VW Adaptive Cruise/Anti-Collision Radar - Nearly crashed!
Discussion
boz1 said:
I would be extremely pissed off if I had hit the OP from behind in this situation (because it would count as my fault) and this report makes me again consider getting a dash cam.
It would count as your fault as it would be your fault. Dash cam would only serve to reinforce your blame, and if there was tp injury and police attended, the footage could be used to prosecute you. acme said:
AClownsPocket said:
Yes you can switch it into non adaptive mode.
What car are you both talking about here?Cheers. I assume it's the front assist you can turn off thus putting it into regular cruise.
In 27k miles in mine over half of which I guess has been with adaptive cruise it's been very good, but as someone alluded to earlier you do have to drive differently & become accustomed to the simple fact the car can only see the vehicle in front, most reasonable drivers would be looking further ahead than that.
I've had a couple of untoward auto brake incidents, one colleague had one only to find an oak leaf on the sensor.
In 27k miles in mine over half of which I guess has been with adaptive cruise it's been very good, but as someone alluded to earlier you do have to drive differently & become accustomed to the simple fact the car can only see the vehicle in front, most reasonable drivers would be looking further ahead than that.
I've had a couple of untoward auto brake incidents, one colleague had one only to find an oak leaf on the sensor.
I have a Golf 7 and it also did it to me on the way home from the dealership when I picked it up which was unexpected as I didn't even know the Golf had such a system on it.
Once you're used to it it's not that bad, but if you leave it on it does have a habit of triggering a warning if you have a habit of assuming that the car in front "will definitely be gone by the time I get there".
Once or twice I've slowed down so as specifically not to have it go off, and sure enough the car turning off has simply stopped with their arse end sticking out the road into the main road for some reason I couldn't have seen from the main road.
So yeah it's a mixed bag but I can't say I find it enough of an issue to switch it off.
Once you're used to it it's not that bad, but if you leave it on it does have a habit of triggering a warning if you have a habit of assuming that the car in front "will definitely be gone by the time I get there".
Once or twice I've slowed down so as specifically not to have it go off, and sure enough the car turning off has simply stopped with their arse end sticking out the road into the main road for some reason I couldn't have seen from the main road.
So yeah it's a mixed bag but I can't say I find it enough of an issue to switch it off.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
boz1 said:
I would be extremely pissed off if I had hit the OP from behind in this situation (because it would count as my fault) and this report makes me again consider getting a dash cam.
It would count as your fault as it would be your fault. Dash cam would only serve to reinforce your blame, and if there was tp injury and police attended, the footage could be used to prosecute you. 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.
It uses an algorithm to calculate whether to brake or not, occasionally it will get it wrong. I've only had it kick in in similar situation to the op. It doesn't know that I'm planning on just driving around the car in front as it merges into the other lane.
If you switch it off there is a bright yellow triangle displayed on the dash.
If you switch it off there is a bright yellow triangle displayed on the dash.
If anything, I seem to have the opposite issue with the Mazda. It's let me get close to the car in front, so much so that I do wonder if it's working. Not complaining though because I prefer being in control of the vehicle, rather than having it dictate what driving style it thinks I should be adopting.
Ari said:
TooMany2cvs 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.
You need to be aware of that risk anyway.I don't see what is so controversial about that statement.
One of the good things about this post is what someone noted, that we need to be aware that as these systems become more common place we need to expect more cars to behave differently to what we've become accustomed to.
Is the Golf the first mainstream car to have this as standard, if so given how many of the things VAG sell they must be fairly common place now?
Is the Golf the first mainstream car to have this as standard, if so given how many of the things VAG sell they must be fairly common place now?
I have the system om my Golf R and I have some mixed feelings about it.
It works quite well when you've got a steady flow of traffic but in some situations it can do unexpected things....
If you don't understand how it works and what the limitations of the system are.
Basically the radar system is reactive to traffic conditions but not anticipating the way a good, experienced and attentive driver would be.
When a car is turning into a side road or driveway, I can see the indicator telling me what this car will be doing in the next few seconds and I can predict it will be gone by the time I get there. The radar system can not see this. It only sees 1,5 tons of metal almost at a standstill directly in front of me. It will not gamble on the possibility that this car will be gone in the next 0,5 seconds. So it will slam on the brakes to avoid a collision.
Same situation on the highway when a car in front of me starts overtaking: I will see the indicator signalling that this car is going to move out of it's lane in front of me (except for some German brands ;-) or I will notice that the car starts to move into my lane. And I will anticipate by reducing my speed. The radar can not do this. It will only react when the car is actually in front of me, by which time it will be much closer and a gentle lift off the throttle is no longer sufficient and once again it will slam on the brakes.
The opposite will happen when a car in front of me has finished it's overtake and is going to move back into another lane. I can see the indicator or the fact that there is no other traffic ahead and predict that the car will move over so I can start accelerating. The radar can not. It will wait for the car in front of me to be completely out of it's way before it starts accelerating.
Most of the time I will have the ACC turned off, in which case the radar will still give you a warning when it detects a possible collision but doesn't emergency brake.
And when I do turn it on, I am aware of the system's limitations and try to anticipate to them in certain situations.
And to the OP: you did'nt 'almost have a collision' because of the ACC. There would not have been a collision anyway (unless you were actually tailgating). The system just caught you out because you didn't completely understand how it works.
