GolfGTIforum.co.uk
Model specific boards => Golf mk7 => Topic started by: Websta24 on 07 January 2016, 09:47
-
Quick question to see if mine is working properly....
In a situation of driving behind a car in a 30/40/50 zone using ACC, The car in front pulls off into a box junction (turning right) and the front assist jumps in and slams the anchors on?!
Can anyone else comment on this? For me it seems far too sensitive and it should realise a car has moved out of the way but it seems to still be picking up the other vehicle!
It scared the sh!t out of me when it did it first time out.
Also, the big red symbol on the dash and audible ping that occurs when your driving through a gap is also quite frustrating!
The latter i think it normal, but am i right in thinking i should go back to VW and ask if its configured correctly?
Thoughts would be most appreciated
-
No it can have all sorts of funnies.
I've had my Mk7 GTD for 18 months and its sh!t me up maybe a dozen times in that time.
I've had:
1) Car in front turning left/right with me following at a safe distance and not needing to brake, PING! Anchors on.
2) Foil crisp packet in the road, PING! (and the warning brake dab)
3) Coming off of a long motorway slip road, motorway full of stationary traffic but slip road clear, PING and anchor up.
And a few others, but #1 is the top cause.
It uses a radar sensor together with a prediction algorithm about closing speeds and intersection probability, together with seeing if the driver has made any adjustments to suggest he/she has seen the impact. If you don't back off the gas or brake or steer AND it predicts impact, it will trigger.
Unfortunately the path prediction is based on radar returns, which is not entirely accurate and can be fooled by a fake radar picture from interference or a target that reflects a bigger amount of signal (in the same way military radar decoys work) than is normally expected.
All of this can in itself be dangerous, when vehicles behind you aren't expecting you to slam on the anchors (any more than you were expecting it to happen, because the road is clear).
I've been sworn at before when it happened... (scenario #3 above I almost had a Jeep rear end me)
-
I have seen a video from the UK here where a person was prosecuted for causing an accident by jamming on their brakes so that the car behind would run into them(the car behind had a camera)
Now what if the car brakes itself and someone runs into you, who would be held responsible then and how could you prove it was the car and not you that braked?
I take it that this can be switched off?
-
I have seen a video from the UK here where a person was prosecuted for causing an accident by jamming on their brakes so that the car behind would run into them(the car behind had a camera)
Now what if the car brakes itself and someone runs into you, who would be held responsible then and how could you prove it was the car and not you that braked?
I take it that this can be switched off?
Good question.
If you turn it off though would your insurance be void without telling them as this is no doubt a safety feature and may help bring down the premium rate? And on the flip side would it increase your payments if you did tell them you had turned it off?
Maybe something would be logged on the car that it was the car that flung on the brakes.
Its actually quite frightening when it happens unexpectedly when you are happily singing along to a song, totally oblivious. Its happened to me a few times and I must admit the first time I was more inclined to assist it with the brakes as I thought "I must have been going to hit something otherwise the car wouldn't have done that" It was just me behind a bus and the bus pulled in and I was going to go round it.
What I have noticed though is if I sit with the ACC selected on my MDF when I'm just driving around the 30 / 40 roads, its more prone to doing it. Could just be a coincidence though.
-
Not sure you can be prosecuted for hitting the brakes. Always believed whether correctly or not that if you stop, no matter how suddenly and get rear ended its the following cars fault for not being a safe stopping distance behind you. I used to work in the dreaded car insurance industry, all be it many years ago and that's my understanding. Who is to say that you weren't reacting to a potential incident that didn't materialise. How many times have you seen kids come barrelling down a drive on a bike or something and look like they will go into the road, only to stop bang on the kerb line cool as you like.
Have had the car do the emergency stop once so far in 2 months of ownership. As I pulled out to pass a stationary bus, not sure it was the bus as was alongside it more likely the oncoming traffic. Almost altered the upholstery pattern in an unwanted way.
-
I was quite surprised just how quickly a Mk7 GTD can stop at 30mph...
As for would it be possible for forensics to tell... of course! Your car logs all sorts of driving data and routinely the police seize the data for analysis and can tell about speeding, braking and all sorts leading up to a crash.
Would it be your fault? Well, probably, the other option is to sue VW.... I don't think its happened yet but as cars get more automated, eventually it will for sure!
-
Would it be your fault? Well, probably, the other option is to sue VW.... I don't think its happened yet but as cars get more automated, eventually it will for sure!
[/quote]
I still don't see it being your fault if the driver behind runs into you. What's the difference between this and an actual incident requiring an emergency stop. The driver behind should be an adequate distance behind so as to not run into the car in front in an emergency. Hence Tailgating being an offence or as good as these days and subject to on the spot fines.
-
Is the "2 second rule" actually enough to react and stop in if you are following a Mk7 that applies maximum braking with no warning?
Based on my sudden stop I had, I'd say no...
I thought i'd actually hit a parked car, thats how fast it stopped!
