Eyesight pays for itself in real time...

[gathermewool]

I agree it is a good technology because it helps reduce the risk of accidents by people who are doing things other than exercising safe driving. Mood and phone distractions fall squarely into that category. I may give you the brown recluse spider but then I have to ask: How many times have you encountered a brown recluse spider crawling around in your car while driving?

 

With all that said the situation you posted about was appears to be your failure to drive in a safe manner. You said you were driving approximately 40 MPH down a busy two lane road with a long line of traffic. From that description it sounds as if you were driving a little too fast for the situation.

 

Furthermore you said, just prior to the incident, you had taken your eyes off the road to look at activity off the left side of the road. IOW you were not paying attention to the traffic conditions ahead of you when you were travelling approximately 40 MPH on a busy, two lane road with a long line of traffic.

 

You also mentioned you saw nothing but stopped cars in front of you. Were any of these cars involved in an accident? If not how was it they were able to safely stop under the same circumstances for which you required Eyesight?

 

There's a reason that, in 99% of rear end collisions, the vehicle in the rear is listed at fault: Because it's incumbent that driver to be aware of what is in front of them and drive in a safe manner. From the description you provided it doesn't appear you were doing so.

 

Or did you leave out the part where there was a brown recluse spider crawling up your leg

 

You have a good point, but that's not contrary to the theme of this thread. There will always be instances when the moment you're distracted or driving a little less defensively (for whatever reason) unfortunately coincides with the moment someone else decides to be a bonehead.

 

Regardless of whether Ronin3.6R's scenario could have been more easily avoided by paying more attention or giving more space is irrelevant. Why? Because it happens to us all (at least those of us who driver every single day.) We get into a routine and, occasionally, are surprised when the level of ridiculousness goes from the expected 7 or 8 to 11!

 

I'll give a few examples.

 

1. Expected: MANY people drive as fast as they can up a 45 MPH road, then cut in to get on I-395 last minute, even though the light turns frequently and I often watch the light turn red 2-3 times before I drive through it. I'm not talking about one or two people taking a chance; I'm talking about dozens of people driving NASCAR-style in the left lane, looking for a small hole to jam into. This induces a sort of rage in people, since, like I said, we've been waiting for what seems like forever. The solution? I get over early and leave plenty of space. This is expected.

 

2. EXPECTED: Earlier, on this same road, there's a bend near a college. The speed limit is 35MPH, but people like to do 45+. That light is also red often and people, even seeing the backup of cars and brake lights, tend to brake hard at the last minute. This is expected.

 

3. EXPECTED: On this same road there are many instances where the left lane of the two-lane road splits into a VERY short left-turning lane. I would argue that these turning lanes are too short even if people drove the speed limit. Knowing this, and knowing people need to make left turns occasionally doesn't matter; people still ride the unfortunate left-turner's butt then barely slide by their rear right bumper before mashing on go pedal again. Most people are intimidated by this and end up comign to a final stop well past the white line at the stop light. This kind of poor driving is expected and can be compensated for (most times).

 

4. UNEXPECTED: On this same road, there are Jersey barriers between north and south-bound lanes. If you miss your turn you're out of luck and have to drive to to one of the left turning lanes I described in item 3 above. There's one light with an opening for LEFT TURNS from the OPPOSING side, to go into the college. There is not enough room to make a U-turn from our side and there is a big U with a line through it posted on the Jersey barrier, denoting that this isn't a good spot to flip a B.

 

Well, I anticipated the slow down that didn't materialize and approached this red light going just over 35 MPH, behind only one other car. The light turned green as we were maybe (IIRC) going 10 MPH while approaching the light. She accelerated began to accelerate and I coasted to and closed on her a little, anticipating her acceleration. After a second, she slammed HARD on her brakes and turned her wheel toward oncoming traffic, which was stopped and luckily had just begun to move. I had not anticipated this move and had to lock up my brakes. I can only guess that had I been distracted I might have plowed into her at 15 or so MPH (I believe I had begun accelerating at that point).

 

Opposing traffic had to lock it up, too. Instead of correcting for her mistake and continuing on (the intersection wasn't wide enough to make a u-turn, but it was long), she came up to the wall perpendicular to the roadway, backed up in my lane again and then carried on with her u-turn (I remained stopped, now onboard with level of stupidity and waiting for her to clear the area). She was probably so frazzled that, had I continued on, she might have backed right into me or the person behind me.