It works quite well when you've got a steady flow of traffic but in some situations it can do unexpected things....
If you don't understand how it works and what the limitations of the system are.
Basically the radar system is reactive to traffic conditions but not anticipating the way a good, experienced and attentive driver would be.
When a car is turning into a side road or driveway, I can see the indicator telling me what this car will be doing in the next few seconds and I can predict it will be gone by the time I get there. The radar system can not see this. It only sees 1,5 tons of metal almost at a standstill directly in front of me. It will not gamble on the possibility that this car will be gone in the next 0,5 seconds. So it will slam on the brakes to avoid a collision.
Same situation on the highway when a car in front of me starts overtaking: I will see the indicator signalling that this car is going to move out of it's lane in front of me (except for some German brands ;-) or I will notice that the car starts to move into my lane. And I will anticipate by reducing my speed. The radar can not do this. It will only react when the car is actually in front of me, by which time it will be much closer and a gentle lift off the throttle is no longer sufficient and once again it will slam on the brakes.
The opposite will happen when a car in front of me has finished it's overtake and is going to move back into another lane. I can see the indicator or the fact that there is no other traffic ahead and predict that the car will move over so I can start accelerating. The radar can not. It will wait for the car in front of me to be completely out of it's way before it starts accelerating.
Most of the time I will have the ACC turned off, in which case the radar will still give you a warning when it detects a possible collision but doesn't emergency brake.
And when I do turn it on, I am aware of the system's limitations and try to anticipate to them in certain situations.
And to the OP: you did'nt 'almost have a collision' because of the ACC. There would not have been a collision anyway (unless you were actually tailgating). The system just caught you out because you didn't completely understand how it works.
ClockworkCupcake said:
Not necessarily. It was badly worded, but I think the sentiment was that we generally expect drivers not to do sudden things with no warning or reason.
Indeed - I'm sure many are guilty of what is effectively "synchronised" driving in the cut and thrust of everyday driving.There is case law to support drivers who run into the back of a vehicle that un-necessarily does a sudden stop. Proving it is always the difficult bit and this thread indicates that there are going to be cases that are out of the leading drivers control.
Having said that, I wonder how that squares with the bit of the law that demands the driver is in full control of their vehicle?
TwigtheWonderkid said:
boz1 said:
I would be extremely pissed off if I had hit the OP from behind in this situation (because it would count as my fault) and this report makes me again consider getting a dash cam.
It would count as your fault as it would be your fault. Dash cam would only serve to reinforce your blame, and if there was tp injury and police attended, the footage could be used to prosecute you. Wasn't there a vid recently of some guy slamming on the anchors on a clear motorway
Its not an expected action and it could be said to be at least driving without due care if not dangerous driving.
If something leads to a collision that would not otherwise have taken place, it has to be considered a serious factor.
Lord Dennings ordinary man comes to mind
I think it's more interesting how much tech is filtering down to small cars now and whether drivers are able to juggle driving with trying to figure some of it out.
Reminds me a little bit of some of the air accidents you read about where the pilots got so caught up in what the tech is doing that they lost focus of the basic "fly the plane" stuff.
Small example, I spent 10 minutes yesterday in my Golf, on the drive, with the engine one, driving forward and backwards 5 feet at a time convinced the "auto hold" function of the DSG was broken as the car wasn't applying the parking brake when I stopped.
Got the manual out and realised it was because I hadn't put my seat belt on because I was only moving the car off the drive and back on.
I've had the car almost a year and I've done that countless times yet for some reason I'd simply never made the link between needing the seat belt on for the car to automatically apply the parking brake when you stop.
Automation is great but at times I do think it can add to the confusion.
Reminds me a little bit of some of the air accidents you read about where the pilots got so caught up in what the tech is doing that they lost focus of the basic "fly the plane" stuff.
Small example, I spent 10 minutes yesterday in my Golf, on the drive, with the engine one, driving forward and backwards 5 feet at a time convinced the "auto hold" function of the DSG was broken as the car wasn't applying the parking brake when I stopped.
Got the manual out and realised it was because I hadn't put my seat belt on because I was only moving the car off the drive and back on.
I've had the car almost a year and I've done that countless times yet for some reason I'd simply never made the link between needing the seat belt on for the car to automatically apply the parking brake when you stop.
Automation is great but at times I do think it can add to the confusion.
Another good point, the automation is causing issues in itself, and it takes time to via a number of situations see how it reacts & works.
The manual in the Golf, despite being 500 pages long (!) doesn't cover every scenario - guess it can't, though it does comment on the angled road issue some have noted.
Anyone else had the auto hold auto handbrake issue whereby it won't release the handbrake automatically all the time? I've only started using it recently because when new it was far to jerky for my liking, but now on quite a few occasions I put the car in gear go to drive off and it says release the handbrake, despite the autohold being on?
Cheers
The manual in the Golf, despite being 500 pages long (!) doesn't cover every scenario - guess it can't, though it does comment on the angled road issue some have noted.
Anyone else had the auto hold auto handbrake issue whereby it won't release the handbrake automatically all the time? I've only started using it recently because when new it was far to jerky for my liking, but now on quite a few occasions I put the car in gear go to drive off and it says release the handbrake, despite the autohold being on?
Cheers
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff