3 ms·

Totally agree. As a driver with a car with advanced "driver assistance features", I honestly don't understand how people get value out of most of these. That is

Totally agree. As a driver with a car with advanced "driver assistance features", I honestly don't understand how people get value out of most of these. That is, I'd rather just use a system where I know I have to be in control at all times, vs one where "You only have to be in control 1% of the time, oh and if you miss that 1%, you're dead." For example, I recently tried using the adaptive cruise control/lane centering features on a long road trip, and it was maddening, not to mention pretty terrifying. The exits from this highway weren't well marked, so at most of the exits the car tried to stay it the middle of the rightmost driving lane and the exist lane (i.e. directly into the oncoming divider). I get that other systems may be more advanced, but I don't see the benefit of an automation level that every now and then takes on the driving characteristics of a drunk toddler.

throwway120385 3y ago
I would settle for being able to see out my back window. It's one of the reasons I still have my crappy little truck from 2006. The windows are all low enough that I don't need a backup camera to back up. I can just turn my head around and see everything through the rear windshield.
toast0 3y ago
> Totally agree. As a driver with a car with advanced "driver assistance features", I honestly don't understand how people get value out of most of these. I've got radar cruise control, lane keeping, and auto braking on one of my cars. I just drive it like it's a normal car, and the computer helps me out from time to time. That's where the value is for me. I don't do a lot of driving with cruise control, so radar assisted isn't very helpful, but lane keeping nudges me when I drive on the line, and auto brake helps out in some situations (and prevents me from backing over flowers, and some other over reactions). For my car, lane keeping doesn't nudge too hard, so it's not hard to push through, but it helps a bit if I lose attention. I'm considering replacing this vehicle, and I'd get these systems again. If I replace my other vehicles, which don't get to go on long drives, it wouldn't be as big of a priority.
itsoktocry 3y ago
>I honestly don't understand how people get value out of most of these. That is, I'd rather just use a system where I know I have to be in control at all times, vs one where "You only have to be in control 1% of the time, oh and if you miss that 1%, you're dead." A lot of accidents happen from a split second of lack of attention. Lane keep prevents you from inadvertently drifting over the centre line into traffic. Radar cruise control prevents you from rear ending the vehicle in front of you. Both of these simple features are awesome.
- Exoristos 3y ago
  I prefer my Tacoma's approach, which is just audible and visual alerts if these start to happen.
bryanlarsen 3y ago
I found it invaluable one time driving at night through Northern Ontario (Canada) (which is actually southwestern Ontario, but shrug). This is a really bad idea because of Moose. If you hit one they are tall enough that their body tends to go through your windshield and kill you. Self driving watched the road, I watched the ditches. I didn't need to avoid a moose that time, but it may have saved a coyote's life.

throwway120385 3y ago

I would settle for being able to see out my back window. It's one of the reasons I still have my crappy little truck from 2006. The windows are all low enough that I don't need a backup camera to back up. I can just turn my head around and see everything through the rear windshield.

toast0 3y ago

> Totally agree. As a driver with a car with advanced "driver assistance features", I honestly don't understand how people get value out of most of these. I've got radar cruise control, lane keeping, and auto braking on one of my cars. I just drive it like it's a normal car, and the computer helps me out from time to time. That's where the value is for me. I don't do a lot of driving with cruise control, so radar assisted isn't very helpful, but lane keeping nudges me when I drive on the line, and auto brake helps out in some situations (and prevents me from backing over flowers, and some other over reactions). For my car, lane keeping doesn't nudge too hard, so it's not hard to push through, but it helps a bit if I lose attention. I'm considering replacing this vehicle, and I'd get these systems again. If I replace my other vehicles, which don't get to go on long drives, it wouldn't be as big of a priority.

itsoktocry 3y ago

>I honestly don't understand how people get value out of most of these. That is, I'd rather just use a system where I know I have to be in control at all times, vs one where "You only have to be in control 1% of the time, oh and if you miss that 1%, you're dead." A lot of accidents happen from a split second of lack of attention. Lane keep prevents you from inadvertently drifting over the centre line into traffic. Radar cruise control prevents you from rear ending the vehicle in front of you. Both of these simple features are awesome.

Exoristos 3y ago
I prefer my Tacoma's approach, which is just audible and visual alerts if these start to happen.

bryanlarsen 3y ago

I found it invaluable one time driving at night through Northern Ontario (Canada) (which is actually southwestern Ontario, but shrug). This is a really bad idea because of Moose. If you hit one they are tall enough that their body tends to go through your windshield and kill you. Self driving watched the road, I watched the ditches. I didn't need to avoid a moose that time, but it may have saved a coyote's life.