Drivers Are 24% More Likely To Speed When Using Adaptive Cruise Control (arstechnica.com) 139
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Back in the mid-'90s, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration evaluated [adaptive cruise control (ACC)], logging 35,000 test miles (56,000 km). [ACC uses forward-looking radar to control the distance to a vehicle in front of it.] The NHTSA found that "ACC is remarkably attractive to most drivers. The research indicates that, because ACC is so pleasing, people tend to utilize it over a broad range of conditions and to adopt tactics that prolong the time span of each continuous engagement." However, the agency's results also suggested "that ACC usage has induced some elevation in the speeds that would otherwise prevail in conventional (i.e., manual and [conventional cruise control]) driving."
To test how ACC affected speeding, the IIHS recruited 40 drivers in the Boston area, then gave half of them a 2017 Volvo S90 to use for about four weeks and the other half a 2016 Range Rover Evoque, both of which were equipped with ACC. The vehicles were equipped with a monitoring system that included a video camera facing the main instrument display (to determine when ACC was operating), as well as vehicle speed and location, and the speed limits. IIHS also only recorded data on controlled-access highways. Analyzing the data showed that drivers in both the Volvo and Range Rover were significantly more likely (95 percent) to exceed the posted speed limit when using ACC than not (77 percent), although there were no significant differences between the two groups.
However, the absolute differences in speed were not that great. When driving manually, drivers averaged 6.1 mph (9.8 km/h) over the speed limit. When using ACC, this increased to 7 mph (11.2 km/h), or 7.1 mph (11.4 km/h) when using Pilot Assist in the Volvo. Interestingly, drivers sped more on highways with 55 mph and 60 mph speed limits than on 65 mph-limited roads. The IIHS estimates that "[c]ompared with manual driving, the increase in speed associated with ACC/Pilot Assist use was estimated to increase crash risk by 10 percent for fatal crashes, by 4 percent for injury crashes, and by 3 percent for property-damage-only crashes." The IIHS does note that it did not take into account the following distances while using ACC, which drivers can control (in increments of 1 and 5 mph). It also noted that drivers generally drive 5-10 mph (8-16 km/h) faster than the posted limit, and that's easier to accomplish when using ACC than when driving manually.
To test how ACC affected speeding, the IIHS recruited 40 drivers in the Boston area, then gave half of them a 2017 Volvo S90 to use for about four weeks and the other half a 2016 Range Rover Evoque, both of which were equipped with ACC. The vehicles were equipped with a monitoring system that included a video camera facing the main instrument display (to determine when ACC was operating), as well as vehicle speed and location, and the speed limits. IIHS also only recorded data on controlled-access highways. Analyzing the data showed that drivers in both the Volvo and Range Rover were significantly more likely (95 percent) to exceed the posted speed limit when using ACC than not (77 percent), although there were no significant differences between the two groups.
However, the absolute differences in speed were not that great. When driving manually, drivers averaged 6.1 mph (9.8 km/h) over the speed limit. When using ACC, this increased to 7 mph (11.2 km/h), or 7.1 mph (11.4 km/h) when using Pilot Assist in the Volvo. Interestingly, drivers sped more on highways with 55 mph and 60 mph speed limits than on 65 mph-limited roads. The IIHS estimates that "[c]ompared with manual driving, the increase in speed associated with ACC/Pilot Assist use was estimated to increase crash risk by 10 percent for fatal crashes, by 4 percent for injury crashes, and by 3 percent for property-damage-only crashes." The IIHS does note that it did not take into account the following distances while using ACC, which drivers can control (in increments of 1 and 5 mph). It also noted that drivers generally drive 5-10 mph (8-16 km/h) faster than the posted limit, and that's easier to accomplish when using ACC than when driving manually.
Differentials, not absolutes (Score:3)
are the problem. Too much differential and people can't maneuver out of a bad situation, too little and there's inadequate flow within traffic. Adaptive cruise reduces the speed differential, and optimal increases the approach time of catching a slower car.
I'd be more worried about people beginning to trust driving aids like this at the expense of attention, rather than criticizing them for imaginary problems like slightly elevated speed.
