting an opinion which the Guardian and such like do not appear to consider worth reporting.

If you consider the high rate of non-reporting and the much lower number of cyclists than drivers, then I think it's reasonable to assume that bad cyclists are as big a menace as bad drivers.

I have known several police officers well, both serving and retired. My experience is that, as a group, they are seldom likely to exagerate.

As I have mentioned several times on this site, I used to cycle daily and saw that most cyclists are both careful and courteous but there are too many who are the opposite. For whatever reason, British legislators have given cyclists a free pass when it comes to safety and that results in unnecessary injury or or even death.

It's stupid really, because being a safe rider is easy and so many practice it...

View attachment 448913

Not really sure where to start with all this! A lot of opinion topped off by a photo of a cyclist appearing to be cycling dangerously across a pedestrian crossing.

 

[Nod]

Could be a Toucan crossing (light controlled for pedestrians and cyclists).

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

Could be a Toucan crossing (light controlled for pedestrians and cyclists).

It is indeed.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

For the absence of doubt, here's the same polite, safety concious cyclist a few seconds before, waiting for his signal to continue....

 

[broc]

We are fortunate enough to own three vehicles under 2 years old, all of which are loaded with the latest safety features and driver aids. We keep all the aids turned on as it is too much hassle to turn them off at the start of each journey. I can avoid the lane keeping aids from nudging the steering wheel by always ensuring I use the indicator first before changing lane, in that respect it is making me a more considerate driver.

Recently I was on a 340 mile trip, sharing the driving with my wife. We left early in the morning and after an hour or so I received a driver alert suggesting I take a break. Being a stubborn soul I kept on driving for another hour before swapping with my wife. She drove for the next 90 mins while I had a power-nap. Suitably refreshed we swapped over again, and I drove for another two hours. I felt much more alert and didn't get another take a break alert from the car telling me to take a break.

What does frustrate me is when the weather is bad (e.g snow, heavy rain) some of these 'aids' stop working exactly when they could be helpful.

 

[cambsno]

Not sure what you mean about drawing the line. 60 is a limit not a target. Middle lane driving can be prosecuted. Pulling out on a roundabout too.

You’ve gone from talking about “accidents” to talking about your pet hates. Ending up with cost.

Because the conversation went from tech stuff to help drivers and minimise accidents to people not being able to drive and driving without due care. Someone else bought in the fact we could punish drivers for things like crossing lanes. My point was simply that if we start penalising people for lane discipline then where will it actually end!

60 is a limit but assuming good road conditions and nothing adverse that should be the speed you should be aiming for, most cars will be doing and expecting to do 55-60 on said road and doing 40 is just plain dangerous as it leads to others overtaking.

 

[gman]

Because the conversation went from tech stuff to help drivers and minimise accidents to people not being able to drive and driving without due care. Someone else bought in the fact we could punish drivers for things like crossing lanes. My point was simply that if we start penalising people for lane discipline then where will it actually end!

60 is a limit but assuming good road conditions and nothing adverse that should be the speed you should be aiming for, most cars will be doing and expecting to do 55-60 on said road and doing 40 is just plain dangerous as it leads to others overtaking.

I said consequence, which is different from a punishment. My example referring to insurance premiums wasn't the best; a training course would be a better example. If your lane-keep assist has to keep correcting you on a daily basis, then I would argue that you very much need further training.

 

[Pound Coin]

Could be a Toucan crossing (light controlled for pedestrians and cyclists).

Yes, could be that.

Unsure why it has been used to illustrate:

"It's stupid really, because being a safe rider is easy and so many practice it..."

 

[Pound Coin]

For the absence of doubt, here's the same polite, safety concious cyclist a few seconds before, waiting for his signal to continue....

View attachment 448924

How can you tell he is polite?

I'm guessing you think he is safety conscious because he has no mudguards, that have a risk of detaching and becoming caught up in the trousers that he has no trouser clips for.

