[basketballfan]

I really enjoy Eyesight's adaptive cruise control. In stop and go traffic, it's less stressful knowing the car will stop. However, I can't get myself to wait for Eyesight to take over if I'm traveling fast (50+ mph) and coming up on stopped traffic. I'm just checking to make sure it's designed to stop the vehicle in this situation. Has anyone dared try this? It sure seems to wait a long time. I plan on setting up some empty boxes and trying it on my own.

Also, I was wondering if anybody knows what's going on with the brake lights when using adaptive cruise. I usually just slow down by taking my foot of the gas. Is the car behind me getting constantly bombarded by my brake lights?

Thanks.

 

[Novablue]

Even with this feature I can not see myself just letting the car do the work. Isn't there a long list of disclaimers about not doing what you say?

Lets say it works perfect 95% of the time, the one time your distracted the car stops itself and your safe. But if you use it all the time that 5% is gonna catch up to you.

I consider car safety features like PPE. You are supposed to work like you aren't wearing PPE to be truly safe.

 

[mpnret]

My plan is to hang some sheets and drive into them to test the system. Even if it's perfect I still plan on driving with my eyes open. EyeSight is a great system and I would feel even better if everyone on the road had it, especially those that think they don't need it.

 

[fun2drive]

My 13 arriving soon has Eye Sight and I tested it a couple times in stop and go traffic and interstate and it works fine. I am responsible for monitoring the system just as I do flying heavy aircraft. I would not stop monitoring the Eye Sight system but it will help reduce a lot of workload if used correctly. It should help reduce accidents when drivers are distracted...

 

[pgh]

I'm sure Subarus engineers put many quality engineering hours in the development of eyesight and there are backup systems in case of a failure. That said, I'm sure as time goes on the system will get tweaked just like any other product especially software upgrades.

 

[BossMaverick]

Does anyone know how it does in slippery conditions? Is eyesight programmed for an average level of traction or is it adaptive?

I'm asking purely out of curiosity because I don't own anything with eyesight. I could just see it as one potential flaw if a dumb owner tried to use it on a slippery day.

 

[foxrider68]

You can trust it. I was reading the paper and playing online the other day and it got me there....kidding.

Eyesight is designed with a 20mph speed gap in mind. If you speed up to a wall at 20mph it will stop. If you're going 25mph you'll still hit the wall but you'll be going slower at least, it just won't break in time. If you're going 70 and the car in front of you is going 50 the car will slow in time. If you're going a 100 and they're going 50 you're going to hit them.

If you want to learn the behavior set the cruise with the furtherst following distance in town and sit there with your foot ready and over the brake. I find it works good however if the person in front of you turns off it doesn't speed back up fast enough IMO. Its about a second too slow but I'm being picky.

It does not adjust for weather. It assumes good braking conditions.

 

[scoobert]

The short answer, Boss, is the system is capable of accounting for some environmental factors but not most.

I'll use an example for the longer answer. Eyesight gauges driver input when it decides whether to alert but it won't necessarily factor in your location on a hill. If you are queued up at a stop sign on a steep incline you will need to hit the gas more than usual just to maintain your distance as the car moves forward. The car measures your distance and considers whether you are applying the brake or the gas in the right amounts. Your input may cause it to alert but your speed will not trigger braking at the same time (which is a good thing in this scenario). If you close the distance too fast, the car will engage the brake. The hill factors indirectly into your closing speed.

Similarly, pavement conditions would factor into closing speed, but only indirectly. The car is gauging your input to see if you are applying enough brake. It will assist if it calculates an impact. The decision to assist considers your effectiveness at stopping the car on your own; your effectiveness may depend on the conditions.

 

[Latigo]

I did low speed tests on the test drive coming up to intersections and stuff. You should've seen the salesman tense up!
He got the sale though, so he can't be too upset lol

 

[Euchre]

Didn't I see a video about Eyesight saying that it is NOT meant to completely stop you or take over for such situations? Seems to me it said it was about mitigating the risk and alerting you so YOU can respond. The automated braking and such is to give you an edge on the response that you are obviously late to if it has to alert you.

You might want to review the video and discussion here.
(This thread illustrates the fears I voiced in that very thread.)