-
By no means an expert but the Highway code says something like you should be an adequate distance from the car in front to be able to stop in the available clear distance between cars. Think the 2 second rule is more for higher speed roads anyway and is merely a guide line. Various cars different stopping distance etc. etc.
Not wanting to stray onto another subject, but tyres (don't mention Bridgestones on here :grin:), reactions and obviously speed make a big difference to the stopping distance. If a kid stepped out in front of you and the car slammed on and you then got rear ended by the idiot behind and subsequently hit said Kid, what would the local plods view be? Whose fault is the kid got run over? Now if you maliciously slam on then maybe a different story, but ACC kicks in or you physically genuinely brake for a perceived hazard surely the person behind is at fault. After all the ACC kicks in for what it deems is a perceived hazard, whether rightly or wrongly same mistake us humans can make really.
I know I would strongly argue any case if I was smashed from behind.
-
Just something I found on the internet (not been able to verify it) but... two bits of quoted case law (on which the UK legal system works)
In Gussman v Gratton-Storey the Defendant applied her brakes violently in order to avoid hitting a pheasant running across the road. The driver behind was unable to stop and collided with the Defendant’s vehicle. The Defendant was held liable so in this case the sudden stop was in effect held to be unreasonable. The lead driver was held liable in this case.
Blyth v. Birmingham Waterworks Co. (1856), was a landmark ruling:
Holding and Rule: Negligence is determined by a reasonable person standard. A person is not negligent if his conduct and precautions conform to the standard obeyed by a prudent or reasonable person.
A reasonable person cannot be held liable for an unforeseeable event. Negligence is an objective standard and has nothing to do with a party’s subjective state of mind.
-
And many more cases decided the other way, guess the line "vast majority of times it's the fault of the car behind" is the key. But certainly not always the car behind. I think if it can be proven by the cars black box or some equivalent the car braked itself you would be damn unlucky to be held responsible.
The recent case of Steadman v London United Busways Ltd v Sala proves it is still incredibly rare for courts to blame the driver of the car in front when its been hit from behind. It was brought by a passenger who was seriously injured and made a bus accident claim. In 2010 6,268 people were injured due to an accident involving a bus or coach, and thousands of passengers suffer bus injuries and make a compensation claim after bus accidents. While straight forward, this claim has lessons for all drivers:
Valerie Steadman was a passenger on a bus travelling along Kensington High Street in West London. In front of the bus was a Ferrari sports car, driven by Mr Sala. When the driver of the bus braked abruptly it threw Mrs Steadman from her seat and she suffered serious injuries to her spinal cord, leaving here with tetraplegia.
Mrs Steadman made a claim against the bus company, London United Busways, claiming it was the fault of the bus driver that she had suffered her accident. The driver of the bus said that he had been forced to make an emergency stop because the car in front stopped abruptly and without warning, therefore to avoid a bus crash the bus driver had done the same. He claimed the Ferrari driver should have realised the bus was close behind and it wasn’t safe for him to brake the way that he did.
The court had to decide if the cause of the accident was the fault of the Ferrari or of the bus driver.
Hit From Behind: Who is at Fault?
Mrs Justice Smith had to consider a lot evidence from both parties, witnesses to the accident, experts and CCTV footage.
She came to the decision it was the bus driver’s fault Mrs Steadman had been injured because he’d slammed on his brakes. It wasn’t the fault of the driver in front because he had no obligation to keep the bus in his vision at all the times - the main focus of any driver has to be what is happening in front of them.
And from the bike lawyers website but same principal.
I was hurt quite badly in an accident which was caused by the driver in front of me unexpectedly and suddenly slamming on his brakes at a set of traffic lights. The light switched to amber and I thought he was going for it so I did too. Unfortunately he changed his mind but it was too late for me. I tried to stop but was unable to do so in time and went over the top of the car. I want to make a claim for my out of pocket expenses and injuries now that I am out of hospital but the police officer says not to bother as it’s my fault! Surely I deserve something. He braked too late.
Graham Lovell, Somerset
Answer
The usual rule is that you should leave sufficient space between you and the vehicle in front to allow you to safely stop should the unexpected happen. Therefore the vast majority of cases of rear end shunts are the fault of the person travelling behind. This is for either driving too close to the vehicle in front or simply not concentrating. However, in certain cases the driver who suddenly stops can be held at least partially to blame.
In one such case a judge decided that sudden, unexplained braking can be held to be negligent (Elizabeth –v- Motor Insurers’ Bureau, Court of Appeal, 1981). In Ritchies Car Hire Limited –v- Bailey (1958) a driver who slammed on her brakes to avoid hitting a pheasant causing the driver behind to run into her car, was found to have been negligent to stop “merely” for a pheasant. In your case the driver stopped for an amber light as is required except when to do so is likely to cause an accident. It is on this last bit that you would have to pin your hopes. I imagine most judges will find completely against you but you may be lucky and find a sympathetic one and if I were you I would make an early split liability offer with you accepting the vast majority of the blame. I would be reluctant to take this to court.