 

[Pound Coin]

Because the conversation went from tech stuff to help drivers and minimise accidents to people not being able to drive and driving without due care. Someone else bought in the fact we could punish drivers for things like crossing lanes. My point was simply that if we start penalising people for lane discipline then where will it actually end!

60 is a limit but assuming good road conditions and nothing adverse that should be the speed you should be aiming for, most cars will be doing and expecting to do 55-60 on said road and doing 40 is just plain dangerous as it leads to others overtaking.

The trouble is, how important is lane discipline...?

It's a value judgement. AI, so far, is flawed at making that judgement. Humans are also flawed,.

At what level of error making do we say "Yeah! AI is now OK!"?

"60 is a limit but assuming good road conditions and nothing adverse that should be the speed you should be aiming for".

No, it is a "limit", like I said.

If you aim for it, you'll quite likely go over it. Aim for 55.

 

[Nod]

Since pretty much all speedos register a few MPH faster than the actual speed, aiming for the posted limit isn't a bad aim. At a registered 55, the vehicle is probably closer to 50. The previous depends on road conditions, obviously - sometimes the limit is way above safe speeds.

 

[Pound Coin]

Since pretty much all speedos register a few MPH faster than the actual speed, aiming for the posted limit isn't a bad aim. At a registered 55, the vehicle is probably closer to 50. The previous depends on road conditions, obviously - sometimes the limit is way above safe speeds.

It depends. My current vehicle shows 1 mph faster than actual, and the one before had a 2mph difference. Some police areas have no tolerance on speeding, A GPS to provide a check has been useful!

Agreed on the road conditions point.

 

[Garry Edwards]

Electronic Stability Control and ABS are designed to assist for circumstances beyond your control.

Speed Assist, Lane-Keep Assist, Automatic Emergency Braking, Drowsiness/Attention monitoring, Blind spot Monitoring etc are all for things within your control. That's the key difference.

There is also a difference between 'enhancements' (such as PAS, torque vectoring, brake wash, auto wipers/headlights etc) and 'assists'. I'm not against new tech if it enhances or improves your driving experience, however, many of the above "assists" whilst have most likely prevented many an accident, may also encourage bad habits/behaviour; which is a valid argument in my opinion.

I believe that it was William Morris, 1st Viscount Nuffield, defending the appalling brakes of his Morris car brand, who said that "Good brakes make bad drivers". I certainly wouldn't want to go back to those days, and I welcome the safety technology that's actually useful, although maybe he did have a point . . .

A few years ago my eldest son was driving on a motorway when a lorry veered into his lane, the driver was believed to be asleep. His car (sensors, cameras, whatever) saw it coming, braked, steered and turned what would probably have been a fatality into a damage-only, with over £60K of damage to his new Tesla. No driver could have reacted as quickly or as well, that's where technology pays off.

The other side of this coin? A police traffic driver told me recently that his force has had to ditch their BMW pursuit cars because the technology doesn't allow them to be driven on the wrong side of the road, and BMW told them that there's no way of switching off the technology.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

The previous depends on road conditions, obviously - sometimes the limit is way above safe speeds.

I agree but I'd modify that "someimes" to "often".

Only the really foolish see a speed limit as a taget.

 

[cambsno]

I said consequence, which is different from a punishment. My example referring to insurance premiums wasn't the best; a training course would be a better example. If your lane-keep assist has to keep correcting you on a daily basis, then I would argue that you very much need further training.

Well I would say consequence by definition would be a punishment as it would be a financial consequence?

Who sets the limit for lane discipline - 1 a day, 1 a week, 2 per 100 miles??? If I am on an empty road and want to avoid a pot hole, and I don't indicate is it really something.i should suffer a consequence? There are 100 other issues

 

[cambsno]

The trouble is, how important is lane discipline...?

It's a value judgement. AI, so far, is flawed at making that judgement. Humans are also flawed,.

