Rear-end collision avoidance technology from Nissan

[C-Kwik]

The old FX has Lane Departure Warning, which just makes the rumble strip sound. Newer Infinitis have Lane Departure Prevention, which actually uses braking to try and keep your car from drifting out of your lane if you ignore the warning sound. It's integrated with stability control. I can see this causing lots of problems, especially in construction zones where there are old faded lines and new relevant lines that could combine to confuse the car. My old commute into Salt Lake City was 75% construction zone with movable concrete barriers, the lane paintings changing frequently. DOT does a terrible job of removing old lines and we already get a lot of out-of-state drivers and other drivers who aren't familiar with the area following the wrong sets. I can only imagine the havok LDP would wreak through those stretches. Fortunately it can be disabled.

I don't think anyone is "trying" to take control from the driver either. But it will still happen. Give them an inch, they'll take a mile.

I would hope they accounted for errors. Accounting for errors and false readings is a large part of engineering. As with any system, there is always something that they probably couldn't account for that situation seems rather obvious and would likely rear is head during testing.

Give who an inch? The intent of these systems are driver aids. We as humans are flawed (otherwise there would be no accidents). Systems that help reduce these accidents or even lower the severity of them are good things. I don't see us getting into any self-controlled automobiles anytime soon. They may develop the technology, but implementation over a large area would be damn near impossible. But the R&D would prove invaluable for many things, including outside the auto industry.

[RED_DET]

Don't even get me started on the illegal aliens that drive.

I take it you live around AZ?

Every state is plagued with this problem and it gets worse daily around here it seems.

[ADDirishboy]

Every state is plagued with this problem and it gets worse daily around here it seems.

Agreed. I live in Tucson. It's awful.

[AZhitman]

I don't recall ever seeing a rear-end accident case where the functionality of the brake lights was called into question. It certainly doesn't absolve the driver of the rear-ending vehicle from any liability, as the traffic laws governing failure to control one's vehicle and failure to maintain proper following distance do not speak to brake light failure.

[ADDirishboy]

I don't recall ever seeing a rear-end accident case where the functionality of the brake lights was called into question. It certainly doesn't absolve the driver of the rear-ending vehicle from any liability, as the traffic laws governing failure to control one's vehicle and failure to maintain proper following distance do not speak to brake light failure.

I've seen a few where people claim the brake lights weren't working on a car they rear-ended. VERY few were able to actually prove the lights were out. And even then, they were still the majority at-fault person. Like, still about 80-90% at fault.

[Dattebayo]

I heard the Catholics are going to implement this technology for converting gays to Christianity.

[ADDirishboy]

I heard the Catholics are going to implement this technology for converting gays to Christianity.

[PoorManQ45]

I don't recall ever seeing a rear-end accident case where the functionality of the brake lights was called into question. It certainly doesn't absolve the driver of the rear-ending vehicle from any liability, as the traffic laws governing failure to control one's vehicle and failure to maintain proper following distance do not speak to brake light failure.

How does this come in to play when you consider that it is a moving violation to not have functioning brake lights?

Wouldn't those two laws kind of "fight" each other if this were the case?

[ADDirishboy]

How does this come in to play when you consider that it is a moving violation to not have functioning brake lights?

Wouldn't those two laws kind of "fight" each other if this were the case?

No. If you rea-end someone, you are at fault. Pretty much no matter what. It is up to you to maintain a distance far enough away from the person in front of you, and also to pay attention to the road ahead. Even if that person in front of you does something illegal, the responsibility still falls on you to see that they are doing something and react to avoid a collision.

[PoorManQ45]

Something about that just doesn't seem right.

If you're on a dark country road with no street lights, and someone is dead stopped in the lane with no lights on and you're doing 55mph~70mph that's 80fps - 102fps. Average low beams extend 160ft.

I'm going to use a 2000 Chevy Cavalier as that was the first thing to come up in a braking distance google search.

To go from 60 to 0 mph the distance is 146ft. If you were to react instantly you could stop. Unfortunately very few people have a 0.0 reaction time. Lets assume a 0.5s reaction. That means you have traveled ~40~51ft before reacting. If you stop in 146ft this puts you 26~37ft past the object in the road.

In VA brake lights are required to be visible at 500 feet . This would give plenty of stopping distance for even a semi.

You can obviously see what I'm getting at here.

I am not including the idea of swerving simply to make a point. There have to be some instances which you are not at fault.