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

[Sheepshanks]

ERIKM400 said:

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.

He was suggesting he'd likely have been rear-ended if a car had been close behind him. Unless it was driven by one of the PHers above who always anticipate this sort of thing happening.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

saaby93 said:

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.

Not convinced
Wasn't there a vid recently of some guy slamming on the anchors on a clear motorway
Its not an expected action

The whole point of any emergency stop, even a genuine one, is that it's not an expected action. The clue is in the word emergency. In this case the driver isn't slamming the brakes on, the car is, because a large leaf has stuck to the sensor or whatever. There has been no negligence on the part of the Golf driver, the negligence is yours for being too close to the car in front.

[saaby93]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

The whole point of any emergency stop, even a genuine one, is that it's not an expected action. The clue is in the word emergency. In this case the driver isn't slamming the brakes on, the car is, because a large leaf has stuck to the sensor or whatever. There has been no negligence on the part of the Golf driver, the negligence is yours for being too close to the car in front.

You're forgetting the negligence of the car manufacturer, or the negligence of the car owner for continuing to drive it knowing it has that behaviour.

You have to drive allowing for what's reasonable
(Separate issue but for instance you'll never be able to stop in time if someone pulls out on you within your stopping distance)

Many people drive on the motorway allowing the 2 second rule. That doesnt allow for the vehicle in front stopping dead
If the car in front stops suddenly for a reasonable reason and youre unable to stop that's one thing
If it has stopped dead for no reasonable reason that's another

[Sheepshanks]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

There has been no negligence on the part of the Golf driver, the negligence is yours for being too close to the car in front.

There's plenty of case law, including quite recent stuff, where the driver in front has been held at least partly liable.

[ERIKM400]

Sheepshanks said:

He was suggesting he'd likely have been rear-ended if a car had been close behind him. Unless it was driven by one of the PHers above who always anticipate this sort of thing happening.

You're wrong.

It's the responsability of the person driving the ACC - emergency brake equippeded car to anticipate.

If you understand how the system works and what the limitations are you should know that when you're going to accelerate towards a car almost standing still the system is going to slam on the emergency brakes.
So don't.
Or turn the system off.

I drive a Ford Focus RS MK II and a Noble M400, both equiped with competition spec AP Racing brakes.
I know both cars can perform some incredible braking from very high speeds.
But I am also aware that the guy following me doesn't know this.
So I will judge the distance I need to keep from the car in front of me based on the braking distances of the car behind me (especially when there's a big truck following me) rather than my own braking distances.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

saaby93 said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

The whole point of any emergency stop, even a genuine one, is that it's not an expected action. The clue is in the word emergency. In this case the driver isn't slamming the brakes on, the car is, because a large leaf has stuck to the sensor or whatever. There has been no negligence on the part of the Golf driver, the negligence is yours for being too close to the car in front.

You're forgetting the negligence of the car manufacturer, or the negligence of the car owner for continuing to drive it knowing it has that behaviour.

You have to drive allowing for what's reasonable
(Separate issue but for instance you'll never be able to stop in time if someone pulls out on you within your stopping distance)

Many people drive on the motorway allowing the 2 second rule. That doesnt allow for the vehicle in front stopping dead
If the car in front stops suddenly for a reasonable reason and youre unable to stop that's one thing
If it has stopped dead for no reasonable reason that's another

But he won't be stopping dead will he. The car does an emergency stop, and stops x number of metres down the road. The VW system can't change the laws of physics. The stopping distance is the stopping distance, be it brakes applied by man or machine. If you smash into the back of him, you were driving too fast / too close. End of story.

[ClockworkCupcake]

saaby93 said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

The whole point of any emergency stop, even a genuine one, is that it's not an expected action. The clue is in the word emergency. In this case the driver isn't slamming the brakes on, the car is, because a large leaf has stuck to the sensor or whatever. There has been no negligence on the part of the Golf driver, the negligence is yours for being too close to the car in front.

You're forgetting the negligence of the car manufacturer, or the negligence of the car owner for continuing to drive it knowing it has that behaviour.

You have to drive allowing for what's reasonable
(Separate issue but for instance you'll never be able to stop in time if someone pulls out on you within your stopping distance)

Many people drive on the motorway allowing the 2 second rule. That doesnt allow for the vehicle in front stopping dead
If the car in front stops suddenly for a reasonable reason and youre unable to stop that's one thing
If it has stopped dead for no reasonable reason that's another

Indeed.

To quote the CPS, "A person drives dangerously when: the way they drive falls far below the minimum acceptable standard expected of a competent and careful driver; and it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous."

Thus, if a car slams its anchors on a way that is not 'obvious to a competent and careful driver' then I think said driver would be reasonable in saying that they couldn't have reasonably expected it.

Obviously every single contributor to this thread is a Driving God and could never be caught out by such a thing, of course.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

ClockworkCupcake said:

Obviously every single contributor to this thread is a Driving God and could never be caught out by such a thing, of course.

Who said that? I'm sure I could be caught out, and if I was....it would be my fault. It's not about being a driving god, it's about owning up to your own poor driving.

[Sheepshanks]

ERIKM400 said:

I know both cars can perform some incredible braking from very high speeds.
But I am also aware that the guy following me doesn't know this.
So I will judge the distance I need to keep from the car in front of me based on the braking distances of the car behind me (especially when there's a big truck following me) rather than my own braking distances.

