4 ms·

Or just leave more space on the highway when someone is turning? Auto brake isn't just for "inattentive" drivers. It's also for self proclaimed "attentive" dri

Or just leave more space on the highway when someone is turning? Auto brake isn't just for "inattentive" drivers. It's also for self proclaimed "attentive" drivers that can still lose focus at a bad instant. A turning car can still slam in their brakes when they're not completely out of your lane. Its rare, so your maneuver will be fine most of the time. But sometimes other drivers do unexpected things.

branon 4y ago
Fair enough, could definitely happen. I figure I _do_ still leave enough space even when closing though. I've never wrecked a car yet, so I tend to doubt the machine when it challenges a what I'm pretty sure is a well-refined heuristic.
- pwinnski 4y ago
  Everybody who ever wrecks a car has "never wrecked a car yet" right up to that point.
  - branon 4y ago
    Totally fair. If (when!) the day comes, hopefully it will have been for some other reason instead of a maneuver I incorrectly thought was safe. I trust myself enough to think this will be the case.
brookst 4y ago
And if someone is following you too closely, but the lane to your left is clear, so it is in your interest to absorb the slack from someone in front of you turning because you can swerve left if they do something unexpected? I don't think anyone would complain about these systems if they had all of the context and made good decisions. But it is a problem when either humans or automated systems stand on the brakes based solely on what is in front, without regard for sides or rear. I do believe these systems are a net win. But they have rough edges that at least cause a lot of near-accidents because they don't behave the way drivers expect each other to.
- hardolaf 4y ago
  I've never had a false alarm from the system on my car. But then, I actually follow the recommended minimum following distances and generally drive safely.
  - brookst 4y ago
    Well, it is either your superior driving behaviors, your car manufacturer's superior implementation, or just the way statistics work that not everyone sees every bug. My car auto-brakes at 5mph for parked cars that are backed into spaces, which I am sure reflects poorly on my driving in some way, if we're adopting the "bad things only happen to bad people" model.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - KptMarchewa 4y ago
      Not having one false negative is infinitely more important than having false positives as you do, while you equalize them.
  - VBprogrammer 4y ago
    I've had the additive cruise control do some fairly hash braking in situations which didn't call for it. One I remember was when passing someone who had pulled into a layby (a rest area just off to the side of the road) and was stopping. Once you grow to expect it it's not really a problem, you just put your foot on the accelerator until you pass something which you know the car might not like. I've also had it activate in normal driving due to someone else doing something dangerous. I'm pretty sure I was on top of those situations but I'm happy the system had my back even if I didn't need it.

branon 4y ago

Fair enough, could definitely happen. I figure I _do_ still leave enough space even when closing though. I've never wrecked a car yet, so I tend to doubt the machine when it challenges a what I'm pretty sure is a well-refined heuristic.

pwinnski 4y ago
Everybody who ever wrecks a car has "never wrecked a car yet" right up to that point.
- branon 4y ago
  Totally fair. If (when!) the day comes, hopefully it will have been for some other reason instead of a maneuver I incorrectly thought was safe. I trust myself enough to think this will be the case.

brookst 4y ago

And if someone is following you too closely, but the lane to your left is clear, so it is in your interest to absorb the slack from someone in front of you turning because you can swerve left if they do something unexpected? I don't think anyone would complain about these systems if they had all of the context and made good decisions. But it is a problem when either humans or automated systems stand on the brakes based solely on what is in front, without regard for sides or rear. I do believe these systems are a net win. But they have rough edges that at least cause a lot of near-accidents because they don't behave the way drivers expect each other to.

hardolaf 4y ago
I've never had a false alarm from the system on my car. But then, I actually follow the recommended minimum following distances and generally drive safely.
- brookst 4y ago
  Well, it is either your superior driving behaviors, your car manufacturer's superior implementation, or just the way statistics work that not everyone sees every bug. My car auto-brakes at 5mph for parked cars that are backed into spaces, which I am sure reflects poorly on my driving in some way, if we're adopting the "bad things only happen to bad people" model.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - KptMarchewa 4y ago
    Not having one false negative is infinitely more important than having false positives as you do, while you equalize them.
- VBprogrammer 4y ago
  I've had the additive cruise control do some fairly hash braking in situations which didn't call for it. One I remember was when passing someone who had pulled into a layby (a rest area just off to the side of the road) and was stopping. Once you grow to expect it it's not really a problem, you just put your foot on the accelerator until you pass something which you know the car might not like. I've also had it activate in normal driving due to someone else doing something dangerous. I'm pretty sure I was on top of those situations but I'm happy the system had my back even if I didn't need it.