Permanently Disable Eyesight?

[GTEASER]

...with it possibly causing as many accidents as it prevents.

 

 

This is conjecture.

[don24mac]

This is conjecture.

 

I fully agree. I don't know why the insurance company would have a problem with eyesight. However, there are many situations where eyesight will work as designed and prevent a crash. There are also situations that could result in too much reliance on eyesight rather than just paying full attention when driving. (look at recent TV ads for other manufacturers similar systems where they're teaching a young person to drive and the system intervenes to prevent a crash)

 

And, yes to the previous poster. Until it was resolved with the Subaru buyback, it did really suck having a definite lemon.

[ammcinnis]

... [eyesight] possibly causing as many accidents as it prevents.

 

That is your opinion, based on your personal experience. But what evidence is becoming available refutes that. See: http://www.torquenews.com/1084/study-eyesight-equipped-subaru-vehicles-reduce-accidents-significantly

 

Management Summary (EyeSight vs non-EyeSight):

 

• Sample: 10,000 accidents involving 2010-2014 Subarus
  
• Location: Japan
  
• 80% reduction in rear-end collisions
  
• 50% reduction in collisions involving pedestrians
  
• 60% reduction in collisions of all types
  

Edited March 31, 2017 by ammcinnis

[crisscross]

IIHS, which is the safety agency of the insurance industry, gives a Legacy with Eyesight a higher safety rating than one without. That means the insurance rate should be lower for things where there is liability (at fault accident by rear-ending, for example) but it will be higher for collision and theft because the replacement value of the car with Eyesight is higher. Comprehensive, which covers windshield replacement would be more expensive for the same reason. In my experience, I have the ACC on when I am on a highway trip but not when I am in city traffic. The Eyesight is in the background and at most it has warned me when an object or car is detected but the brakes never have been activated. However, I start the morning with an iced-over windshield in the winter and Eyesight is always disabling itself, even if I scrape rather well. It wants a really clear windshield and no snow in the air - same as me.

[ehsnils]

Mist on the windscreen is one of the things that disables Eyesight.

 

I have discovered a few rare cases where it isn't working as expected, primarily crossing traffic in rotaries and some traffic islands placed in locations that the car thinks are in the path of travel. But never to the level where the car do unplanned braking.

 

If it's not working correctly then you either have a bad installation, something wrong with the windscreen or something added to the car in the vision area like a bug shield or even a "clear bra" - or of course extra lights.

[tigger73]

I've been looking at trading up recently and one thing that the dealers were interested in was whether I had an OEM windscreen. I can only guess that the non-genuine windscreens cause issues with the eyesight system. However it was one of the things that they specifically asked about and it seemed a bit of an oddball request given how much non-standard stuff is on my car which they weren't really concerned about.

 

So perhaps the OP and other people that have had issues may have a dodgy windscreen (or an aftermarket one fitted). It must be an issue as the guy specifically asked whether the windscreen was original or had been replaced at any point. It seemed to make a big difference in the trade-in price that they offered. I can only guess that they've had issues with non-genuine glass and they didn't want to have the cost of a replacement windscreen on top of the trade price.

Edited April 1, 2017 by tigger73

[laz]

Insurance charge more for eyesight equipped vehicles because it is more expensive to fix if you get into an accident and damage the equipment.

 

To disable it permanently pull fuse # "54"

[MakrelJohnson]

Ignoring the expected TLDR forum trolling (looks some of you learned from NASIOC), I didn't want eyesight, but it came standard on the 2017 Legacy 3.6R Limited and they tossed in a 7 year warranty so I didn't balk too much.

 

I did want all the other features like the remote start and heated seats - useful things in 10 degree weather. Eyesight was just part of good with the bad.

 

I suppose it could be adjusted to scan too far ahead - which is not really compatible with the driving style in my Colorado town where people drive like 'move it or lose it'.

 

The main thing that caused me to want to disable it was it activated when cars were turning off the road WELL in ahead of the system and would have been off the road way before I got there. The worst incident was on a sweeping left bend where a car was in a middle turn lane and it reacted as if the car was stopped in front of me. IT jammed on the brakes and almost caused a pileup.

 

I'll stick with manually disabling it until I can get it checked out. I don't need or want these monitors because I can pay attention and know how to drive. My insurance record speaks for itself. Clean for 27 years.

 

Agreed about the signature details - didn't have the time originally.

[slk5060]

Ignoring the expected TLDR forum trolling (looks some of you learned from NASIOC), I didn't want eyesight, but it came standard on the 2017 Legacy 3.6R Limited and they tossed in a 7 year warranty so I didn't balk too much.

 

 

 

I did want all the other features like the remote start and heated seats - useful things in 10 degree weather. Eyesight was just part of good with the bad.

 

 

 

I suppose it could be adjusted to scan too far ahead - which is not really compatible with the driving style in my Colorado town where people drive like 'move it or lose it'.

 

 

 

The main thing that caused me to want to disable it was it activated when cars were turning off the road WELL in ahead of the system and would have been off the road way before I got there. The worst incident was on a sweeping left bend where a car was in a middle turn lane and it reacted as if the car was stopped in front of me. IT jammed on the brakes and almost caused a pileup.

 

 

 

I'll stick with manually disabling it until I can get it checked out. I don't need or want these monitors because I can pay attention and know how to drive. My insurance record speaks for itself. Clean for 27 years.

 

 

 

Agreed about the signature details - didn't have the time originally.

 

 

 

Eyesight is an option on the 3.6 limited. It is not standard on any of the Legacy trim levels. If you dislike it so much, look into a limited without it. I'm sure they are harder to find, but still exist.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ehsnils]

Eyesight seems to be standard on all trims in Europe, I have the base model and it came with Eyesight and LED low beams.

[AWDPLZ]

EYESIGHT doesn't come standard on the 2017 3.6R Limited. However, if you want Navigation, it's part of the EYESIGHT package (which also includes High Beam Assist and Reverse Auto Brake). I had to watch local dealer inventories for almost a month before I found a 3.R without EYESIGHT.

 

A malfunctioning system like a couple posters have experienced is one of the reasons I bought a 3.R Limited without it. After I bought the car, I drove to the Best Buy practically next door and bought a Garmin GPS. I'll install the OEM Navigation once these cars become more common in junkyards and the head units become available.

[sunny5280]

I fully agree. I don't know why the insurance company would have a problem with eyesight. However, there are many situations where eyesight will work as designed and prevent a crash. There are also situations that could result in too much reliance on eyesight rather than just paying full attention when driving. (look at recent TV ads for other manufacturers similar systems where they're teaching a young person to drive and the system intervenes to prevent a crash)

 

And, yes to the previous poster. Until it was resolved with the Subaru buyback, it did really suck having a definite lemon.

I agree with this 100%. One only needs to look at the second post in this thread for an example.

[The Grey Goose]

EYESIGHT doesn't come standard on the 2017 3.6R Limited. However, if you want Navigation, it's part of the EYESIGHT package (which also includes High Beam Assist and Reverse Auto Brake). I had to watch local dealer inventories for almost a month before I found a 3.R without EYESIGHT.

 

A malfunctioning system like a couple posters have experienced is one of the reasons I bought a 3.R Limited without it. After I bought the car, I drove to the Best Buy practically next door and bought a Garmin GPS. I'll install the OEM Navigation once these cars become more common in junkyards and the head units become available.

Why in the world do you keep capitalizing Eyesite?

[slk5060]

Why in the world do you keep capitalizing Eyesite?

 

 

 

EYESIGHT EYESIGHT EYESIGHT

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[The Grey Goose]

EYESIGHT EYESIGHT EYESIGHT

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well that really clears things up

[MilesA]

Hard to type EyeSight® on those itty bitty phone keyboards...

[YeuEmMaiMai]

if Subaru's sold in other areas are any indication Eyesight may be standard equipment soon....

[crisscross]

if Subaru's sold in other areas are any indication Eyesight may be standard equipment soon....

Toyota has been doing this with its system across its entire line this year. This gives their cars higher ratings in Consumer Reports, who have been campaigning for collision avoidance systems to be standard. Subaru sales had benefitted from high ratings in CR and Toyota has moved ahead with better reliability and standard auto-brake - even on Corollas.

[upstater]

Cars are marching toward being self-driven. Collision avoidance will be mandatory within a few years. Subaru probably has a head-start with their self-driving technology because Eyesight will probably be able to read street signs soon. Not sure how radar based systems will adapt, they probably need to add cameras until street signs stop being visual and start being self-broadcasted directions.

 

Much self-flagellation will follow on all "enthusiast" car forums.

 

PS: my step-son is in college, I already gave him the next billion dollar idea, within 15-20 years self-driving/uber cars will replace car ownership for a significant portion of suburbia (it will be cheaper and more convenient to pay only for what you use, with thousands of computer controlled/app controlled cars circulating and ready to pick you up as needed), and the next California-closet type blockbuster business will be the renovation and conversion of all those unused garages into living space...

 

Sounds fantastical, until I realize when I was in college cellphones were not yet common (except the bricks and bricks hard wired into cars, both only in cities), laptops were not common (though a few of my friends had PC's), internet didn't exist yet, GPS was a military only option, I drove around in a car without abs/airbags, using paper maps...

 

And I am only 50...20 years for that transformation is probably underestimating how quickly it will happen.

 

My son loves to drive, I told him to enjoy it while he can, because I would bet within the next 20 years anyone wanting to continue driving will be priced out of the option via outrageous insurance premiums for anyone silly enough not to let the car do it for them. Urban areas will probably succumb to the lower cost of ride-sharing vs ownership, and then anyone wanting to drive into the mass of self-driven traffic will probably need to pay outrageous fees/permits/insurance in order to do so.

 

Maybe rural areas will be safe for those owning red barchettas.

