[Subyroo]

It is such a signature system for them, and you aren't far out of warranty, so I would definitely talk to SoA.

Wouldn't be good for business (or us!) if these things started failing early and frequently.

Do not ever forget that these new fang dangled electronic devices are only aids to assist you, not for you to be totally reliant on them to stop you from having or causing an accident.

Whenever I use the CC, my foot is very close to the brake and my thumb is hovering over the CC button on the steering wheel, just in case.

Personally, I think the cars of today have far too many electronic aids, LKA - Eyesight - ACC - Front and Rear parking sensors - Reversing Cameras etc., it just makes drivers less aware of their surroundings and what is going on in their vicinity.

Yes, I have reversing camera on my CRV but the only time I use it is to check my alignment when parking in a bay with lines, I trust it so much that I still visually check the alignment when I get out of the car. Outside of that I still use my eyes and the mirrors. The sunlight affects the cameras clarity too much for me to use it regularly.

 

[titleman]

Yes, it would be nice if we could go back cars without power steering, weak headlights, no airbags, no AWD, recap tires and no seat belts. I just hate this new technology.

 

[rdclark]

I so miss my 1968 Rambler American. Power-assisted nothing. Drum brakes all around. Bias-ply tires. Vacuum-operated windshield wipers (which usually ground to a halt when the car was climbing a hill). AM radio (luxury!). It was, however, saddled with several pesky federally-mandated safety features, including an energy-absorbing steering column and (the beginning of the end) seat belts.

This car was especially good at water-skiing on rainy days.

 

[DragonSubie7]

Difficult to add to what has become a now ridiculous conversation, but there is a difference between relatively simple tech improvements and reliance on complex computer controlled systems which add a great deal of expense, many additional points of failure and result in unintended consequences when they fail, and they do.

I think that was the intended point that @Subyroo was trying to make.
BTW - for those that bother to read their owner's manual - It tells you that you can't rely on the system to do what you should be doing - Driving the car.

When all it takes is a spider crawling on a lens to cost you $2,600 to get your car operational again, I'd say that is a problem.
When the dealer support recommends replacing the camera because of the system complexity they can't properly diagnose - That's a problem.
Having your car shut down because a faulty sensor thinks you are falling asleep - That's a problem.

If you like to add all of that expense to your own car - Good for you.
Unfortunately for some reason people think that because they believe in something, it should be mandated for everyone else.
How nice for them.

To equate the difference between bias ply tires and radials and use that to say that glitchy automated systems are a similar improvement is out to lunch.

 

[rdclark]

Lunch is the most important meal of the day!

You might have one opinon when the currency of your calculaton is money.

I might have a different opinion when the calculation is done in terms of lives.

I have no reason to doubt IIHS when they conclude that advanced safety systems prevent many tens of thousands of injuries every year. I’m a results-oriented kind of guy.

 

[DragonSubie7]

1 - That's breakfast - Not lunch.
2 - It's not just initial expense - it's ongoing problems as a result of loading complex systems into the vehicle and dealing with problems such as the OP had as a result.
3 - In terms of lives - That's debatable - Having a system auto-brake for you because you aren't paying attention may save some money on repairs - but lives... I wonder whose rear that stat came out of.... Not many fatalities from rear end collisions - Head on - Yep - and the systems don't help there.

What is IIHS?
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) is a U.S. nonprofit organization funded by auto insurers, established in 1959 and headquartered in Arlington, Virginia. It works to reduce the number of motor vehicle crashes, and the rate of injuries and amount of property damage in crashes...

There are some results - lots of bad drivers out there who are playing with their cell phones or admiring their kids in the back seat instead of watching what they are doing... For these, you are better off if the bozo behind you has the system rather than you unless you are also a distracted driver.
I'm sure that anything which reduces insurance company payouts are very important - To the insurance companies.

In anything, cost / benefit applies.
For a good defensive driver - not much benefit.
For a distracted driver the benefit is for the guy ahead of you that you didn't hit and your insurance company.

With potential "results" like these - No thanks.

 

[Subyroo]

Difficult to add to what has become a now ridiculous conversation, but there is a difference between relatively simple tech improvements and reliance on complex computer controlled systems which add a great deal of expense, many additional points of failure and result in unintended consequences when they fail, and they do.

