1
181962
This is one reason among a couple why I don't use the radar cruise. There are idiots that pass and then come back in front right off the bumper. I don't know how the vehicle would react and I'm not inclined to find out.
How to Turn Off Automatic Braking?
- Thread starter Sade7822
- Start date
Emergency braking is not tied to using RCC.
- :
- 2019 CX-5 Signature
How close to the car in front that turned were you? It's always better to get hit from behind, than to hit the car in front of you.
Either some of you are driving more aggressively than I do, which would be a shock to my wife, or something's wrong with your vehicles.
1
181962
Radar cruise has an automatic braking function. That it is a different function is beside the point. If you're barreling along and traffic in front is at a dead stop you should expect emergency braking from RCC though I wouldn't bet my life on it.
Last edited by a moderator:
RCC will not slam on the brake if a car merges into your lane, unless it is driving significantly slower than you are. The mazda RCC isn’t really in a rush to go back to the set following distance, it will slowly pull away from the car that just merged into you.
For the OP, there are ways to disable the system, such has blocking the views of the sensors, or i suppose removing a specific fuse. If you read your car manual, it explains which sensors does which functions, but bottom line is that there are two main sensors at play, the front facing radar and the Lidar. If the Lidar is the one controlling that function, you can try blocking its view. It is behind the rearview mirror on the windshield. In winter climate it disable itself all the time from window fogging or ice on the windshield. Whether you could get sued for it or not, i have no idea.
But as other have said, if you set it to near it shouldn’t be engaging the brakes that often. i think the speed difference between both cars need to be at least 18 mph for it to engage.
For the OP, there are ways to disable the system, such has blocking the views of the sensors, or i suppose removing a specific fuse. If you read your car manual, it explains which sensors does which functions, but bottom line is that there are two main sensors at play, the front facing radar and the Lidar. If the Lidar is the one controlling that function, you can try blocking its view. It is behind the rearview mirror on the windshield. In winter climate it disable itself all the time from window fogging or ice on the windshield. Whether you could get sued for it or not, i have no idea.
But as other have said, if you set it to near it shouldn’t be engaging the brakes that often. i think the speed difference between both cars need to be at least 18 mph for it to engage.
Jack Rabbit
Banned
- :
- 18 Mazda CX5 AW
If a fatality or serious injury would occur, the law will recreate the scene as well as pull the ECM modules, etc.
and I think there would be serious criminal implications if the ECM revealed safety features were turned off or tinkered with.
After hearing some of the comments on here,
If I'm ever rear-ended in the future and still alive, I'm calling my lawyer and having him request the police check and make sure all safety features were active in the offending vehicle.
Blocking the safety features is almost as ridiculous and dangerous as texting while driving. It would be similar to an 18 wheeler trucker removing the Mansfield bars.
It's not just negligent, it's bordering on intentional and reckless disregard for human life.
If anyone would tinker with the system and be lucky to not be criminally prosecuted, they surely will be civilly liable with possibly big payout. Although your insurance may lawyer you up and represent you, a plaintiff could still sue both you individually as well as the insurance company.
All drivers need to do is adjust the sensitivity of the emergency braking to the least sensitive option and maybe adjust their driving style.
Last edited:
The NHTSA is currently investigating Tesla for unexpected automatic braking of their vehicles. And there are a lot of situations where they are turned off automatically (like ice or fog on the windshield). We are a far cry away from these features being mandatory for driving.
But i am not going into the moral debate of adjusting your driving to meet the safety system. Or wether you could be sued or not or if your insurer would accept to cover you. Just answering the Op direct question.
But i am not going into the moral debate of adjusting your driving to meet the safety system. Or wether you could be sued or not or if your insurer would accept to cover you. Just answering the Op direct question.
Jack Rabbit
Banned
- :
- 18 Mazda CX5 AW
Hi
So if anyone would deliberately mess with the safety system, I think the prosecuting attorney would go after the offender.
Understood, I was just expounding on your response to the OP and for benefit of other readers. A person could be sued at the very least for negligence much like texting and driving. However, if someone had deliberately turned off safety systems and was unable to stop their car manually then I'm sure a lawyer could make a case for intentional tort. And if it was a fatality, I'm sure the state could make a case for vehicular homicide. Their was a case where the a person had shorted a cashier by 50 cents and crossed state lines and the they put him in $50000 bond and were trying to send him to jail for 7 years over 50 cents.
So if anyone would deliberately mess with the safety system, I think the prosecuting attorney would go after the offender.
Last edited:
1
181962
The NHTSA announced this past week that they are escalating their investigation into Teslas slamming into stopped emergency vehicles, the other end of the spectrum.
I agree that turning off safety features would not incur additional liability in an at-fault accident.
I would say turning them off is preferable to believing a vehicle, any vehicle, is "self-driving" or "autonomous".
Well both end of the spectrum then, they also announced investigating phantom braking in tesla: NHTSA Wants Tesla to Hand Over More Information about Phantom Braking
Jack Rabbit
Banned
- :
- 18 Mazda CX5 AW
Understandable in an automated vehicle but in a driver vehicle, it is a backup system.
Imo, it would be similar to buying a house with a gated pool and the leaving the gate open and a kid gets in and drowns. In that scenario, the homeowner is civilly liable. I could see a lawyer making a similar case for buying a vehicle with safety features then disabling them.
You had extra features to possibly prevent serious injury or fatality but chose not to use them. That is at the very least negligence. As a driver, it is up to the tail car to be able to stop. Failure to stop is at fault.
If the emergency braking is activating that often, then the driver just needs to adjust the sensitivity.
If the system is still emergency braking alot then the driver really really needs to look at their driving style.
Having been rear-ended before, I'm taking a break from this thread. Best to all.
Last edited:
1
181962
A pool would fall under the attractive nuisance doctrine, well established under law, which does not apply here. I see no evidence of legal theory that makes this safety equipment anything but optional.
Now, if you crash your car because you took at face value some tech bro with the emotional maturity of a 16 year old telling you his car has "autopilot", and it failed to perform as promised resulting in a crash, then you might have a case. Or if you got slammed by that vehicle you might have a case against that bro, as with the five Texas cops suing Tesla.
Wonder what would happen if you were in an unavoidable accident and you rear-ended somebody and they found the tape over the sensor. Some low-life lawyer could sue you claiming if the tape wasn't there maybe the accident could of been avoided if the system would of detected it and reacted.
Having read too many lawyer novels and just thinking out loud.
LOL! If I was in an unavoidable accident, I'd be guilty of rear ending another car and my insurance would fix the other car, no different than any other car. It's no different than if I didn't have SCBS, and no different than if it failed. SCBS cannot be relied on to do what the driver cannot.
Shyster lawyers are a constant threat. I don't live in fear. Earth is only a temporary home.
Shyster lawyers are a constant threat. I don't live in fear. Earth is only a temporary home.
Please elaborate; is this a sensor behind the rear-view mirror? Is the tape on the outside or the inside of the windshield?
- :
- Canada
In your typical run-of-the-mill fender bender, I don't think a lawyer would be involved, and even if they were, it would probably be dismissed. With that said, if personal injury is involved, this could open up a whole can of worms.
Putting my moderator hat on, I personally can't condone disabling any factory implemented safety features. If anyone chooses to do so, just be aware of the potential risks involved.
