VW Adaptive Cruise/Anti-Collision Radar - Nearly crashed!

[mybrainhurts]

ClockworkCupcake said:

Trustmeimadoctor said:

Speed dropping I'm learning slowly what distance it likes to keep

Yes, I have found that I have to change lanes a little sooner than I would have otherwise.

If everybody had this kit and had to do that, congestion would get worse.

Vehicles moving over to pass before necessary is one of my pet hates. It's just one short step to achieving Middle Lane Moron status.

[ClockworkCupcake]

mybrainhurts said:

If everybody had this kit and had to do that, congestion would get worse.

Vehicles moving over to pass before necessary is one of my pet hates. It's just one short step to achieving Middle Lane Moron status.

I'm only having to change lanes very marginally sooner than I would normally. I'd say it was several pretty fking long steps from this to achieving MLM status.

Given the standard of driving in the UK, how poor the anticipation of the average driver is, and how often I see people bombing up behind other cars, applying their brakes, then indicating to come out, I don't think more people having this system would make a blind bit of difference. It may even make things better.

[mybrainhurts]

ClockworkCupcake said:

mybrainhurts said:

If everybody had this kit and had to do that, congestion would get worse.

Vehicles moving over to pass before necessary is one of my pet hates. It's just one short step to achieving Middle Lane Moron status.

I'm only having to change lanes very marginally sooner than I would normally. I'd say it was several pretty fking long steps from this to achieving MLM status.

Given the standard of driving in the UK, how poor the anticipation of the average driver is, and how often I see people bombing up behind other cars, applying their brakes, then indicating to come out, I don't think more people having this system would make a blind bit of difference. It may even make things better.

I'm not referring to you in isolation. If everybody did this, overtaking lanes would be more congested, more quickly. It's bad enough right now.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

DonkeyApple said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Sheepshanks said:

boz1 said:

Sheepshanks said:

The message is that you need to adapt your driving to be aware that the car in front might inexplicably do a full-on emergency stop.

At least, I assume you're not being serious, right?

This is precisely my point. Nobody actually drives like that. Even those who think they do, probably don't.

If you look at the posts immediately after I posted my comment you'll find that several PHers assert they do always drive like that.

Everybody should always leave a big enough gap from the car in front so as not to hit them should they slam on the brakes, be it for good reason or for no reason. That's obvious. The fact that we don't always do that all of the time is our responsibility.

Just to remind you: You aren't correct.

I think I am. Ignore ridiculously rare rulings where fraud is involved. Just focus on day to day driving. If the car in front slams on their brakes, either because the car took over and did it, or because they are a nervous driver and over reacted to a situation, or because they mistook a crisp packet for a child, any reason that didn't involve premeditated fraud, then the person who hit them would be liable.

Cash for crash is actually very rare, but everybody claims to have been a victim these days. Anything to avoid admitting they made an error. My next door neighbour reckons he was scammed in a cash for crash fiddle, after he hit a car that braked at an empty roundabout. But the woman he hit was about 70 and from Suffolk...hardly fitting the profile of a cash for crash scammer. And she didn't even claim whiplash, just car repairs. His insurance paid her out without argument, much to his fury.

[Kawasicki]

daniel1920 said:

Kawasicki said:

I'd like to try and clear some stuff up.

You see a car in front of you start to turn off. You see the road in front of this car is clear. You determine that it is highly unlikely that the car will stop. You accelerate towards a car that is still in your path, because that is how your brain works, using risk assessment and predictions based on experience.

No, you slow down and wait and do not overtake at a junction. H2H

I never made any mention of overtaking at a junction. It's possible to accelerate towards a car that is still in the process of turning off, without overtaking anyone. You just close the gap you had, while the person in front is exiting.

Should you avoid accelerating until there is 100% certainty that no matter what the driver of the other car does, you will not hit him? No, because that would be unreasonably cautious.

[DonkeyApple]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

DonkeyApple said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Sheepshanks said:

boz1 said:

Sheepshanks said:

The message is that you need to adapt your driving to be aware that the car in front might inexplicably do a full-on emergency stop.

At least, I assume you're not being serious, right?

This is precisely my point. Nobody actually drives like that. Even those who think they do, probably don't.

If you look at the posts immediately after I posted my comment you'll find that several PHers assert they do always drive like that.

Everybody should always leave a big enough gap from the car in front so as not to hit them should they slam on the brakes, be it for good reason or for no reason. That's obvious. The fact that we don't always do that all of the time is our responsibility.

Just to remind you: You aren't correct.

I think I am. Ignore ridiculously rare rulings where fraud is involved. Just focus on day to day driving. If the car in front slams on their brakes, either because the car took over and did it, or because they are a nervous driver and over reacted to a situation, or because they mistook a crisp packet for a child, any reason that didn't involve premeditated fraud, then the person who hit them would be liable.