I think that was the intended point that @Subyroo was trying to make.
BTW - for those that bother to read their owner's manual - It tells you that you can't rely on the system to do what you should be doing - Driving the car.

Thanks DragonSubie. :thumbsup:

I think the smart (well they thought they were) comments above just wanted to cloud the debate with red herrings and I wasn't buying into their :catfight:.

 

[Subyroo]

There are some results - lots of bad drivers out there who are playing with their cell phones or admiring their kids in the back seat instead of watching what they are doing...

Just yesterday I saw a female driver with a full blown set of headphones on obviously listening to her ipad - cell or car phone at 100db, there was no way known she would hear the siren of an emergency/police vehicle or a car horn.

Another female driver was taking selfies of her and her kids in the car whilst driving, I moved 2 lanes over in the hope I avoided being involved in her up coming accident.

Last Winter my wife & I also saw a woman in the car beside us at traffic lights eating a bowl of porridge. You can guess what was her first reaction would be in the case of emergency braking - save the porridge from making a mess. :crazy:

My wife is always going off at me for take too much notice of other drivers around me. What I do is read out loud the license plate and what the dickheads behind me are doing, that way it is recorded on my dashcam voice recorder for any evidence in case I am rear ended.
I should really get a rear dashcam as well.

 

[DragonSubie7]

@Subyroo -
Your wife's take on "always going off at me for take too much notice of other drivers around me" is off base.
I spend a lot of time on a motorcycle and it is ESSENTIAL that you monitor other drivers.
If you do that, you will often know what the other driver is going to do before they do.
In your car, it can save you from a fender bender. On a bike it can save your life.
I can't recommend the "don't look and hope" method of accident avoidance.

IMO good defensive driving techniques will serve you better at less cost than any "make you feel good - aka lull you into a sense of security" add ons.

Eyesight is a great example - If it is ever used, Starlink should send a message to the motor vehicles department to suspend the license of a driver who doesn't pay attention to where they are going... Maybe there could be a good reason for Eyesight after all... This feature on next upgrade version... ;-)

There is a current advert over here where a group of teens (including the driver) are busy taking selfies in a car which changes lanes and causes an accident.. but no, the car is equipped with a don't change lanes by accident feature... the brain dead driver is free to maintain her documentation of the road trip without worrying about the boring task of driving... until that kid up ahead playing ball runs out in the street and she kills him.

Tragic accident? It would have been better if the idiot behind the wheel had the fender bender. Maybe she would have woken up.

 

[rdclark]

I absolutely endorse and practice the principle that driving requires 100% of the driver's attention, and that advanced safety systems can and should never be relied upon to save you.

This principle is not contradicted by the systems' efficacy, by the statistics that demonstrate that they reduce injury and death, or by the reality that no driver can control the other drivers on the road.

Any driver, whatever their experience, skill, or situational awareness, can become the victim of uncontrollable circumstance. If that happens, whatever the car can contribute to increasing my chances of survival, I want. Moreover, I want the 17-year old "uncontrollable circumstance" with the cell phone and 9 other kids in his car to have the same benefits, even if it took a government mandate to make it happen.

Personally, I would prefer a government mandate to keep her from getting behind the wheel in the first place, but this is America.

 

[Subyroo]

@Subyroo -
Your wife's take on "always going off at me for take too much notice of other drivers around me" is off base.
I spend a lot of time on a motorcycle and it is ESSENTIAL that you monitor other drivers.

I used to ride a Trail Bike to work and use it off road on my days - weekends off. I got hit by by a Priest on the way to work one day, I was in between 2 cars, he saw the gap and turned in front of me. I swerved left and lifted my right leg out of the way of the car as I didn't want it crushed or cut off by the car. I was in Army polyester shirt - shorts and long socks on my way to work, lots of gravel rash, but I survived.

At the time of the accident car drivers and bike riders were arguing over a possible change to the road law making it mandatory to ride with your headlight during daylight hours (ala DRL's) on to make you more visible. For the next 5yrs I never rode my bike without the headlight being turned on, and I never had another accident or near miss. So in my eyes riding with a headlight on was a life saver.