At what level of error making do we say "Yeah! AI is now OK!"?

"60 is a limit but assuming good road conditions and nothing adverse that should be the speed you should be aiming for".

No, it is a "limit", like I said.

If you aim for it, you'll quite likely go over it. Aim for 55.

A bit like the comments on lane discipline, if you are a competent driver, you should be able to aim for 60 and do 60 (give or take 1mph). And the issue is not people doing 55 or 56, its those doing 38 and 40

 

[Pound Coin]

A bit like the comments on lane discipline, if you are a competent driver, you should be able to aim for 60 and do 60 (give or take 1mph). And the issue is not people doing 55 or 56, its those doing 38 and 40

It is quite rare to come up behind a driver who is driving consistently way below the speed limit. Quite often there is a reason, like last night, when two vehicles in front a car was going slowly. As it tried to find an unlit entrance. I hung back and didn't have to use my brakes, plus had visibility to overtake if necessary. The vehicle immediately behind had brakes lights flashing on and off and had no leeway to overtake, as it was tailgating and getting annoyed…

 

[gman]

Well I would say consequence by definition would be a punishment as it would be a financial consequence?

Who sets the limit for lane discipline - 1 a day, 1 a week, 2 per 100 miles??? If I am on an empty road and want to avoid a pot hole, and I don't indicate is it really something.i should suffer a consequence? There are 100 other issues

Consequence and punishment are different and I see that you have ignored my follow up to it. But the semantics involved here are largely irrelevant.

Re. who sets the limit. Probably depends on the consequence. If it's insurance related, then obviously the insurance companies. If it's a training course, the presumably the authorities.

I understand where you are coming from re. your pothole analogy, although on an empty road where there would be far less distractions, one may question why you failed to observe or slow down in time and instead had to swerve to the point of heading into another lane without time to indicate. Furthermore, if you are doing this all the time then yes, it should be considered an issue.

You are using a pedantic approach with your argument and ignoring what I've been saying. I'm not advocating about the occasional intervention, I'm talking about drivers where it consistently has to intervene and where you don't use your indicators and would therefore highlight a serious problem.

 

[gman]

I believe that it was William Morris, 1st Viscount Nuffield, defending the appalling brakes of his Morris car brand, who said that "Good brakes make bad drivers". I certainly wouldn't want to go back to those days, and I welcome the safety technology that's actually useful, although maybe he did have a point . . .

A few years ago my eldest son was driving on a motorway when a lorry veered into his lane, the driver was believed to be asleep. His car (sensors, cameras, whatever) saw it coming, braked, steered and turned what would probably have been a fatality into a damage-only, with over £60K of damage to his new Tesla. No driver could have reacted as quickly or as well, that's where technology pays off.

The other side of this coin? A police traffic driver told me recently that his force has had to ditch their BMW pursuit cars because the technology doesn't allow them to be driven on the wrong side of the road, and BMW told them that there's no way of switching off the technology.

This is pretty much my point and what I've been saying. There will certainly be times where these systems will potentially save lives or help avoid an accident. But my argument is when they are having to consistently intervene, which could suggest a problem with the driver.

The last time I had to swerve out of my lane was quite recently to avoid an idiot who moved into me on the motorway. I was in the outside lane and just as I was passing he moved into me so I had to jink about half of my my car into the central reservation area with no time to do anything else. Traction control definitely kept me stable (tick box for that). But that was one occasion, before this I can't remember the last time I've had to swerve so much that I'd be leaving my lane without time to indicate.

Actually, come to think of it, if I did have lane keep assist I wouldn't have been able to avoid that car on the motorway. Similar to your police comments.

Re. the Tesla, I'm wondering does it check that it's not swerving into the path of another car coming up from behind in the other lane? I do remember watching a video of a Lexus I think it was where the adaptive cruise follow and track the car in front, but unfortunately it would also follow the car when overtaking onto the opposite side of the road not knowing if it also had enough time to pass! Whoops! lol

 

[Eucris]

The other side of this coin? A police traffic driver told me recently that his force has had to ditch their BMW pursuit cars because the technology doesn't allow them to be driven on the wrong side of the road, and BMW told them that there's no way of switching off the technology.