Re: (Score:3)
I’m guilty of using my AutoPilot to significantly reduce the mental energy required to drive. Sensor limitations are painflully obvious to me for the system, along with lack of a useful physics engine. As much as I hate driving, I am a better driver than my Autopilot.
That said, driving takes so much of my mental energy that losing focus poses a significant hazard. Autopilot might only be useful real-time (rather than in anticipation of situations), but it doesn’t get sleepy or bored doing its
Re: (Score:2)
Dunno how AutoPilot works, but I find adaptave cruise control to be more taxing than regular. The last car I used it in had 3 distance settings; too close, way too close and OMGWTFWHYARE YOU SO CLOSE. Naturally the last one was the default setting.
On an open road, by the time i'd be close enough for the adaptive adjustment would kick in I've already entirely disengaged cruise control to maintain distance. In stop-and-go traffic it might be nice, but how many models have adaptave cruise control that goes all
Re: (Score:2)
Dunno how AutoPilot works, but I find adaptave cruise control to be more taxing than regular. The last car I used it in had 3 distance settings; too close, way too close and OMGWTFWHYARE YOU SO CLOSE. Naturally the last one was the default setting
I've had an Infinity FX45 and a Dodge Charger, both with ACC, and no such problem. In fact, I usually use the shortest distance setting, but I'm also actively paying attention in case I need to intervene. I'm curious what you were driving?
Re: (Score:2)
I have personally seen similarly good results. Infiniti, Dodge, BMW, Audi, Kia, and Tesla all have very good ACC. Willing to bet all the Japanese companies are doing it right now. Once you understand how it works in your car, it can be great in the right situations. Tesla’s is the best, especially when not giving phantom braking in those “special” problem spots.
Re: (Score:2)
I can add Honda to the list. I've used it driving across the country a few times.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and mine were much older models...2003 Infiniti and 2012 Dodge...same with my wife's 2012 Jeep Grand Cherokee.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, the key is “once you understand how it works.” Before I bought a Tesla, I only ever rented cars, and I had trouble with adaptive cruise control. I think Tesla manages to do a little better/go a little further than most other systems, but maybe not quite as far as they make it seem.
Re: (Score:2)
The last car I used it in had 3 distance settings; too close, way too close and OMGWTFWHYARE YOU SO CLOSE. Naturally the last one was the default setting.
On an open road, by the time i'd be close enough for the adaptive adjustment would kick in I've already entirely disengaged cruise control to maintain distance. In stop-and-go traffic it might be nice, but how many models have adaptave cruise control that goes all the way down to zero and stays engaged?
Could you be more specific what kind of car gave you this experience? My Subaru's ACC default follow along is far enough behind that someone is frequently cutting in front of me due to the gap. Also, it goes all the way down to zero though a mild tap on the gas is needed to let it know you're ready for it to resume if it stops more than a couple of seconds.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with this ACC assessment. I keep mine on the 2-of-4 setting for following distance. And it's just far enough that some aggressive drivers think it's a merging space, and I think the tolerance is enough for those same drivers to want to pass, thinking I'm "too slow" when really they're just over-reacting to the car's normal speed up and distance tolerance.
Re: (Score:2)
>Dunno how AutoPilot works, but I find adaptave cruise control to be more taxing than regular. The last car I used it in had 3 distance settings; too close, way too close and OMGWTFWHYARE YOU SO CLOSE. Naturally the last one was the default setting.
The following distance option in the Tesla went away. So now it's following distance it too close and I invariably take over when it starts following.
Re: (Score:2)
Dunno how AutoPilot works, but I find adaptave cruise control to be more taxing than regular. The last car I used it in had 3 distance settings; too close, way too close and OMGWTFWHYARE YOU SO CLOSE. Naturally the last one was the default setting.
This is probably because the system is simply not capable of maintaining a safe following distance... it doesn't work until you get too close. That's an example of a system which is unsafe by design.
I don't know if all systems work that way, though, nor do I have any basis for comparison since you didn't say what kind of system you were using.
Re: (Score:2)
driving takes so much of my mental energy
Username checks out.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be more worried about people beginning to trust driving aids like this at the expense of attention
If accident rates go down, why does it matter if people pay attention?