 

[DragonSubie7]

I absolutely endorse and practice the principle that driving requires 100% of the driver's attention, and that advanced safety systems can and should never be relied upon to save you...…
Moreover, I want the 17-year old "uncontrollable circumstance" with the cell phone and 9 other kids in his car to have the same benefits, even if it took a government mandate to make it happen.....
Personally, I would prefer a government mandate to keep her from getting behind the wheel in the first place, but this is America.

I generally agree with you.
The point I was attempting to make is that unfortunately, human nature being what it is, allows drivers to become dependent on safety systems. Lack of consequence in small events rewards bad behavior, which at some point can become something much worse.

There was a documentary done a number of years back where the author had postulated and proved via examples and a lot of statistics how car safety systems had the opposite effect to enhanced safety in regards to how drivers acted.

One poignant example he used was imagine that instead of an airbag in your steering wheel, what if there was a sharp spike...
In which equipped vehicle would you drive more carefully?

That is the basic problem with the promotion of exotic safety systems.
Regardless of their intent, they enable and even encourage bad behavior.

Why waste your time looking at the road and staying in your lane when you can spend your time texting, because the cruise control will slow you down, and the car will keep itself in the lane. Turn up the warning volume and take a nap. You'll be fine.

Why not take selfies?
The car stopped the moron from getting in an accident, and the lesson learned there was it's fine to do that.
That was a ad for Hyundai or Kia...
Subaru's ads are worse - The guy driving looking at his kids in the back seat doesn't see someone stop ahead.
Lesson learned - It's fine to not pay attention.
Hey, we have AWD - Speeding in the snow is fine..
My Subaru saved my life, so risky driving can be done - Without risk.

Unfortunately, that is what happens, because although "you" rightly remain alert, the same system that provides you with additional security you likely don't need, can and will be abused by many others.

When widely adopted, these "safety" features will inevitably prevent some minor incidents while providing a plethora of opportunities for severe catastrophic failure.

It's human nature.
:frown2:

 

[DragonSubie7]

@Subyroo - Wow - I'm glad you only got some road rash rather than ending up in a wheel chair.

My bike has a full time headlight, but I don't count on it to make me seen, but I agree with you, it likely helps... so do the dual air horns...

My rule for motorcycle riding is that I'm invisible to everyone, except for the people trying to kill me.

 

[rdclark]

...The point I was attempting to make is that unfortunately, human nature being what it is, allows drivers to become dependent on safety systems.,,

I just prefer to make choices based on statistical data and laboratory testing, when I can, rather than speculation, anecdotes, and "common sense" (which is usually another term for "specious logic").

 

[slothman]

I find the anti driver aid/safety system posts incredible. In Australia nearly 4,000 people died in auto crashes yearly during the 1970s and 1980s. It is now down to less than 1,400/yr despite the population having more than doubled. This dramatic fall wasn't because drivers got better. I'd be surprised if this wasn't also the case in the U.S. and elsewhere.

I suspect some of the anti technology pundits are anywhere near as good as they think they are. I'd love to see dash cam footage of their driving. It would likely be very revealing.

 

[FelineFreddie]

I just prefer to make choices based on statistical data and laboratory testing, when I can, rather than speculation, anecdotes, and "common sense" (which is usually another term for "specious logic").

I’m in agreement with you.

For those that would use enhanced safety features as an excuse to ignore driving responsibilities, they’d do that regardless of the vehicle “driver assistant” capabilities.

Folks were texting, putting on makeup, reading books, etc. while driving long before cars had anything but seatbelts and airbags.... in fact, even before those items were available.

Seems to me the airplane/airline industry has pretty much proven that enhanced safety features and flying (driving) assistance devices do indeed reduce accidents, even when the occasional idiot ignores his/her responsibilities to “attend” the situation.

In 2009, my wife was rear-ended at a traffic light by a flatbed car hauler. The flatbed driver was busy looking at his laptop while he was driving, looking for his next towing job. He most certainly wasn’t relying on driving assistance to keep him out of trouble.

The driving assistants/safety features seldom, if ever enter the thought processes of incompetent drivers.

 

[copwriter]

@Subyroo
My rule for motorcycle riding is that I'm invisible to everyone, except for the people trying to kill me.