 

[scoobydoo2]

I once heard an old pilot describing what it was like when the first autopilot systems were installed in planes. He said the even though he new it all worked...it was hard to get used to it and trust it completely. I guess you are suffering from the same type of jitters that those early pilots had with their autopilot systems.

Reminds me of a joke where there is the first fully automatically controlled airplane. All the passengers are seated and the plane is getting ready for take off. An announcment comes over the planes P.A. system saying "welcome aboard the worlds first fully automated flight. Sit back and enjoy the flight as nothing can possibly go wrong, go wrong, go wrong, go wrong...."...lol

 

[subiesailor]

The original poster is exactly why these systems capabilities should not be openly shared with the users. They are there to add safety to the drivers capabilities not add driving capability to a driver on break.

When we start seeing accidents where the drivers are saying "I thought the car would handle the issue so I wasn't worried about it- had I known the system in the car might not catch the issue and stop in time I would have paid more "Attention" to my driving.

This will be the day when we start seeing a new kind of lawsuit in the courts which is similar to the texting and driving lawsuits - unattentive driver caused accidents.

DRIVE THE CAR AS YOU WOULD IF THE SYSTEM DIDN'T EXIST! If the system saves your bacon once it has paid for its self.

 

[boaterbob]

Here's another video on using Eyesight -
http://www.subaruoutback.org/forums...ine-up-love-3-6l-w-eyesight-2.html#post451083

 

[NinjaTurtle2.5]

If the system saves your bacon once it has paid for its self.

What we need is a system that cooks bacon, then we would have a real winner on our hands...

 

[basketballfan]

The original poster is exactly why these systems capabilities should not be openly shared with the users. They are there to add safety to the drivers capabilities not add driving capability to a driver on break.

When we start seeing accidents where the drivers are saying "I thought the car would handle the issue so I wasn't worried about it- had I known the system in the car might not catch the issue and stop in time I would have paid more "Attention" to my driving.

This will be the day when we start seeing a new kind of lawsuit in the courts which is similar to the texting and driving lawsuits - unattentive driver caused accidents.

DRIVE THE CAR AS YOU WOULD IF THE SYSTEM DIDN'T EXIST! If the system saves your bacon once it has paid for its self.

As the original poster, I think it's better to know what the system's limitations are rather than ignore them. A lot of adaptive cruise control systems don't bring the car to a complete stop like Subaru's. I INTEND TO DRIVE THE CAR AS DESIGNED TO ITS CAPABILITIES. I love bacon.:29:

 

[chilanzar]

Lets say it works perfect 95% of the time, the one time your distracted the car stops itself and your safe. But if you use it all the time that 5% is gonna catch up to you.

I consider car safety features like PPE. You are supposed to work like you aren't wearing PPE to be truly safe.

I think the percentage should be much higher than 95% for the system

If the Airlines in the US were even 99.5% safe then there would be over hundred plane crashes every day.

 

[foxrider68]

I drove my Suburban today and sure missed eyesight on the way home. I set it on the freeway everyday and hardly ever does traffic allow it to cruise at full speed. You quickly don't realize how much work it does for you. No regrets getting it.

 

[bigwally]

I don't have the eyesight system on my 2011 but I want it. I'm all about the automation, but I do have some trepidation about potential abuse as it may give some folks a better feeling about texting, or otherwise screwing off while driving. I'm a retired airline pilot who saw similar abuse concerns as autopilots got smarter, and I can say they were well founded, but overall they enhanced safety to an astronomical degree.

 

[subiesailor]

See Volvo's epic fail moment with their system. Smashed car and very red faced Volvo marketing people.

Like any system the only one that is expected to work 100% of the time short of major medical emergency is the driver. Same goes for the pilots.

By the way the closest my Grand Father ever came to having his ticket punched while flying transport in the AF was when a reconditioned plane he was ferrying back had the Auto pilot system lock up the horizontal fin. Zero elevator control - he used a trick an old fart showed him just before retiring. He landed the DC-3 nose down using throttle as his only way to control nose attitude. He said if that old pilot had not shown him the trick you could do with the old DC-3 nose down landing he would have been scraped off the runway with a spatula.