Isn't the point of technology to allow us to focus our attention on other things?
Re: (Score:2)
If men learn this, it will implant forgetfulness in their souls; they will cease to exercise memory because they rely on that which is written, calling things to remembrance no longer from within themselves, but by means of external marks. What you have discovered is a recipe not for memory, but for reminder. And it is no true wisdom that you offer your disciples, but only its semblance, for by telling them of many things without teaching them you will make them seem to know much, while for the most part they know nothing, and as men filled, not with wisdom, but with the conceit of wisdom, they will be a burden to their fellows.
Re: (Score:3)
You didn't actually answer the question.
We have too big problems at play here. We are litigious and technology infancy. The rules actually exist because of the former but should go away or at least be ignored once we are past the latter. Unfortunately, this technology is legitimately in its infancy and unsafe at this point.
People have a really hard time accepting risk of bad things. The problem is every action in life carries a risk of bad things. There are rules and warning labels all over the place meant
Re: (Score:3)
unsafe at this point.
ACC and other driver assistance technology have reduced accidents by more than 20%.
So they are not unsafe. The unsafe cars are those that lack these features.
Vehicle safety features reduce accidents [forbes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
ACC and other current driving features have elements which constantly force drivers to focus on the road. Ideally these technologies are steps toward NOT needing to focus on the road.
Imagine always driving at or under the speed limit (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Part of the problem is that speedometers are not all that accurate. In fact some manufacturers deliberately make them over-read by quite big margins. For example the Nissan Leaf reads about 10% higher, so if you want to cruse at 70 MPH it needs to read 77 on the dash. If you set cruse control to 70 you are probably doing about 63 in reality.
That means that even if you have a bunch of drivers all driving at the speed limit, because their speedos all have different readings some will be going several MPH fast
Re: (Score:3)
I agree, although it does pose a dilemma in bad driving conditions. People don't adapt their speed and braking distance to things like ice and snow sufficiently, which is why there are more pile-ups in these conditions, which should not *necessarily* be the case. In good conditions I'll go with the flow even when that's 20 mph above the posted speed limit, but in bad conditions I'll be to the right going slower than many people, even though that's not ideal.
Re: (Score:2)
In good conditions I'll go with the flow even when that's 20 mph above the posted speed limit, but in bad conditions I'll be to the right going slower than many people, even though that's not ideal.
The problem really isn't the speed differential. The problem is that people are dickfaces.
Yesterday I made a six hour round trip drive to get stuff out of a storage unit. I went 70 down and 65 back, which means I had people passing me both ways. And motherfuckers are downright aggressive when you're not going as fast as they want. They wait until they're a half-second behind you to get into the passing lane, and then merge back in front of you only a half-second ahead of you, even when there's nobody trying
Re: (Score:2)
If I obeyed the posted speed limit I'd frequently be driving 5-10 miles per hour slower than the vehicles around me - I don't consider that safer than speeding.
I noticed this in America. It seems the speed limits are more of a general guideline than an actual law to be followed.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
some kind of left-wing righteousness
Not at all. On the contrary, I subscribe to the literal meaning of President Donald Trump's call for Law and Order, including the Law and Order of the road. In most countries, that means following the traffic law and the various administrative rules for its application. That oughta count as pretty right-wing in the US, no?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You should work on your reading comprehension more, I think.
Re: (Score:3)
No. Deferring personal judgement, autonomy, and responsibility to central authority is a left concept. All laws which take from the citizen the autonomy to decide the level of risk they are comfortable with and instead shift that power to the state are definitely left.
You are an example of someone who wants to be 'dead right' driving. You endanger your life and the lives of those around you by willfully disregarding situation reality and then blaming technical compliance with rules for having been negligent
Re: (Score:2)
All laws which take from the citizen the autonomy to decide the level of risk they are comfortable with and instead shift that power to the state are definitely left.
Which is why Republicans keep passing laws telling a woman what she can do with her own body. Those damn leftist Republicans.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the partisan groups in the US are both leftist.
Re: (Score:2)
So it is OK for me to use your house for target practice as I judge the risk to be minimal, got it.