During my police days, we were told to drive the patrol car as if everyone else on the road was insane. For motorcycle officers, this advice was modified: "Drive as if everyone else on the road is insane, and looking for you personally."

 

[DragonSubie7]

I just prefer to make choices based on statistical data and laboratory testing, when I can, rather than speculation, anecdotes, and "common sense" (which is usually another term for "specious logic").

What a safe bet...
I guess the point of "there are lies, damn lies and statistics" was lost on you.

Statistical data issued by a group that has a vested interest in an outcome... Sure - We can rely on that.
It appears that "specious logic" may be at play here...

Laboratory testing? Really... Like Yogi Berra said, "In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice they aren't."
There is a big difference between lab and real world.

As far as the real world goes, there have been many advancements made which have saved lives.
Crush zones, interior ergonomics, air bags, anti-lock disc brakes, dramatic tire adhesion capabilities...

As far as attributing increased safety by some gimmicky features versus the sum total of automotive advancements and equating that with a dramatic decrease in deaths or accidents is complete BS. In most venues that leap would qualify one as an unreliable source.

There can't be stats to show how many accidents were avoided, because they didn't happen, but I'm sure that speculation can fill in for the lack of available data. Or perhaps you in your infinite wisdom can tell us how anything other than speculation can create that information...

For example:
How many times has your system prevented an accident? How many of those did you report?
Oops. Information source unavailable for your "statistic".

You can keep telling yourself that you know what you are talking about... but maybe you don't.

 

[FelineFreddie]

What a safe bet...
I guess the point of "there are lies, damn lies and statistics" was lost on you.

Statistical data issued by a group that has a vested interest in an outcome... Sure - We can rely on that.
It appears that "specious logic" may be at play here...

Laboratory testing? Really... Like Yogi Berra said, "In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice they aren't."
There is a big difference between lab and real world.

As far as the real world goes, there have been many advancements made which have saved lives.
Crush zones, interior ergonomics, air bags, anti-lock disc brakes, dramatic tire adhesion capabilities...

As far as attributing increased safety by some gimmicky features versus the sum total of automotive advancements and equating that with a dramatic decrease in deaths or accidents is complete BS. In most venues that leap would qualify one as an unreliable source.

There can't be stats to show how many accidents were avoided, because they didn't happen, but I'm sure that speculation can fill in for the lack of available data. Or perhaps you in your infinite wisdom can tell us how anything other than speculation can create that information...

For example:
How many times has your system prevented an accident? How many of those did you report?
Oops. Information source unavailable for your "statistic".

You can keep telling yourself that you know what you are talking about... but maybe you don't.

I’m just curious...

Do you think enhanced electronic safety features in airplanes have made flying any safer (and any reasonable and knowledgeable expert in flying will tell you that flying has never been safer than it is today), or do you think pilots are better, more attentive, or just luckier today?

If it works in airplanes, why wouldn’t it work in cars?

Don’t get me wrong... you bring up some valid points that I partially agree with, but not all the safety improvements in modern cars (collision avoidance, as an example) are just some kind of snake oil.

I’m in my 60’s, and I fully recognize I don’t have the reflexes and attention span that I had when I was 25. As an anecdotal example, I can truthfully say that the Eyesight system has kept me out of at least one collision.

Now, if you wanna talk about the stupids that think their Tesla will completely take over driving using its “autopilot” mode, well, that’s just stupid drivers doing stupid things.

 

[slothman]

As far as the real world goes, there have been many advancements made which have saved lives. Crush zones, interior ergonomics, air bags, anti-lock disc brakes, dramatic tire adhesion capabilities...

All of which you vehemently opposed no doubt because being a superior driver you don't need all that newfangled nonsense, huh? Have you disabled the airbags and anti-lock brakes on your Forester so you don't get lulled into a false sense of security? What about tyres? Crossplys good enough?

For example:
How many times has your system prevented an accident?

Once so far while doing the equivalent of a l/h turn in the U.S. when a guy ran a stop sign from my right. The system stopped my car about a paint thickness short of his.

How many of those did you report?

Report to whom?

I was a military pilot for 20 years flying at up to 800 knots at 200 ft in the dark of night relying, in the early days, only on a 1950s era analogue computer to prevent plowing someone's field so maybe I have a different attitude to trusting electronics than others.