Modern cars & ADAS

 

Gadget wrote:

I'm never going to moan about the driver assistance stuff on my Jimny again.

Took it in for 7th service today and was given a 25 plate Swift as a loan car. Nice enough other than the CVT gearbox (torque converter 4 life!), but the BONGING was insufferable and you can't turn it off.

There's no way to disable the traffic sign recognition and associated speed warning bongs, plus you have to turn off lane keep assist _every journey_, argh! Bloody thing tried to take control when I deliberately drifted wide to avoid debris by the side of the road. 

They really need to have one single button to enact a programmable user profile with your preferences in, because they're making moderns cars an awful experience to drive. 

Trust me, working for R&D of a big maker, nothing more annoying to us than that but it is legally needed, we could not homologate a new vehicle without those!

I'm definitely not singling you out with this post I'm aiming at the whole industry.

These systems do have a place though I might argue that they diminish the responsibility of the driver by acting as a safety net but that is by the by. I would contend that at this stage of development all these systems should be capable operating discreetly in the background and only intervening in cases of dire need when it actually matters and would make a potentially bad situation better. However in my experience and anecdotal experience here and elsewhere all these systems are too surface level, too sensitive and too keen to intervene in situations that are realistically still under the control of the driver but their intervening has the effect of distracting the driver at best and potentially going further to actively work against the driver to make a moderate situation significantly worse.

I know that the counter to that is the cost of more advanced systems not being viable in low margin vehicles but I would suggest that a bad user experience will do more harm to profit over time. Certainly from my perspective I can't see me wanting a new car of any description with the possible exceptions of some of the low volume manufacturers who can currently bypass much of this nonsense like Munro or Ibex or Ariel.

Lambert wrote:

I'm definitely not singling you out with this post I'm aiming at the whole industry.

These systems do have a place though I might argue that they diminish the responsibility of the driver by acting as a safety net but that is by the by. I would contend that at this stage of development all these systems should be capable operating discreetly in the background and only intervening in cases of dire need when it actually matters and would make a potentially bad situation better. However in my experience and anecdotal experience here and elsewhere all these systems are too surface level, too sensitive and too keen to intervene in situations that are realistically still under the control of the driver but their intervening has the effect of distracting the driver at best and potentially going further to actively work against the driver to make a moderate situation significantly worse.

I know that the counter to that is the cost of more advanced systems not being viable in low margin vehicles but I would suggest that a bad user experience will do more harm to profit over time. Certainly from my perspective I can't see me wanting a new car of any description with the possible exceptions of some of the low volume manufacturers who can currently bypass much of this nonsense like Munro or Ibex or Ariel.

Can't comment on low production manufacturers but they should still have the same rules as the bigger ones, it's an EU law

I don't like it but when testing and the more you drive it the more you get used to get around it. 

I would and wont be buying a new car, not for me.

I had a 2024 Transit for work and had to switch everything off before setting off each and every time. I also set it in sport mode to make it more driveable, but ultimately it was a total PITA.