 

So, in all my years of driving this road I had NEVER seen anything like this. The no-U-turn sign is obvious and the intersection is pretty clearly too narrow. All it would have taken was a momentary distraction, like a sneeze (way more plausible than a brown recluse) and I would have smashed right into her. The damage probably would have been minor, but I probably would have been found partially at fault, for inattentive driving. I would hope that she would admit her mistake and minimize my fault, but she could also say that she braked for some reason or another and my smashing into her pushed her into opposing traffic.

 

Anyway, I think this thread is great, but it's not a thread about how great ES is and how we don't need to pay attention any more. It's a thread about progress and the need to expand systems like this to those who want them. Making people feel stupid or less-than for admitting the times it has helped doesn't seem productive.

[sunny5280]

Regardless of whether Ronin3.6R's scenario could have been more easily avoided by paying more attention or giving more space is irrelevant. Why? Because it happens to us all (at least those of us who driver every single day.) We get into a routine and, occasionally, are surprised when the level of ridiculousness goes from the expected 7 or 8 to 11!

I would say it happening to all of us or not is what's irrelevant. So we all aren't paying as much attention to the road as we should be. Does that somehow make it acceptable?

 

Recall the original post (#6) which started us down this discussion path wasn't critical of the technology but rather someone posting to a forum that the technology saved their bacon because of what appears to have been poor driving on his part at the time of the incident. From what I gather from the OPs description this could have been avoided if he had been paying attention to the road ahead of him.

 

This is reinforced by every commercial which shows some distracted driver being saved by this technology. I mentioned one already. The current one is, I think, a Camry driver racing around the mountain roads and suddenly comes across an RV that's stopped in the middle of the road due to deer. Had it not been for the Toyota equivalent this guy would have smashed him, his wife, and children into the back of some old RV. The same RV which seemed to have no problem stopping for the deer. And what do we see after the deer finish crossing the road? This same yahoo going around the RV and carrying on racing down the mountain roads. Meanwhile the wife smiles as if nothing happened. In reality she would have been chewing out the husband for driving so irresponsibly and insisting he slow down.

 

This one: https://www.ispot.tv/ad/wTUx/2018-toyota-camry-wonder

 

Then you've got this one: https://www.ispot.tv/ad/A877/2017-toyota-rav4-paragliding?autoplay=1

 

Where the driver is paying more attention to his paragliding friend than his is to the road (at least that's the impression I'm left with). Again you've got a beat up vehicle which manages to avoid hitting deer jumping out in front of it but the driver behind him (who, from the looks of things, is driving too fast) requires braking assistance. Interesting. Perhaps the lesson should be the drivers of these vehicle could take lessons from the people driving the RV and flatbed truck.

 

The point isn't that the technology is bad. It's great technology. Especially given, as you said, it happens to all of us. It's that we need this technology because we've become so complacent in our daily driving that we no longer pay attention. We should be striving to ensure people are paying attention with driving instead of accepting the current behavior.

 

Or are you the rare person who feel that everyone else driving on the road isn't an idiot

[Yoda_One]

 

The point isn't that the technology is bad. It's great technology. It's that we need this technology because we've become so complacent in our daily driving that we no longer pay attention. We should be striving to ensure people are paying attention with driving instead of accepting the current behavior.

 

Or are you the rare person who feel that everyone else driving on the road isn't an idiot

 

Right on the money![emoji106]

 

Laughing at Oneself and with Others is Good for the Soul[emoji16]

[gathermewool]

When I got my driver's license, my highschool mandated/provided a driver's ed class, with classroom time that culminated in a test and a driving exam. Some who passed the written exam were failed by the same driver's ed teachers and required to complete more practice on their permit before trying again. The class wasn't hard, but I learned a lot. I actually went to the driver's ed competition for the area and came in 7th place! haha. My college buddies found the trophy and were merciless; every time I made even a minor mistake, they'd say, "Oh, don't worry, it's [gathermewool], he came in 7th place in driving!"

 

I don't know if this level of rigor is taught. I'm not sure if the level of distraction has gotten worse or better. What I do know, is that everyone you ask seems to think every other drive on the road is an a-hole. We can't all be right and we can't all be wrong, can we?

 

What is true, is that we all make mistakes. We all have bad days and we all sneeze and some of us have kids and other distractions that will cause a gap in the otherwise dutiful attention we pay to the road otherwise. And, while some people do speed when it's not appropriate, cut people off or otherwise drive like maniacs ON PURPOSE, just to get one or two cars ahead, I honestly don't believe that the majority of drivers are idiots, nor that they intentionally pay less attention to the road if they have driver's aids, such as Eyesight.