Are you sure it's not because the N57 engine is prone to failure and is a fire hazard in pursuit vehicles.

 

[munch]

All the emergency services are having issues with all the new safety features. By the nature of emergency driving many of the features that make a vehicle "safer" are not useful for emergency/tactical driving.

I know NAPFM (National Association of Police Fleet Managers) have made representations to the EU and the vehicle manufacturers.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

All the emergency services are having issues ,,,

You'd think that orders for police vehicles would go through a central point. with enough purchasing power to tell the manufacturer exactly what vehicle they have to supply.

Yet it seems that each force has to make its own deals with a range of suppliers.

 

[Nod]

Chosen by bean counters rather than the actual users.

 

[gman]

Chosen by bean counters rather than the actual users.

Oi, nothing wrong with counting the beans! Next you'll be saying that SAAB cars were ruined because the accountants took charge over the engineers...

 

[munch]

You'd think that orders for police vehicles would go through a central point. with enough purchasing power to tell the manufacturer exactly what vehicle they have to supply.

Yet it seems that each force has to make its own deals with a range of suppliers.

It is a European and I suspect an issue for other parts of the world. One of the issues with getting a national contract for emergency vehicles is each force has its own requirements. The issue with the BMW engines also demonstrated the need to diversify fleets.

 

[welshwizard645]

Oi, nothing wrong with counting the beans! Next you'll be saying that SAAB cars were ruined because the accountants took charge over the engineers...

Sometimes the engineers won, otherwise the whole automotive industry landscape today would be different. Saabs would be running 2-strokes well into the 1970s and even later (the V4 project was done under immense secrecy) and many of us wouldn't be driving 2-litre turbos today (another project done away from the eyes of Saab-Scania management).

Many of the useful safety passive features came from Trollhattan (even Volvo admitted how tough Saabs were).

 

[Bristolian]

at the end of the day these features will save lives but if people want to turn them off let them fill there boots
if fools think they can be faster and better than sensors and tech when the s*** hits the fan there deluded

I agree with what you said but, and it's a big but, it is unacceptable that technology is imposed on drivers when it is so clearly flawed*. This requirement was rushed though by the EU who just wouldn't accept that car manufacturers needed more time to get the technology to a standard where it was fit for purpose. Added to that, the abysmal state of not only our roads (e.g. potholes, worn out markings, criss-crossing lane markings, etc.) but of our road signage here in the UK makes failures inevitable.

*: I make my assessment based on five years of working with motor manufacturers trying to make these systems work in the real world. They are superb on the test tracks but leave a whole lot to be desired on public roads.

 

[cambsno]

I agree with what you said but, and it's a big but, it is unacceptable that technology is imposed on drivers when it is so clearly flawed*. This requirement was rushed though by the EU who just wouldn't accept that car manufacturers needed more time to get the technology to a standard where it was fit for purpose. Added to that, the abysmal state of not only our roads (e.g. potholes, worn out markings, criss-crossing lane markings, etc.) but of our road signage here in the UK makes failures inevitable.

*: I make my assessment based on five years of working with motor manufacturers trying to make these systems work in the real world. They are superb on the test tracks but leave a whole lot to be desired on public roads.

Agree. On my way home from the gym I travel on small country road with no markings. It always beeps at me even though i am driving well.

 

[Clive K]

I picked up a courtesy car yesterday. First off I had to wrestle it to change lane unless, as I later found out, I indicated. There was no need to indicate, but the device is programmed otherwise. I turned the function off, but it still nudges me off my preferred line on corners. The car beeps every time there is a speed limit change or when it loses phone connectivity and panics if brake lights come on way ahead.

These things put me off buying newer cars.