upvote

points

by epgui1 days ago |
comments
upvoteby stephencanon1 days ago|
[-]
I've only had a couple weeks in rentals with automatic emergency braking, and was very nearly been rear-ended twice due to false positives. Anecdotal, and I'm sure they'll improve with time, but I would never allow the system I experienced anywhere near a car I owned. It was profoundly unsafe.
reply
upvoteby WalterBright1 days ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Some years ago, I was in a major crash. The traffic in front of me stopped, I braked hard and stopped in time, the truck behind me rammed me into the car in front. Nearly killed me.

Some time later, I was on a snowy road. The cars in front of me stopped, I stopped, and checked my rearview mirror. There was a truck, who clearly wasn't going to stop. I pulled off to the side, and he hit the car in front of me.

reply
upvoteby BobaFloutist1 days ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
>was very nearly been rear-ended twice due to false positives

To be fair, if the cars behind you had automatic emergency braking you would be at much lower risk of getting rear-ended when there's a false positive.

reply
upvoteby Gigachad1 days ago|
parent|
[-]
Pretty much, they would have been getting chimes about being too close to start with.
reply
upvoteby Terr_1 days ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Assuming you're already stuck with such a vehicle, is there any benefit to a dashcam that captures the alert-noises to prove the that you, the driver, never chose to brake unsafely?

I realize this relies heavily on the questionable sanity and ethics of insurance companies. Even if they agree you aren't personally at fault, they'd probably just increase the premiums for everyone with that model, rather than sue the car manufacturer.

reply
upvoteby ozim1 days ago|
parent|
[-]
Never hear of someone who was rear ended being liable. Guy behind should keep a distance that allows him reacting in time and he is responsible for keeping that distance.

The same for skiing you don’t have eyes on the back of your head, one behind you is responsible for not crashing into you.

In car you have rear mirrors but if you have something in front of you and breaking you are not going to look in the mirrors.

reply
upvoteby epgui19 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Yeah, I suppose this could vary by geography, but my understanding is that in Canada, you're nearly-absolutely responsible for hitting anything in front of you, and nearly-absolutely not responsible for anything hitting you from behind.

The only exception I could think of would be if someone intentionally jumped in front of your car, or if you did a patently and clearly unsafe maneuver, but even then I think there'd be a sort of rebuttable presumption of fault.

reply