Re: (Score:2)
You endanger your life and the lives of those around you by willfully disregarding situation reality and then blaming technical compliance with rules for having been negligent in your civic duty.
The people who endanger the lives of those around them are those who willfully disregard the laws and regulations because they believe their illusions are a "reality" are the problem. The morons and the assholes.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not arguing with the rest of your points, but when I was taught to drive in the 80s in the UK (by a professional, paid driving instructor) I was always told to drive with the flow of traffic. I'm not sure I genuinely have to explain to you what would be meant by the 'flow of traffic', but obviously I was also taught to use my common sense - e.g. if everyone raced off at 20mph over the speed limit you wouldn't be expected to follow.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
So it's the person in the right most lane going the speed limit that is the problem and not the guy going 80 in whatever lane has an opening?
Please. Just an excuse to do as you want because you are so much more special.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If the speed limit is 70 and there are twenty people driving 80 then yes, the person in the right most lane is the problem.
No, they are not. There is no rule in the traffic law books (or a reasonable interpretation elsewhere) that someone has to maintain a certain speed on the road that is dependent on whatever other traffic is out there.
In fact, it is the opposite, one of the first things you will learn from a proper instructor is that you should not change your driving to reflect or accommodate the driving style of anyone else, you should follow the law and your circumstances. Once you do, it is everyone else's duty to do the
Re: (Score:2)
If you feel like it is safe to have people go around you, or if you feel like you can say to yourself "they are speeding so they are in the wrong" by all means keep driv
Re: (Score:2)
Then maximums are too low everywhere.
Yes, I heard your opinion the first time around. It is still pretty much unsubstantiated, therefore wrong.
When everyone is driving above the limit and risk of driving is still acceptable with no one getting into accidents then limits need to be raised.
Yes, formally this is a correct logic construct.
It is too bad that traffic statistics unambiguously show that not obeying speed limits is typically among the leading two or three causes for accidents, causing at least a third of them, a fact which kind of undermines it... completely.
Incidentally, it shows that you have a poor ability to judge risk, as you completely ignore reality.
People are not stupid, they will drive faster if they feel safe doing it.
Shove your feelings up
Re: (Score:2)
People who insist on driving the speed limit when everyone else is driving faster *are* a hazard, you just confuse legality with safety.
Speed limits exist precisely to ensure that everyone drives the same speed. You're confusing inpatient fuckwits thinking they are better than the law with safety.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ask for your money back - you've had total morons as driving instructors.
The people who violate the traffic laws are the hazard - it is the asswipes who think their opinion on road safety trumps the regulations that cause the lion's share of bad accidents on the road.
Unlike your opinion, which you can shove where the sun don't shine, that's a well-established and immutable fact of the flow of traffic.
Re: (Score:2)
They tell you to do BOTH things.
They tell you over and over again that speed kills, so you should obey posted speed limits. And they also tell you that you should match the speed of traffic.
How do you reconcile these ideas?
It's actually not hard, if you think. If traffic is going faster than the speed limit while you merge, then you're going to have to speed up to get into it. But then you can slow down again... you're part of traffic.
In the bargain you should follow some other rules, too, like not obstruct
Re: Imagine always driving at or under the speed l (Score:2)
How can I impede something, when I drive with the maximum allowed? And besides, what is this flow of traffic? It surely ain't a thing in the traffic rules in any country I know of.
It most certainly is a "thing" and if you don't know what it is then gtfo the roads.
Re: (Score:2)
then gtfo the roads.
Yeah? Why, because an anonymous nobody from some website has an opinion?
LOL, get over yourself, asswipe.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems you have very poor knowledge and understanding of the traffic rules. You should follow your advice, as you're exactly what you describe in your last sentence.