 

On the contrary, I feel that people who pay more for this technology are general safety oriented and are willing to pay a little extra for something that will cover the gaps. If you can say that you've never had a close call or that you've never been involved in a situation where you could have performed better or where you shouldn't have been doing something you were doing while driving (I would include eating, looking down quickly to place your mug or drink in the holder, took a hands-free call, looked over or in your rear-view at some event or even at some beautiful thing in the vicinity, then you're better than nearly every single other person on the road.

 

There will be distractions and we will make mistakes. I've never made an intentional mistake and I've never once let ES take over, with me left as the copilot. Hell, I've had the Forester with ES for 4 years and only two weeks ago let adaptive cruise control slow the car down to a stop, with my foot on the brake, as a test. Normally, when there's any traffic I turn off cruise control, because I can maintain a more appropriate distance and minimize braking by coasting and using engine-braking.

[PhilT]

Hell, I've had the Forester with ES for 4 years and only two weeks ago let adaptive cruise control slow the car down to a stop, with my foot on the brake, as a test. Normally, when there's any traffic I turn off cruise control, because I can maintain a more appropriate distance and minimize braking by coasting and using engine-braking.

 

I love this feature and use it all the time in stop and go traffic. Let the ACC do its stuff, it even tells you when the car ahead has moved so you can hit the button to go again.

[sunny5280]

What is true, is that we all make mistakes. We all have bad days and we all sneeze and some of us have kids and other distractions that will cause a gap in the otherwise dutiful attention we pay to the road otherwise.

 

Possibly so. But this only reinforces what I've said: People aren't being responsible drivers.

 

And, while some people do speed when it's not appropriate, cut people off or otherwise drive like maniacs ON PURPOSE, just to get one or two cars ahead, I honestly don't believe that the majority of drivers are idiots, nor that they intentionally pay less attention to the road if they have driver's aids, such as Eyesight.

I don't believe anyone buys this feature with the intention of being a distracted driver. But I think this technology enables them to be a distracted driver.

 

This doesn't mean I think we shouldn't have this technology. But I do think it leads people to become more complacent. After all if the vehicle is going to stop for you what's the harm in answering that text message?

 

On the contrary, I feel that people who pay more for this technology are general safety oriented and are willing to pay a little extra for something that will cover the gaps. If you can say that you've never had a close call or that you've never been involved in a situation where you could have performed better or where you shouldn't have been doing something you were doing while driving (I would include eating, looking down quickly to place your mug or drink in the holder, took a hands-free call, looked over or in your rear-view at some event or even at some beautiful thing in the vicinity, then you're better than nearly every single other person on the road.

I can honestly say that I have never had an accident based on the circumstances the OP conveyed. His post reads like an accident waiting to happen.

 

There will be distractions and we will make mistakes. I've never made an intentional mistake and I've never once let ES take over, with me left as the copilot. Hell, I've had the Forester with ES for 4 years and only two weeks ago let adaptive cruise control slow the car down to a stop, with my foot on the brake, as a test. Normally, when there's any traffic I turn off cruise control, because I can maintain a more appropriate distance and minimize braking by coasting and using engine-braking.

IOW your being an attentive driver has, unsurprisingly, resulted in no close calls or the need for Eyesight to intervene. What a novel concept.

[Ronin3.6R]

I can honestly say that I have never had an accident based on the circumstances the OP conveyed.

 

Me either

 

His post reads like an accident waiting to happen.

 

You are correct sir. 42+ years and still waiting to happen. Hopefully never will. Last ticket was 17 years ago. Like it or not, I'm that attentive driver out there you hope is on the road with you. If it can (almost) happen to me, I bet it can happen to you too. I did buy the car for the enhanced safety features- or at least that was a main consideration for sure (AWD started my search).

 

I disagree with you that this technology is "enabling" drivers to be more errant or irresponsible in their habits. I think you are either a pretty good driver with sound habits or your not (or perhaps just learning). But the technology won't improve your skills nor degrade them. Unless, as you cited, you are foolish enough to deliberately take your eyes off the road because you have ES or similar. That's just plain nuts and falls into the "bad driver" category no matter what car he or she is in.

 

I got to admit though as you stated, I see more and more drivers watching their phone. I mean to the point we had to actually pass a law that states " don't text or fool around with your phone- pay attention". That's just sad. And I see it almost every day.

