[VolvoFaRmeR]

Sounds like cross path detection activated. If a car was traveling at a high rate of speed and whipped into a parking spot a few slots down you wouldn't have ever known there was a car around to hit...but cross path detection would have functioned.

Three times I've been a passenger and had someone else driving and auto path braking occured, and the driver freaked out. They couldn't understand what had happened, until I pointed out the traffic situation that caused it. They were oblivious that traffic was even there. Jut goes to show....a lot of people are convinced there was "nothing to hit". In reality, there was....they just didn't see it. Does that account for every occurrence? No. But i'm pretty confident it explains a lot of the "phantom braking" claims.

I have 3 SPA S60s a commutative mileage of over 100,000. I have not once had an "auto brake" incident that wasn't warranted. Not once.

 

[VolvoFaRmeR]

I don't know why these threads are inevitably filled with "doesn't happen to me lol" which are inherently unhelpful. If it doesn't happen to you it's because you live in suburbia and you've only ever reversed onto an empty street or in an empty carpark.

I live and frequently drive in 2 of the largest cities in 2 Midwestern states. With 3 cars and over 100,000 miles it has never happened to me. So no.....I don't live in suburbia or on an empty street or only negotiate empty car parks.

The issue is you are inherently, honest to god "backing into traffic" and then the system prevents it. That's how it's designed. It has limitations. You can turn it off if you like. But it is TOTALLY unreasonable to think that some how the car could distinguish between when its OK to back into oncoming traffic (because you want to) and when it's supposed to save you from a collision because you are not paying attention. If it wasn't "sensitive" it wouldn't be able to keep you from an accident.

People seem so unrealistic about the capabilities of technology with unrealistic expectations. The tech does 100 things right and 2 things wrong, so the mentality is it's "terrible" or "stupid" or "worthless". You know, there is a different way to think about that kind of technology.

 

[VolvoFaRmeR]

Hint: these two points are related.

Yes, it is obviously intentional. I never said it wasn't. I am simply saying that if you live in a city then you are much more likely to encounter the "backing into traffic legitimately" scenario regularly and you wouldn't be surprised that this happens often let alone be posting "not once ever has CTA triggered when I didn't want it to".

The real shortcoming here, IMO, is that you cannot turn it off and leave it off. I'm functionally doing that anyway it's just that every single time I turn on the car to leave the driveway I have to do it manually and then it stays off the rest of the time. In my case, in my driving style and scenario, leaving it off would improve safety for me. It's a shortcoming that I have to deal with having my brakes slammed on and then forced into and out of park while a foot of my car is in the lane of traffic just because I happen to forgot to tap the button.



I never said this and I never had this expectation so you can argue with yourself all you like. I'm a director of software engineering at a self driving car company. I promise you I understand technology and it's limitations. The irony here is that because I acknowledge technology has limitations I think it's dumb when people jump in to every thread to tell me their experience with the technology has been perfect. That's great but it won't always be and telling someone else that your experience was perfect isn't helpful.

As an aside, it isn't unrealistic to think that CTA could be better for this scenario. Car software engineering is ****ing awful in basically every way and leagues away from what we would consider to be modern software engineering. It's totally reasonable that I expect there to be an option that says "don't turn on CTA until I am out of the location you to know to be my home" or "don't turn on CTA if it is obvious that I am reversing into traffic". All of these things are perfectly capable.

I'm not advocating that they do it but telling me it's impossible shows who the luddite in this conversation really is.

Simmer down, no one’s attacking you. You know it’s beneficial to tell us the level of expertise you have because it gives yourself a lot of credibility. I never said it’s perfect and I never said someday I won’t experience a false positive. Clearly you can see there’s a multitude of people here that supposedly have false positives. I think it’s safe to say a number of them or maybe even the majority of them Were caused by something that was unseen by the driver and missed labeled as completely unwarranted I never called you stupid but I’m not exactly sure that I agree with the premise of all of your statements. Having been in the automotive industry for quite some time working with this technology in the service department and with my current job , that is highly dependent on using this type of technology every day in my operation. I don’t think calling me a Luddite is very appropriate. I think he’s miss read the tone of my statement.

 

[VolvoFaRmeR]

The tone of your statement is the tone of almost every statement you've ever made in this forum: condescension. All due respect, I don't need someone who has worked in service, sales or even corporate condescending me about technology.

With all due respect…..your replies are condescending as hell. You seem to take the position your job makes your opinion more valid than everyone else’s. What a stupid, convoluted conversation.

I don’t think we are gonna be friends. Let’s no be friends and call it a day, shall we? Geez.