Re: (Score:3)
"I spent the next 3 months following speed limits religiously. I've never been in so many near-misses or pissed off so many other drivers. Of particular concern are exits from highways. If it said 25MPH, I slowed to 25MPH by the time I reached the sign. More than once I heard the squeal of brakes behind me as someone nearly rear-ended me. "
I suppose you are from USA. I'm not, so I can't say for sure this applies to your roads. But I can say this about EU roads: speed limits for exits are indications for t
What else did the IIHS omit? (Score:2)
The IIHS estimates that "[c]ompared with manual driving, the increase in speed associated with ACC/Pilot Assist use was estimated to increase crash risk by 10 percent for fatal crashes, by 4 percent for injury crashes, and by 3 percent for property-damage-only crashes." The IIHS does note that it did not take into account the following distances while using ACC, which drivers can control (in increments of 1 and 5 mph).
That's a huge omission in their analysis. It'd also be interesting to know whether the IIHS also neglected (as in negligence) to measure or consider ACC's potentially more reliable crash avoidance features over an engaged but potentially inattentive driver.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah... they only called out a subset of the bad outcomes. Sneaky bastards...
Re: (Score:2)
The IIHS does note that it did not take into account the following distances while using ACC, which drivers can control (in increments of 1 and 5 mph).
That's a huge omission in their analysis.
That's because they apparently don't even understand it at all. ACC is controllable in terms of following seconds, not mph. WTF is mph in terms of following distance; at best it could be a closing rate but that's not what one sets with these systems.
Re: (Score:2)
That would've been the journalist making a typo.
Comments (Score:2)
Read the comments at the end of the article. They pretty much explain why this is a stupid study with stupid conclusions.
Obviously (Score:4, Interesting)
Interestingly, drivers sped more on highways with 55 mph and 60 mph speed limits than on 65 mph-limited roads.
The faster you're going, the less difference there is between the speed you're going, and the speed you want to be going. And most people only want to go so fast before their self-preservation instinct kicks in.
I haven't had radar cruise control yet, but I don't do a lot of driving in heavy traffic so I also don't need it. But when I use regular cruise control, I don't wind up accidentally using extra pedal because some part of me wants to go faster. I only use extra pedal when I choose to deliberately, for passing. Radar cruise control only makes you speed more if you ask it to, so people must be doing that. I'm surprised that the automakers are even allowed to make it offer you speeds in excess of about 70 mph in the US. And really, if you're going much faster than that, you probably shouldn't have cruise control on anyway.
Re:Obviously (Score:4, Informative)
I'm surprised that the automakers are even allowed to make it offer you speeds in excess of about 70 mph in the US.
Highways with speed limits up to 80 MPH are common across the northern Rockies and Plains states, and in isolated regions elsewhere. I've definitely used cruise control at speeds of up to 84 MPH (my tires were only rated for 85 MPH and below) on a cross-country jaunt along I-90 through Montana-Wyoming-South Dakota. It's not that unsafe; the roads are largely empty and (especially in South Dakota) you can see any turns or other cars miles away.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The highway speed limit in my city of about 250K was only recently, within the last five years, reduced to 70 mph within the city limits. It’s still 75 mph as soon as you get out of town, and people still frequently drive at 75-80 through town, just as they did for decades. I also live in one of the handful of states where exceeding the speed limit is not, in and of itself, illegal, so a speed governor of that sort would be limiting potentially legal activity.
Re: (Score:2)
"My point here is that whole "self-preservation" speed limit, is getting faster and faster as our cars feel safer and safer at high speeds."
They feel safer because they are ARE safer. The speed limit isn't about the risk of damage if one should crash at a given speed, if it were high speed rails and jets would all be prohibited, the speed limit is about safe handling in response to given roads (tire grip, turn radius, etc) when vehicles improve in ways that let them handle those conditions consistently at h
Acceptable Keeps being Redefined (Score:2)
we can go faster at the same level of risk already considered acceptable.
That's the problem though. As vehicles get safer at faster speeds the effect does not seem to be to increase speed limits but to decrease the level of risk considered acceptable.
Re: (Score:2)
The primary goal is to literally eliminate on-road automotive fatalities. This goal may be unreachable, but I don't think that it actually is. A combination of ever-increasing amounts of safety design and equipment and eventual self-driving that doesn't permit speeding may actually get us there.
