How to Turn Off Automatic Braking?

As long as SBCS is not required by law, I don't think it would make any difference in an accident.
Right. The more likely scenario is an owner drinking the "self-driving" Kook-Aid, relying on these systems to do the job of the driver rather than view them as a safety backstop that might compensate for driver error. Mazda is pretty good at not over-selling this stuff; others not so much, particularly Tesla and GM.

Despite malfunction warnings taking up maybe half the manual's text devoted to these systems, there is a temptation toward over-reliance. So, I see it as more the opposite--not paying attention and counting on these systems to do your job can lead you into an accident with your liability. You will not be able to blame your Mazda given those warnings.

Look on the bright side. Mazda vehicles do not yet have eyeball detection. Tesla's do, to take one example, and store the data in the black box. Tesla drivers who plow into somebody where it is detected that eyes were not on the road will be subject to a strong piece of evidence as to their liability.
 
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.
My point was maybe it would be unavoidable for a driving human but some scum lawyer may try to convince a jury that if the emergency braking was not disabled the system would react faster and avoid the accident.
 
Right. The more likely scenario is an owner drinking the "self-driving" Kook-Aid, relying on these systems to do the job of the driver rather than view them as a safety backstop that might compensate for driver error. Mazda is pretty good at not over-selling this stuff; others not so much, particularly Tesla and GM.

Despite malfunction warnings taking up maybe half the manual's text devoted to these systems, there is a temptation toward over-reliance. So, I see it as more the opposite--not paying attention and counting on these systems to do your job can lead you into an accident with your liability. You will not be able to blame your Mazda given those warnings.

Look on the bright side. Mazda vehicles do not yet have eyeball detection. Tesla's do, to take one example, and store the data in the black box. Tesla drivers who plow into somebody where it is detected that eyes were not on the road will be subject to a strong piece of evidence as to their liability.
The difference is this is not an automated drive vehicle. These are backup safety systems designed to help prevent accidents.

You owe a duty of care to your fellow comrades. Breach of duty of care resulting in injury/death is liable for civil financial damages.

A driver who relies on these safety systems may be found negligent.

But a driver who intentionally would turn a backup safety system off and then causes a fatal accident may find themselves not just guilt of an intentional tort in civil law but also would be subject to criminal penalties.

What may have been a simple involuntary manslaughter case (driver not paying attention and safety system on but malfunctioned) may now find themselves on a 3rd degree murder charge or voluntary manslaughter charge for intentionally disabling a safety system that may have prevented the accident. The victims family, the DA and the public will be looking for harsh punishment.

Before automated safety systems existed, I have seen drivers charged with vehicular homicide which was pleaded down to manslaughter.
What do you think would happen if you deliberately disabled a safety system?

It's America. You can still do what you want but beware the repercussions.
 
Last edited:
XD
My point was maybe it would be unavoidable for a driving human but some scum lawyer may try to convince a jury that if the emergency braking was not disabled the system would react faster and avoid the accident.
The system has reacted faster than me, albiet too fast where the sensitivity needed adjusted.
 
My point was maybe it would be unavoidable for a driving human but some scum lawyer may try to convince a jury that if the emergency braking was not disabled the system would react faster and avoid the accident.
Well, anybody can file suit for anything. That does not mean it goes anywhere. There are no self-driving vehicles. You are responsible for your driving whether you use these safety systems or not.

But if somebody is concerned with getting sued they should buy an umbrella liability policy which is inexpensive. My $2 million policy which is a $1.5 million supplement to both $500,000 auto liability and homeowners liability coverage costs me $305 per year. That's in the US. I have no idea how coverages work elsewhere.

By the way, anti-lock braking systems have been mandatory for a decade, many vehicles providing it before that. There's a thread or two where some posters claim better performance and gas mileage with TCS off. Anybody worried about that? You shouldn't be.
 
There are certain features that can be turned off with a simple button press or by following a procedure in the manual. That is not the same as intentionally disabling a safety system that, by design, cannot be disabled outside of pulling fuses or cracking software code.
 
Well, anybody can file suit for anything. That does not mean it goes anywhere. There are no self-driving vehicles. You are responsible for your driving whether you use these safety systems or not.

But if somebody is concerned with getting sued they should buy an umbrella liability policy which is inexpensive. My $2 million policy which is a $1.5 million supplement to both $500,000 auto liability and homeowners liability coverage costs me $305 per year. That's in the US. I have no idea how coverages work elsewhere.

By the way, anti-lock braking systems have been mandatory for a decade, many vehicles providing it before that. There's a thread or two where some posters claim better performance and gas mileage with TCS off. Anybody worried about that? You shouldn't be.
Anyone reading the above post that would consider deliberately disabling a safety system needs to be aware that umbrella policies do not cover injuries the policyholder sustains nor will it cover intentional injury/damage to another party nor anything caused during criminal acts.

Insurance companies have hundreds of years of writing exclusions just to protect against this sort of situation.

If you were found guilty of an intentional tort or criminal act then you would be financially destroyed in the ensuing legal battle, especially when the umbrella insurance company invokes their exclusion clause.

Good luck with that.

Umbrella policies were meant to cover accidents and/or negligence such as there is a bad snowstorm, and you haven't had time to get out and clear the sidewalk, someone slips, gets hurt then sues you. Insurance companies will never pay up for something you purposefully intentionally caused. Jeez, they sometimes try to get out of paying any legitimate claims. The intent starts when you intentionally disable the safety system by blocking up the radar, pulling fuses, disconnecting wires, etc.

Again, it's a free country and one can do what they want but there are repercussions. You may disable a safety system and knock on wood never have an accident. But if you do, and it's a major accident with severe injuries and fatalities, prepare for the storm to follow.
 
Insurance companies have hundreds of years of writing exclusions just to protect against this sort of situation.

If you were found guilty of an intentional tort or criminal act then you would be financially destroyed in the ensuing legal battle, especially when the umbrella insurance company invokes their exclusion clause.
Turning off a safety system would hardly qualify as an intentional tort or criminal act. If anything It would be negligence however an at-fault slamming into somebody would already qualify, whether a system is on or off.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There are certain features that can be turned off with a simple button press or by following a procedure in the manual. That is not the same as intentionally disabling a safety system that, by design, cannot be disabled outside of pulling fuses or cracking software code.
Some automakers allow you to turn off automatic emergency braking. There's no regulation or general principle involved, just an implementation by one automaker. Is Mazda being a nanny? More likely they got deep into the design process, integrating the various systems, and found that allowing a driver to turn off automatic braking would interfere with some other function. Just a guess.

For the record, I would not turn off emergency braking. Given the very few times I've had it engage (alarm a couple of times, the brakes only once) I would say someone that is so bothered by it ought to rethink their driving habits. On the other hand, I prefer conventional cruise over radar cruise. If I slammed into somebody's rear end would choosing that option be an act of negligence over and above the negligence of the act of slamming? I think not.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
As others mentioned that might be a calibration issue.
Mine beeped several times and kicked in twice since I got the car.
Once it beeped because it detected a parked car on a curve and thought I would hit (I wouldn't hit, was a false positive)
Other times, it beeped because I was closing the gap with the car in front of me because they were going to turn and I would go straight.
It briefly kicked in once for the reason I mentioned above, and released the brakes either when the car was done turning or when I pressed the accelerator.
Someone cut me off when it kicked in the other time. It reacted a tick faster than I did.
 
Back