There are going to be people driving hire, courtesy, pool etc cars, equipped with anti-collision radar that they don't know about.

And I think you're over-estimating the general population's knowledge of such systems even in their own cars.

[ClockworkCupcake]

Sheepshanks said:

I know both cars can perform some incredible braking from very high speeds.
But I am also aware that the guy following me doesn't know this.
So I will judge the distance I need to keep from the car in front of me based on the braking distances of the car behind me (especially when there's a big truck following me) rather than my own braking distances.

Totally agree.

I'm always mindful of a very, very old series called Jeremy Clarkson's Motorworld. I think late 1990's / early 2000's? He was in India and bemoaning the rubbish brakes on his car and wanted to improve them, and a local said "Oh no! Good brakes very very dangerous! You stop quicker than the car behind and he runs into you!".

I always bear this in mind. I even go as far as to let tailgaters past me these days, as I'd rather have them in front of me where I can see them and anticipate braking distances myself by looking past them than behind me and driving up my chuff.

[saaby93]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Who said that? I'm sure I could be caught out, and if I was....it would be my fault.

I cant remember what proportion it is but there's a reasonable number of people who after a collision get out and say 'sorry my fault' when it turns out it wasnt their fault

[DonkeyApple]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

saaby93 said:

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.

Not convinced
Wasn't there a vid recently of some guy slamming on the anchors on a clear motorway
Its not an expected action

The whole point of any emergency stop, even a genuine one, is that it's not an expected action. The clue is in the word emergency. In this case the driver isn't slamming the brakes on, the car is, because a large leaf has stuck to the sensor or whatever. There has been no negligence on the part of the Golf driver, the negligence is yours for being too close to the car in front.

In a pure 'black & white' world I would be inclined to agree with the basic view. But we all know that few matters or scenarios are as such.

I don't think it is logical to have any more cars on the road than we already have that are more likely to randomly halt for no practical reason.

And whether legally correct or not, someone who emergency stops with no reason is incredibly negligent. Akin to those mentalists who brake test but in this case the driver of the car that has emergency stopped is clearly blameless, which does make it somewhat bizarre.

But if you are driving a car that could be halted by an errant plastic bag the. Surely that car is unfit to be on the road and a clear danger to other road users?

[oldcynic]

Perhaps if these emergency braking systems were mandatory then there'd be a few less people tailgating me on the motorway for following at a safe distance behind the car in front?

A real bonus would be if it could be fitted to artics and the over-ride still leave an audible warning when there's less than 3 feet to the car in front - perhaps one of the more penetrating Dolly Parton tracks?

Like many things it will take a while for people's driving styles to adapt, although there may be cynical people out there who realise they've got a decent chance of barging in front of any MK7 Golf because it will actively avoid a collision - however obstinate the Golf driver.

[saaby93]

In the previous real world in the OPs scenario the OP saw no danger and would have carried on without crashing and no effect on anyone behind. If there was any danger from the turning car the OP might have jinked the sterring wheel slightly but was already convinced the road was clear.

Surely it's the autobaking system that's misread the situation and not dealt with it normally?
Why wouldnt anyone take it back to the dealer to have it fixed?

[TheInsanity1234]

kambites said:

Surely everyone who passes their driving test these days activates the ABS on the emergency stop?

Nope, when I did emergency braking practice with my driving instructor (I passed in Feb' 2015), I activated the ABS the first time around, and the instructor told me that was bad, and I should avoid relying on the ABS when emergency braking.

[ClockworkCupcake]

TheInsanity1234 said:

Nope, when I did emergency braking practice with my driving instructor (I passed in Feb' 2015), I activated the ABS the first time around, and the instructor told me that was bad, and I should avoid relying on the ABS when emergency braking.

I failed my first driving test in 1987 because I braked so forcefully that I neglected to dip the clutch and caused the car to stall. Driving Examiners are never happy.

[carreauchompeur]

jc74 said:

I've heard reports of crisp packets triggering the radar sensor at the front of the car, though not had that myself though.

That's alarming. You're badgering along at 90 when suddenly a crisp packet blows up towards the bumper and you're into emergency braking land!

[Pommygranite]

TheInsanity1234 said:

kambites said:

Surely everyone who passes their driving test these days activates the ABS on the emergency stop?

Nope, when I did emergency braking practice with my driving instructor (I passed in Feb' 2015), I activated the ABS the first time around, and the instructor told me that was bad, and I should avoid relying on the ABS when emergency braking.

So what did he expect you to rely on? Inertia?

[chr15b]

saaby93 said:

ou're forgetting the negligence of the car manufacturer, or the negligence of the car owner for continuing to drive it knowing it has that behaviour.

You have to drive allowing for what's reasonable
(Separate issue but for instance you'll never be able to stop in time if someone pulls out on you within your stopping distance)

Many people drive on the motorway allowing the 2 second rule. That doesnt allow for the vehicle in front stopping dead
If the car in front stops suddenly for a reasonable reason and youre unable to stop that's one thing
If it has stopped dead for no reasonable reason that's another

The system only emergency stops up to 19mph

[TwigtheWonderkid]

saaby93 said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Who said that? I'm sure I could be caught out, and if I was....it would be my fault.

I cant remember what proportion it is but there's a reasonable number of people who after a collision get out and say 'sorry my fault' when it turns out it wasnt their fault

That may be true, but when you drive into the back if someone...IT IS YOUR FAULT!