Another goal is to simply make the whole system cost the taxpayer less. More collisions of any kind means more costs. So we want to bring down both fatalities and collisions. One helps reduce the other and in both di
Re: (Score:2)
They are safer, but they're not as much safer as they feel like they are. A big part of the problem is the elevated seating positions in modern vehicles. The higher up from the road you are, the less sensation of speed you experience.
The problem with going quickly is the penalty for failure. You might have speed rated tires but they aren't any more resistant to a puncture, nor is the chance of failure due to a manufacturing defect any less. But failure of a tire at high speeds is much more likely to cause a
I must not be typical. (Score:2)
I am much more likely to speed when driving myself, rather than when I have Autopilot engaged.
Re: (Score:2)
As was noted in the article, the following distance wasn't accounted for. The closer you follow the more you impact the driver behaviour in front of you. So, it's not about your speed so much as it is about the front driver's speed.
Re: (Score:2)
As was noted in the article, the following distance wasn't accounted for. The closer you follow the more you impact the driver behaviour in front of you. So, it's not about your speed so much as it is about the front driver's speed.
If someone wants to follow 'that' close I increase the follow distance I'm leaving to the car in front of me. My speed is not affected in the long term, it is still determined by prevailing traffic conditions (i.e. the car in front).
Additionally, if the opportunity arises I'll happily get out of their way to let them overtake me (in the UK it's not free for all traffic flow, 'undertaking' is not legal).
I have no desire to get rear ended by some muppet with delusions of being the next F1 champion.
Re: (Score:2)
As a policeman told us during a safe driving course: in the UK, it's legal to overtake on either side on a one-way street, and what's a motorway, but two one-way streets?
Re: (Score:2)
As a policeman told us during a safe driving course: in the UK, it's legal to overtake on either side on a one-way street, and what's a motorway, but two one-way streets?
It appears I was mistaken in that. I really should look these things up before shooting my mouth off. :-/
Thanks for the correction.
Re: (Score:2)
My previous post notwithstanding, the highway code states:
"Rule 267
Do not overtake unless you are sure it is safe and legal to do so. Overtake only on the right."
"Rule 268
Do not overtake on the left or move to a lane on your left to overtake."
And, in terms of legality a quick search turned up the following: "In fact, the Highway Code wording makes it clear to identify the law. The words of MUST and MUST NOT are the rules. Disobeying national highway laws is committing a criminal offence."
It's over 30 years
Re: (Score:2)
Read the rest of rule 268.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.
I had read it earlier, but as it specified congested traffic conditions it didn't seem relevant to the rules regarding overtaking / undertaking in free flowing traffic.
Either way, like I said in my first reply to you, I was wrong about it being illegal to undertake. My second reply was just a clarification, pointing out the difference between the 'rules of the road' and the law, in case anyone was interested.
Not in Teslas on big Trips (Score:2)
Not on longer trips on interstate highways. On longer trips you are more likely to go slower than average traffic to better balance range with charging times. Rather get there 10 minutes later from driving the speed limit or 40 minutes later because you had to stop and charge?
Anyway, ACC just keeps you safely behind another guy if you don’t adjust it to minimal follow distance. ACC reduces stress, roadrage, and annoyances if used correctly from any manufacturer. I’ve had it on cars since about 2
Then do something about it! (Score:2)
If the car companies want to sell cars in the EU after 2023, they will have to anyway, the new cars won't be able to speed anymore, since the local speed limit will be enforced by the car's computer by law.
Adaptive Cruise made me a slower driver (Score:2)
In 2009 I replaced my Honda Accord with a Volvo S80 V8.
It wasn't quite a "sports car" but it was definitely pretty easy to drive fast and very stable/comfortable on rural highways at 90 MPH and anecdotally I knew of at least one driver who covered a lot of rural miles at 110-120 mph. So when I first got it, I drove fast a lot.
But it had adaptive cruise control and I quickly got used to it. So used it than in normal metro area freeway driving I just quit bothering to speed. Speeding on metro freeways requ
So what? (Score:2)
>"Drivers Are 24% More Likely To Speed When Using Adaptive Cruise Control"
So what?
Driving somewhat over the speed limit is a non-issue and the overwhelming norm. Speed isn't the problem, it is major speed DIFFERENTIAL that is dangerous. It is also FOLLOWING DISTANCE that is dangerous. ACC actually addresses both- it reduces differential and enforces safe following distances.