Cash for crash is actually very rare, but everybody claims to have been a victim these days. Anything to avoid admitting they made an error. My next door neighbour reckons he was scammed in a cash for crash fiddle, after he hit a car that braked at an empty roundabout. But the woman he hit was about 70 and from Suffolk...hardly fitting the profile of a cash for crash scammer. And she didn't even claim whiplash, just car repairs. His insurance paid her out without argument, much to his fury.

The Cash for Crash was just one example. The case law I mentioned is what the ambulance chasers use. It was a case where an emergency brake by a vehicle led to an accident and was deemed to be partly at fault.

All I am trying to point out is that your view that it is 100% the fault of the car that hits the back of a vehicle isn't correct and that where the lead vehicle has been proven to have acted negligently then the law hasn't fallen 100% on their side.

I think the importance in this thread is that emergency braking for a crisp packet would almost certainly be deemed negligent driving.

[daniel1920]

Kawasicki said:

daniel1920 said:

Kawasicki said:

I'd like to try and clear some stuff up.

You see a car in front of you start to turn off. You see the road in front of this car is clear. You determine that it is highly unlikely that the car will stop. You accelerate towards a car that is still in your path, because that is how your brain works, using risk assessment and predictions based on experience.

No, you slow down and wait and do not overtake at a junction. H2H

I never made any mention of overtaking at a junction. It's possible to accelerate towards a car that is still in the process of turning off, without overtaking anyone. You just close the gap you had, while the person in front is exiting.

Should you avoid accelerating until there is 100% certainty that no matter what the driver of the other car does, you will not hit him? No, because that would be unreasonably cautious.

That's fair enough, read it a bit wrong!
It sounds reasonable, but if its close enough for the computer systems to kick in, as the OP's did, then I guess that's just doing this a little tooooo much

[VeeFource]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Everybody should always leave a big enough gap from the car in front so as not to hit them should they slam on the brakes, be it for good reason or for no reason. That's obvious. The fact that we don't always do that all of the time is our responsibility.

That's all well and good, but what about the plonker behind whom hasn't left a big enough gap and ends up going into the back of you because your computer hasn't taken this into consideration.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

VeeFource said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Everybody should always leave a big enough gap from the car in front so as not to hit them should they slam on the brakes, be it for good reason or for no reason. That's obvious. The fact that we don't always do that all of the time is our responsibility.

That's all well and good, but what about the plonker behind whom hasn't left a big enough gap and ends up going into the back of you because your computer hasn't taken this into consideration.

Then you claim off his insurance, just as you would have done had you had to slam on the brakes for a child. One assumes he would have hit you then too.

[VeeFource]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Then you claim off his insurance, just as you would have done had you had to slam on the brakes for a child. One assumes he would have hit you then too.

Assuming he has insurance.

Don't know about you but I don't fancy risking my pride and joy and not to mention my neck for the minor gains of a nannying safety system. Even if by some miracle the quality of the garage's work repairing it somehow manages to exceed the stingy payout of the insurance company, necks are a somewhat trickier to rebuild.

[ClockworkCupcake]

VeeFource said:

Assuming he has insurance.

Don't know about you but I don't fancy risking my pride and joy and not to mention my neck for the minor gains of a nannying safety system. Even if by some miracle the quality of the garage's work repairing it somehow manages to exceed the stingy payout of the insurance company, necks are a somewhat trickier to rebuild.

Well, feel free to stop driving a car on public roads then. Because these systems are here, and they are only going to get more prevalent.

As an aside, I do wonder if when ABS started becoming mainstream if Luddite drivers started moaning that they would run into the back of cars so-equipped stopping quicker than them, and therefore it was dangerous.

[M4cruiser]

DonkeyApple said:

All I am trying to point out is that your view that it is 100% the fault of the car that hits the back of a vehicle isn't correct and that where the lead vehicle has been proven to have acted negligently then the law hasn't fallen 100% on their side.

I think the importance in this thread is that emergency braking for a crisp packet would almost certainly be deemed negligent driving.

And this is all largely irrelevant - do you drive in a manner to avoid a crash or merely to avoid the blame?

One day you'll be blameless but dead.

[M4cruiser]

Kawasicki said:

I'd like to try and clear some stuff up.

You see a car in front of you start to turn off. You see the road in front of this car is clear. You determine that it is highly unlikely that the car will stop. You accelerate towards a car that is still in your path, because that is how your brain works, using risk assessment and predictions based on experience.

I'd like to try and clear some stuff up.

When I turn left into the road I live in, someone like you is often on my tail. But as I turn there is very often a car parked a few meters into the junction on my right hand side, and maybe 40% of the time an oncoming car committed to going past it (i.e. towards me and blocking my route). So I've turned in already slower than the guy behind expected and then I'm doing a sharp stop whilst still sticking out back into the main road. That's when you'd run into me.

[VeeFource]

ClockworkCupcake said:

Well, feel free to stop driving a car on public roads then. Because these systems are here, and they are only going to get more prevalent.

As an aside, I do wonder if when ABS started becoming mainstream if Luddite drivers started moaning that they would run into the back of cars so-equipped stopping quicker than them, and therefore it was dangerous.

I take it you're classing me in this "Luddite driver" group? Don't know why you're being so aggressive, I must have hit a nerve.

If you can't see the difference between a car locking up behind an ABS ASSISTED car braking for a reason and someone not paying full attention to the crisp packet wafting it's way into the clear path of a computer CONTROLLED car in front then there is no point reasoning with you.

[M4cruiser]

boz1 said:

Sheepshanks said:

The message is that you need to adapt your driving to be aware that the car in front might inexplicably do a full-on emergency stop.

At least, I assume you're not being serious, right?

This is precisely my point. Nobody actually drives like that. Even those who think they do, probably don't.

Why do we have Rule 126 then?
Stopping Distances. Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear. You should
•leave enough space between you and the vehicle in front so that you can pull up safely if it suddenly slows down or stops. The safe rule is never to get closer than the overall stopping distance (see Typical Stopping Distances diagram, shown above)

[ClockworkCupcake]

VeeFource said:

I take it you're classing me in this "Luddite driver" group? Don't know why you're being so aggressive, I must have hit a nerve.

If you can't see the difference between a car locking up behind an ABS ASSISTED car braking for a reason and someone not paying full attention to the crisp packet wafting it's way into the clear path of a computer CONTROLLED car in front then there is no point reasoning with you.

Actually, I wasn't classing you as such. And if I appeared aggressive then that wasn't my intent at all.

The fact is that in almost 5000 miles in a Golf Mk7 over the past 2-3 months, I have not once experienced what the OP complained about, and I use the ACC very regularly; especially on the controlled environment of the motorway where it absolutely excels. And on non-motorway roads I haven't had this emergency braking system trigger once, so I remain skeptical about the alleged 'danger' of them. And the idea that a crisp packet could wrong-foot it is frankly laughable - that would be a ridiculously easy scenario to code for. Distance goes from lots to nothing immediately? Not physically possible, throw out as bad data and fail safe (ie. take no action). Distance readings permanently zero (ie. sensor covered or dirty?), alert driver and disable system.

These systems are far better than this thread is painting. But even if they weren't, it's utterly irrelevant - these systems are on the roads right now and as drivers we have to deal with it. So you can reason with me or not, but it doesn't alter the material facts (m'lud). Doubtless the law will adjust, and Case Law will be established, and systems will be improved, and recalls may be made, but it doesn't alter the fact that these systems are on the road right now.

Edited by ClockworkCupcake on Tuesday 26th January 20:35

[TooMany2cvs]

ClockworkCupcake said:

As an aside, I do wonder if when ABS started becoming mainstream if Luddite drivers started moaning that they would run into the back of cars so-equipped stopping quicker than them, and therefore it was dangerous.

Which is why they put badges like this on the boot, I s'pose?



But go back further...



What's that in the middle of the back bumper?

It's a badge warning following drivers that the car has disc brakes, so be careful not to end up in the boot...

[ClockworkCupcake]

TooMany2cvs said:

Which is why they put badges like this on the boot, I s'pose?

Possibly. Although just as likely to be saying "I have a much better car that yoww".

Let's not forget that the whole LX, GL, GLX badge snobbery has only died out in the past few decades.

[TooMany2cvs]

ClockworkCupcake said:

TooMany2cvs said:

Which is why they put badges like this on the boot, I s'pose?

Possibly. Although just as likely to be saying "I have a much better car that yoww".

ClockworkCupcake said:

Let's not forget that the whole LX, GL, GLX badge snobbery has only died out in the past few decades.

<raises eyebrow>

[ClockworkCupcake]

TooMany2cvs said:

<raises eyebrow>

You know what I mean. The whole class-based pecking order of which trim badge you have on your otherwise indistinguishable car (usually Company Car) is a peculiarly British thing that is thankfully less prevalent than it was.
Yes, of course we still have badges that denote trim, but these days it merely says how much you were prepared to spend on your car (or into how much debt you were prepared to go) than some kind of pecking order of perceived worth.
Most people will just shrug their shoulders and say "meh" or "whatever" these days rather than be impressed.