Edited April 2, 2017 by upstater

[sunny5280]

Cars are marching toward being self-driven. Collision avoidance will be mandatory within a few years. Subaru probably has a head-start with their self-driving technology because Eyesight will probably be able to read street signs soon. Not sure how radar based systems will adapt, they probably need to add cameras until street signs stop being visual and start being self-broadcasted directions.

 

Much self-flagellation will follow on all "enthusiast" car forums.

 

PS: my step-son is in college, I already gave him the next billion dollar idea, within 15-20 years self-driving/uber cars will replace car ownership for a significant portion of suburbia (it will be cheaper and more convenient to pay only for what you use, with thousands of computer controlled/app controlled cars circulating and ready to pick you up as needed), and the next California-closet type blockbuster business will be the renovation and conversion of all those unused garages into living space...

 

Sounds fantastical, until I realize when I was in college cellphones were not yet common (except the bricks and bricks hard wired into cars, both only in cities), laptops were not common (though a few of my friends had PC's), internet didn't exist yet, GPS was a military only option, I drove around in a car without abs/airbags, using paper maps...

 

And I am only 50...20 years for that transformation is probably underestimating how quickly it will happen.

 

My son loves to drive, I told him to enjoy it while he can, because I would bet within the next 20 years anyone wanting to continue driving will be priced out of the option via outrageous insurance premiums for anyone silly enough not to let the car do it for them. Urban areas will probably succumb to the lower cost of ride-sharing vs ownership, and then anyone wanting to drive into the mass of self-driven traffic will probably need to pay outrageous fees/permits/insurance in order to do so.

As someone who works in the computer security field self driving vehicles worry me.

 

Maybe rural areas will be safe for those owning red barchettas.

Damn! You beat me to it!

[upstater]

As strange as it sounds, given how most people who think of themselves as excellent drivers really should never be on the roads, even with computer controlled cars subject to external manipulation (hacking), statistics will show that self-driving cars are a huge step forward in reducing accidents.

 

The computer controlled uber cars will probably be electric, traffic efficiency will improve so travel times will be less (traffic lights may not even be needed so cars will "flow" through intersections not arbitrarily wait for periods of time).

 

Batteries will be exchangeable so the cars will be circulating 24/7 and range won't be a factor, and parking lots, no need for huge parking lots at the Walmart anymore...you will just come out of the store and jump in whatever car someone else just arrived in...

 

 

How people express themselves when they don't own the car? Probably another billion dollar business...Maybe hats?

Edited April 2, 2017 by upstater

[sunny5280]

As strange as it sounds, given how most people who think of themselves as excellent drivers really should never be on the roads, even with computer controlled cars subject to external manipulation (hacking), statistics will show that self-driving cars are a huge step forward in reducing accidents.

 

The computer controlled uber cars will probably be electric, traffic efficiency will improve so travel times will be less (traffic lights may not even be needed so cars will "flow" through intersections not arbitrarily wait for periods of time).

 

Batteries will be exchangeable so the cars will be circulating 24/7 and range won't be a factor, and parking lots, no need for huge parking lots at the Walmart anymore...you will just come out of the store and jump in whatever car someone else just arrived in...

 

 

How people express themselves when they don't own the car? Probably another billion dollar business...Maybe hats?

 

IMO the first results in the latter.

[MakrelJohnson]

My son loves to drive, I told him to enjoy it while he can, because I would bet within the next 20 years anyone wanting to continue driving will be priced out of the option via outrageous insurance premiums for anyone silly enough not to let the car do it for them. Urban areas will probably succumb to the lower cost of ride-sharing vs ownership, and then anyone wanting to drive into the mass of self-driven traffic will probably need to pay outrageous fees/permits/insurance in order to do so.

 

FUTURAMA / ELON MUSK TUBE SYSTEM

 

Seriously, most of the people I see on the the road are probably the reason Eyesight was created. [insert idiot behavior here] and not paying attention is why I do to the extent I do. No collisions, etc. ever in 30+ years of driving.

 

I'll consider the question answered: Not officially, but possibly, and no usable help will be available to do so.

[sunny5280]

FUTURAMA / ELON MUSK TUBE SYSTEM

 

Seriously, most of the people I see on the the road are probably the reason Eyesight was created. [insert idiot behavior here] and not paying attention is why I do to the extent I do. No collisions, etc. ever in 30+ years of driving.

 

I'll consider the question answered: Not officially, but possibly, and no usable help will be available to do so.

I think it we'll find ourselves in a cycle. As more of this technology is deployed more people will pay less attention. It's my opinion there are people who feel more confident about texting and driving when they have technology like Eyesight in their vehicle.

[Keetosan]

Sorry, Yoda_One, you're mistaken. This feature sucks as much as it is good (for others). First time mine kicked in a turning vehicle was only inches in my way and I was fully prepared to swerve around them but the brakes kicked in. I thought I ran over a dog or something (since I never saw any real danger). The shock nearly caused me to have a accident on my own!! A friend told me their first experience was with a paper bag flying across the interstate....also scared the crap out of them. I prefer not to have it. I'm an animal lover but I would prefer to hit a dog rather than cause an accident trying to avoid it (or having my vehicle do that for me).