Should you Disable EyeSight in Severe Weather Conditions

[subyroo651]

I may start a new thread on this but does anyone know how EyeSight might react to Having HID's instead of the normal Halogen bulbs?
Nothing ridiculous just 4300K but I wonder if it would confuse the cameras on some far out light spectrum ..

[scoobert]

Drive past HIDs all the time in the opposite direction and no problem, even on those curves where the opposite lane causes the lights to shine right at you. I've been flanked by HIDs on either side of a 3-lane HWY and no problems. I think that's enough empirical evidence to say "go for it!"

[statueim]

Originally Posted by scoobert

It's not like you're driving along...driving...driving...driving...driving...sn owflake/SLAM BRAKES.

I was basically referring to "the perfect storm" conditions (not sure if I intend the pun there or not) and realize the scenario is far-fetched, but you could theoretically have two very similar snowflakes (or any other object) approaching the cameras at a very similar rate such that the car would apply it's brakes.

It's good to know that the system disables itself when there is too much "noise" in the image (i.e. something that does not remain constant for more than a frame), so the snowflake scenario is kind of a moot point since two snowflakes will often be accompanied by a flurry of others. That said, I am very curious about the limitations of the system and I'm sure Subaru is too since no degree of in-house testing, beta testing, or other testing can account for all the bugs you will find in something as complex as EyeSight when you give it to tons of customers in a wide range of different environments who use the system daily. Personally, I think I'm an EyeSight 2.0 kind of guy.

Here's another example of a situation where I could see EyeSight potentially doing harm by having control of your brakes:
Say there is an odd intersection between a fast road (like an older two lane highway around here) and a more residential road. You are on the residential road and on the other side of the two lane highway you wish to cross, the road sharply turns left. The two lane highway is busy, but you finally find a gap where if you really gas it, you can get safely across the highway and take the sharp left on the following road. If you don't gas it, you'll probably be sitting there for the next half an hour, so you go for it. As you are almost across, another car pulls up on the residential road on the side to which you are crossing where the sharp left "bend" is. Since the intersection is a little non-standard and you have to make a fairly sharp left turn, it appears (to EyeSight) that you are about to have a head-on collision with the car on the opposite side of the road and EyeSight immediately applies the brakes. This leaves you stuck on the highway as the next car you would have narrowly missed T-bones your passenger door. Ouch.

It's these types of issues that make me think twice about giving first-gen software control of my car's brakes.

[scoobert]

It's not terribly difficult to confuse Eyesight such that it alerts the driver. If I'm understanding you correctly, you're more interested in a scenario that causes the system to override the driver input, especially those scenarios wherein the driver's situational awareness is superior to Eyesight's readings. Eyesight will indeed let you aim at a wall (or a car) and gun it. It allows for the possibility that you may turn at the last moment. In other words, it's cool so long as you aim the car in a different direction under safe conditions. It doesn't apply brakes unless a collision is eminent. If the object is avoidable, it just nags you.

For instance, I can cause the system to alert if I'm sitting at a 4-way stop and I punch the gas as another car makes its way through the intersection. Eyesight will let me barrel towards the car so long as I can avoid it.

I live in town but the place is thick with deer. I've been able to avoid striking deer by punching the accelerator and pointing the car just a few feet around the deer, accounting for angle of intercept.

Like you, I was cautious at first. I don't want the car to disable me when I need to do something extreme.

Edit: for what it's worth, the software is road-tested in Japan. Call it what you will, but I don't think of it as first-gen software

[foxrider68]

I don't mean to be rude but if you don't think all of these scenarios and more have been thought out in board rooms and tested you're not thinking it through correctly. Look how much money Toyota spent on issues caused by driver errors, do you really think Subaru is going to put a car out there that drives itself right into a problem?

Go to cars101 and read the comments he put in from consumer reports concerning eyesight. I have copied in a relevant piece for now. Essentially the safety elements kick in when the driver is not paying attention. If they're reacting to the road it will let you smash stuff.

In the demonstration, Subaru set up 12 large foam blocks with the image of a stopped Outback near the end of our track. As we approached (in Subaru's EyeSight-equipped Legacy), our driver was told to hold the speed at 20 mph and not let up on the gas. The car automatically applied the brakes in time to stop in front of the target. However, when our driver instinctively adjusted the gas, the car assumed he was paying attention and released the brakes, so we smashed into the foam Outback ahead of us.
That's the way the system is designed, so if there is an escape route to the side, for example, you can accelerate into it. The next time, our driver held the throttle steady, and the car stopped short of the target.

[statueim]

Originally Posted by foxrider68

I don't mean to be rude but if you don't think all of these scenarios and more have been thought out in board rooms and tested you're not thinking it through correctly. Look how much money Toyota spent on issues caused by driver errors, do you really think Subaru is going to put a car out there that drives itself right into a problem?

So you think that every scenario that the car will ever encounter has been tested? Have you stopped to think about how every first generation car ever released (and every first generation piece of software ever released) has had some flaw that the designers were unable to test/correct for? If they did a risk assessment, I think you are right that the focus was on money--which probably included the lawsuits Subaru will potentially be defending against for the scenarios they may not have been able to test. If the benefit is that more times that not, EyeSight prevents a collision and they continue to build their reputation for safety--which gets more people to buy their cars--and at the same time, Joe Schmoe in a fringe-case situation that Subaru was unable to test for is fatally wounded in his car because of EyeSight acting erratic and his family sues Subaru, but settles out of court, the net increase in car sales far outweighs the cost of the settlement.