Anyway, I hate ACC- I have had it for over 12 years and never use it because, for some reason, I completely lose focus when using
Re: (Score:2)
They can't even make a ticket stick at 5 over..
Re: (Score:2)
Speed isn't the problem, it is major speed DIFFERENTIAL that is dangerous.
The faster you go, the greater the speed differential between you and stationary objects, and you say the speed differential is the danger, but you also say that speed isn't the problem. Make up your mind.
Re: (Score:2)
>"The faster you go, the greater the speed differential between you and stationary objects"
I am not talking about stationary objects.
>"and you say the speed differential is the danger, but you also say that speed isn't the problem. Make up your mind."
Speed, itself, doesn't cause accidents. It can and does aggravate accidents that do occur, and those happen because of other factors. Speed differential is that between the vehicles. Some cars going 85, others going 50, for example. And that differen
Time is money (Score:2)
I remember a PSA way back trying to browbeat people into obeying the speed limit by saying the driver (who just got pulled over) would save only 3 minutes. Yeah, okay, but if he does that twice a day, that's 6 minutes. If he does that every work day ((50-2)*5)=250), that works out to 25 hours every year. That works out to rather a lot of money ($1250 if you get paid $50 an hour).
Ultimately, once this technology is standard in all cars, there will be a big boost in productivity and/or free time. Of cours
Re: (Score:2)
by saying the driver (who just got pulled over) would save only 3 minutes.
That's over longer distances than a hop to the next town. When I used to take my parents to New York, their GPS would give us an estimated arrival time based on the speed limits between their house and Hoboken.
I set the cruise control for five miles over the speed limit. Over the three hour drive we could see our arrival time come down by about five minutes. So yes, 3 minutes might be saved, but only if you're driving far enough.
Re: (Score:2)
If he does that every work day ((50-2)*5)=250), that works out to 25 hours every year. That works out to rather a lot of money ($1250 if you get paid $50 an hour).
Time isn't money, though. They aren't directly interchangeable. There are always other considerations, like could and/or would you actually get paid for that time.
Don't care for ACC. (Score:3)
When I got my Honda Insight 2019 I was super excited about the ACC feature. I messed with it for a couple of weeks before deciding it was more of a pain then I wanted to bother with.
The biggest problem for me is when you have the car on ACC and you go around a bend on a multi-lane highway. If the bend was sharp enough, a car in the lane to your left or right will briefly be in front of you and the car will slow down. This is terrible when everyone is going about the same speed and there is zero reason to slow down at all. The person behind you has to slow down because you slowed down, literally for no reason.
With traditional CC, you would keep going forward whatever speed you set.
Also, with ACC, people would constantly jump in my "gap" and then the car would slow down even more.
I quickly gave up using it. It's nice my car has some emergency braking but having your car slow down arbitrarily because the car in the lane next to you in a few feet ahead is horrible.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess they're still working the bugs out. The one on my Mazda works quite well. It will slow down when someone jumps into the gap ahead of you, but that's what it's supposed to do. It doesn't brake abruptly though, unless the merging car is going slower.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess they're still working the bugs out. The one on my Mazda works quite well. It will slow down when someone jumps into the gap ahead of you, but that's what it's supposed to do. It doesn't brake abruptly though, unless the merging car is going slower.
The car should immediately try to cut them off if it looks like they are going to pull in front of you. Failing that, it could purposely drive extremely close and maybe weave left and right and blow the horn at the car that cut them off.
Ok, maybe not.