[gathermewool]

Sunny,

 

This technology may very well allow people to rely on it more heavily to allow themselves to be distracted. The result, IMO, will be a net positive. Those who refuse to let down their guard will continue to do so (and may end up being saved during an infrequent flub or common distraction). Those who suck at driving will continue to do so, and even if they allow themselves to become less attentive, features like ES will prevent more accidents than they cause, especially as they become more prevalent, more intelligent and respond faster than they currently do. So, I'll admit that I'm fine with idiot drivers being made better by technology, even if it degrades their overall attention. All I care about, in the end, is that fewer people are killed. Selfishly, I'd like to go even further, to say that I don't want to even be inconvenienced with an accident ever again. Therefore, I say let the idiots text, so long as their idiocy doesn't degrade beyond the capabilities of the technology they employ.

[mwlegltd]

hmmm ... should we rig up cellular/wifi/GPS jammer to stop those around us from texting & driving?

 

A quick G search returned this portable baby: https://www.jammer-store.com/monstro-10-all-frequencies-portable-jammer.html

 

oh to sit back & watch people in city traffic!

for 49 feet they will be like

 

on the highway you rarely see anyone near the IL state troopers cars - who still us microwave bursts that will overpower/knock out all cellular signals near them!

[Brisvegas]

I did buy the car for the enhanced safety features- or at least that was a main consideration for sure (AWD started my search).I disagree with you that this technology is "enabling" drivers to be more errant or irresponsible in their habits. I think you are either a pretty good driver with sound habits or your not (or perhaps just learning). But the technology won't improve your skills nor degrade them. Unless, as you cited, you are foolish enough to deliberately take your eyes off the road because you have ES or similar. That's just plain nuts and falls into the "bad driver" category no matter what car he or she is in.

 

I just don't think that too many "careless inattentive" drivers buy cars with "Eyesight" (or similar) safety systems just so that they can continue on with their poor driving habits whilst thinking that they will be protected from accidents by the technology. The extra cost of Eyesight would not be a consideration for an inattentive fool behind the wheel ... because they obviously don't care about safety in the first place. I tend to think that it's more likely that it's the attentive, good drivers, who actually give a damn about the way they drive (and about the idiots that surround them) that purchase cars with all the built in safety goodies .... simply because safety is a priority for them, and systems like Eyesight supplements their driving skills. I just don't go along with this apparent theory that some posters seem to have, that Eyesight somehow makes you less aware, and makes you purely reliant on the technology and turns good drivers into bad drivers. I'm guessing that most of us have been driving for many years and those who learnt correctly in the beginning tend to stay that way for ever ... and vice versa.

[cgwaters]

Interesting thread!

 

I've found Eyesight in my 2016 Legacy to be valuable more than a few times.

 

I'm intrigued to hear about Toyota's (and perhaps other vehicle makers') radar-based approach. Anyone know how it compares, capability-wise, to a camera-based approach?

[MilesA]

I'm intrigued to hear about Toyota's (and perhaps other vehicle makers') radar-based approach. Anyone know how it compares, capability-wise, to a camera-based approach?

Pretty similar capabilities.

 

Toyota's system is using a combination of a camera and radar working together. The radar is used to detect other vehicles. The camera is used for lane departure, detecting pedestrians and some obstacles, and automatic headlight dimming.

 

Radar has some advantages over cameras. Radar can detect vehicles better in bad weather, glare conditions, etc. when visibility is poor. Radar needs less processing power. Radar alone does not detect lane markings, all types of obstacles or see oncoming headlights.

 

Subaru's system uses two cameras for stereoscopic vision. Image processing is used to estimate distance by comparing the two cameras.

[upstater]

Interesting thread!

 

I've found Eyesight in my 2016 Legacy to be valuable more than a few times.

 

I'm intrigued to hear about Toyota's (and perhaps other vehicle makers') radar-based approach. Anyone know how it compares, capability-wise, to a camera-based approach?

 

My wife's 2017 Acura RDX has Acurawatch, which is the same as the Honda system.

 

Most features are comparable, it uses a camera for lane keep assist, radar for adaptive cruise and for collision braking. On her RDX, the adaptive cruise only works at speeds 40mph or higher, so slow speed or traffic slows down and it stops working (it tells you to brake, and freaks out until you do, or presumably will go into full on emergency braking). I don't like the partial range, though I think the MDX has full range adaptive cruise.

 

Since I now have learned that not all systems have full range adaptive cruise, whether I stay with Subaru or not, I will only buy full range adaptive cruise from now on.