I won't hammer on this one anymore, but I will be curious to read future stories as more people purchase and use cars with EyeSight.

[subiesailor]

Originally Posted by statueim

So you think that every scenario that the car will ever encounter has been tested? Have you stopped to think about how every first generation car ever released (and every first generation piece of software ever released) has had some flaw that the designers were unable to test/correct for? If they did a risk assessment, I think you are right that the focus was on money--which probably included the lawsuits Subaru will potentially be defending against for the scenarios they may not have been able to test. If the benefit is that more times that not, EyeSight prevents a collision and they continue to build their reputation for safety--which gets more people to buy their cars--and at the same time, Joe Schmoe in a fringe-case situation that Subaru was unable to test for is fatally wounded in his car because of EyeSight acting erratic and his family sues Subaru, but settles out of court, the net increase in car sales far outweighs the cost of the settlement.

I won't hammer on this one anymore, but I will be curious to read future stories as more people purchase and use cars with EyeSight.

It would suggest that you are completely out of touch with reality to assume a driver or Eyesight system either or is capable of handling " every scenario that the car will ever encounter" in an appropriate manner. Which is why you have a greater chance of punching your ticket driving across town vs pretty much any other normal and sensible activity people do on a daily basis.

[mpnret]

Originally Posted by statueim

So you think that every scenario that the car will ever encounter has been tested? Have you stopped to think about how every first generation car ever released (and every first generation piece of software ever released) has had some flaw that the designers were unable to test/correct for? If they did a risk assessment, I think you are right that the focus was on money--which probably included the lawsuits Subaru will potentially be defending against for the scenarios they may not have been able to test. If the benefit is that more times that not, EyeSight prevents a collision and they continue to build their reputation for safety--which gets more people to buy their cars--and at the same time, Joe Schmoe in a fringe-case situation that Subaru was unable to test for is fatally wounded in his car because of EyeSight acting erratic and his family sues Subaru, but settles out of court, the net increase in car sales far outweighs the cost of the settlement.

I won't hammer on this one anymore, but I will be curious to read future stories as more people purchase and use cars with EyeSight.

It's not new. It was on MY2012 in Australia. I did read some positive reviews by owners there before deciding to get it.

[foxrider68]

Originally Posted by statueim

So you think that every scenario that the car will ever encounter has been tested? Have you stopped to think about how every first generation car ever released (and every first generation piece of software ever released) has had some flaw that the designers were unable to test/correct for? If they did a risk assessment, I think you are right that the focus was on money--which probably included the lawsuits Subaru will potentially be defending against for the scenarios they may not have been able to test. If the benefit is that more times that not, EyeSight prevents a collision and they continue to build their reputation for safety--which gets more people to buy their cars--and at the same time, Joe Schmoe in a fringe-case situation that Subaru was unable to test for is fatally wounded in his car because of EyeSight acting erratic and his family sues Subaru, but settles out of court, the net increase in car sales far outweighs the cost of the settlement.

I won't hammer on this one anymore, but I will be curious to read future stories as more people purchase and use cars with EyeSight.

I think you're either failing to do the proper research or chosing not to read what you're being told. I sense that you feel the sky is falling and perhaps have a bomb shelter in your back yard. I'd rather die in the sunshine than live for 40 years in a hole.

[plain OM]

Originally Posted by statueim

. . . .
Here's another example of a situation where I could see EyeSight potentially doing harm by having control of your brakes:
Say there is an odd intersection between a fast road (like an older two lane highway around here) and a more residential road. You are on the residential road and on the other side of the two lane highway you wish to cross, the road sharply turns left. The two lane highway is busy, but you finally find a gap where if you really gas it, you can get safely across the highway and take the sharp left on the following road. If you don't gas it, you'll probably be sitting there for the next half an hour, so you go for it. As you are almost across, another car pulls up on the residential road on the side to which you are crossing where the sharp left "bend" is. Since the intersection is a little non-standard and you have to make a fairly sharp left turn, it appears (to EyeSight) that you are about to have a head-on collision with the car on the opposite side of the road and EyeSight immediately applies the brakes. This leaves you stuck on the highway as the next car you would have narrowly missed T-bones your passenger door. Ouch.. . . .

This is a good example, and very similar to situations often experienced when driving quickly on two lane highways in mountain areas. It's not unusual to be coming around a tight curve that's almost "blind"; because of trees, or hills, you can't see what's coming in the opposite direction until you're at the curve.

The first thing I would note is that the Eyesight field of view is relatively narrow, conical, and straight out in front. This means that objects that are to the side of your car (e.g. in the other lane) will be seen when further out but not as they come nearer.

In your scenario, Eyesight will be looking forward when you accelerate across the highway, not off to the left. So it probably won't see the car as you accelerate. Then when the other car does come around the corner and into the far field of view, it will be following a curved trajectory. Eyesight will recognize that the other car is following an arc, not a straight line across your path. It will determine that the arc will bring the other car to your left, concluding no immediate danger.

So based on my understanding, Eyesight would not hit the brakes, putting you in danger of being t-boned on the highway.