Not Scientific (Score:2)
To test how ACC affected speeding, the IIHS recruited 40 drivers in the Boston area
Boston drivers?!?! holup
False extrapolation? (Score:2)
"[c]ompared with manual driving, the increase in speed associated with ACC/Pilot Assist use was estimated to increase crash risk by 10 percent for fatal crashes, by 4 percent for injury crashes, and by 3 percent for property-damage-only crashes"
It's obvious they did not gather the data for this "estiamte" from the study itself, which only had 40 drivers (unless they had multiple fatalities.) In fact the "estimation" sounds like they assumed that all types of speeding are the same in terms of risk. As in, th
I always do 5-9 over (Score:2)
As to the safeness of ACC with this, I would guess that this is much safer, even doing 10-15 mph over the limit, than is a manual driver doing the speed limt. The reason is that the vehicle is far more attentive than we humans are. Our tesla slows down, speeds up, etc. in a nice fashion. Overall, I suspect that as ACC hits all of the cars, it will decrease accidents a great deal, until f
Lets do the math... (Score:2)
So... People without cruise control drive 61 on roads with a speed limit of 55 and people using adaptive cruise control drive about 62mph....
And this difference accounts for 10% increase in fatality rate... Sure.
(that "sure" was meant to have a longer/repeated/drawn out letter in the middle, but they won't let me post that. Sigh).
Conclusions are not well supported (Score:2)
"It also noted that drivers generally drive 5-10 mph (8-16 km/h) faster than the posted limit, and that's easier to accomplish when using ACC than when driving manually." Why is driving faster easier with ACC? I used to set my cruise control exactly at the speed limit and cruise in the slow lane. Setting ACC to be faster than the average manual speed for the same driver is not at all obvious, so it's incumbent upon the researchers to explain this.
It's obvious that manual driving should have a far higher
Re:and 80%+ of drivers speed on under posted roads (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:and 80%+ of drivers speed on under posted roads (Score:5, Interesting)
My own view is speed limits are not only too low sometimes but usually too unreliable.
I'd say the implied utility of speed limits from driver's perception is to make driving conditions safe enough. But then, there are times when this is in fact the case, other times they are for the authorities to cover their asses, others for being cash cows... and then there's the 1~2% of drivers that are just plain sociopaths (just because 1~2% of people overall are plain sociopaths).
End result is drivers paying little attention to the speed limits as hints for driving conditions and just for the part that really align to our interests: our wallet in the form of speeding tickets, so road speeds end up not being related to safety as much as they are about our perception on chances of being fined. Quite a pity.
On the issue of cruise control, I have to say I haven't used adaptative ones, but just the "standard" fixed speed. With one of those my average speed is most possibly a few Km/h higher than without but also more constant -and safer. As per paragraph above, I usually go by the speed limits and then a few Km/h above it whenever road conditions allow, taking advantage of speeding radars' margins so I go, say, 126Km/h on a 120Km/h limited road, which I know it won't end up in fines. With cruise control, I just set it to 126Km/h, forget about speed and focus on driving by road conditions. Without it, I have to pay as much attention to the speedometer to avoid speed tickets as to the road itself: it makes my driving more irregular with regards to speed and unsafer as I'm losing road awareness if even for a few tens of a second each time I focus on the speedo instead of the road.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
End result is drivers paying little attention to the speed limits as hints for driving conditions and just for the part that really align to our interests: our wallet in the form of speeding tickets, so road speeds end up not being related to safety as much as they are about our perception on chances of being fined. Quite a pity.
I have little sympathy for the stupid paying a 100% voluntary tax contribution to their local police fund.
It's quite simple really, you have a license, it comes with conditions and rules. The rules are there to be followed. That is all there is to it. If the speed limit is posted at 30km/h on a highway, well that's the rule. The fact that people think they are better than the rule simply because they want to get to somewhere faster is asinine and worthy of punishment.
There is no such thing as a "speed limit
Re: (Score:2)
A safe speed for one driver might not be so for another.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
If people nearby are driving dangerously, the safest thing to do for yourself is to be driving slower, not faster, because you will maximize the amount of time that you have to react to unexpected dangers in your visibility.
And I'd far rather have a dangerous driver in front of me where I can easily see everything they are doing and anticipate what they might be about to do than behind me where my view is limited only to what I can see of them in the rear view mirror, so I'm more than happy to let someon
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And they are correct.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Agree with most of this, but fwiw New Hampshire has increased the speed limit to 70 on some remote sections of highway in the state.
Re: (Score:2)
ACC measures the speed of surrounding traffic and adjusts UP TO the set speed. It won't increase beyond the set speed to keep up with the flow of traffic.