Radar Cruise Control

[NathanH]

I'm not sure how much this will help, but I'd like to apologize for the experience you've had in this thread. Rest assured that most threads do not end up this way. I, and many others, try to find ways to open up the discussion without letting my passion (or whatever one wants to call it) spill into what I type. Of course, I'm far from perfect, and I do rely on others here to keep me in check.

To circle back to your original question (which I STRONGLY recommend we all do) of why the cruise control disengaged at 20mph... My initial thought was that MRCC used the radar above a certain speed, then relied on the front camera for lower speeds (similar to the way that SCBS and SBS work). I'm not actually sure if this is the case, but if it is, then any obstruction could cause the front camera to be obstructed and the feature would not function correctly. However, in those cases, the system throws a warning. With no warning, I'm inclined to believe that the radar system (for whatever reason) deemed that there was no car in front of you anymore and let off the brakes. In the fine print, Mazda states that the radar sensor may not always detect a vehicle in front due to it's shape or other factors. I'm thinking that's what happened. The good news is that at that speed, the car's SCBS should kick in to prevent a collision (which wasn't necessary as you had been attentive enough to recognize the situation and apply the brakes as required).

Just as an additional note, the front camera can also be "blinded" by sunlight in rarer cases, triggering a warning even in clear conditions.




Well said. It's perfectly fine to have an opinion and defend it. Trying to impose an opinion on others, saying "I'm right, you're wrong", can very easily carry a crass, demeaning tone, even if that is not the intent. I've been guilty of this (fairly recently too). That tone defeats the purpose of the conversation, and people can become distracted by how they feel about what was written instead of digesting the information and responding with a level head.


As a reminder, the thread was started to ask why MRCC disengaged at 20 mph in this instance. If the off topic discussion continues, I'll have to clean the thread up (which I would prefer not to do as there is a lot of useful information in these posts). Please try to stay on topic everyone, thanks.

The sunlight idea makes sense, and that could be the reason thinking back on it. Never occured to me. And thank you for understanding and putting it in words better than I could myself.

 

[velocityc6]

I'm not sure how much this will help, but I'd like to apologize for the experience you've had in this thread. Rest assured that most threads do not end up this way. I, and many others, try to find ways to open up the discussion without letting my passion (or whatever one wants to call it) spill into what I type. Of course, I'm far from perfect, and I do rely on others here to keep me in check.

To circle back to your original question (which I STRONGLY recommend we all do) of why the cruise control disengaged at 20mph... My initial thought was that MRCC used the radar above a certain speed, then relied on the front camera for lower speeds (similar to the way that SCBS and SBS work). I'm not actually sure if this is the case, but if it is, then any obstruction could cause the front camera to be obstructed and the feature would not function correctly. However, in those cases, the system throws a warning. With no warning, I'm inclined to believe that the radar system (for whatever reason) deemed that there was no car in front of you anymore and let off the brakes. In the fine print, Mazda states that the radar sensor may not always detect a vehicle in front due to it's shape or other factors. I'm thinking that's what happened. The good news is that at that speed, the car's SCBS should kick in to prevent a collision (which wasn't necessary as you had been attentive enough to recognize the situation and apply the brakes as required).

Just as an additional note, the front camera can also be "blinded" by sunlight in rarer cases, triggering a warning even in clear conditions.




Well said. It's perfectly fine to have an opinion and defend it. Trying to impose an opinion on others, saying "I'm right, you're wrong", can very easily carry a crass, demeaning tone, even if that is not the intent. I've been guilty of this (fairly recently too). That tone defeats the purpose of the conversation, and people can become distracted by how they feel about what was written instead of digesting the information and responding with a level head.


As a reminder, the thread was started to ask why MRCC disengaged at 20 mph in this instance. If the off topic discussion continues, I'll have to clean the thread up (which I would prefer not to do as there is a lot of useful information in these posts). Please try to stay on topic everyone, thanks.

Good information about the RCC, thank you.

 

[Sig cx-5]

The sunlight idea makes sense, and that could be the reason thinking back on it. Never occured to me. And thank you for understanding and putting it in words better than I could myself.

I forgot about this, but we had the warning message for this exact issue last weekend. Something like the camera was obstructed. The sun was directly in front of us, so I assumed that had something to do with it. The warning message would be hard to miss, though.

 

[Avoidin Deer]

I forgot about this, but we had the warning message for this exact issue last weekend. Something like the camera was obstructed. The sun was directly in front of us, so I assumed that had something to do with it. The warning message would be hard to miss, though.

It's an interesting thing to remind us of.

I bet there are lots of regions with east/west commutes (work-bound into the sunrise/home-bound into the sunset) where this might be an issue at certain times of the year. (In DC, they referred to the slowing effect on commuter traffic that the blinding light seasonally caused as "sun pollution.")

Damned equinoxes, messin' with our tech.

 

[Mazdiod2]

It sucks when the sun os just above the horizon and you have to drive straight into it.
That's when you would need the assistance the most.
Can they use sonar for that?

 

[Sig cx-5]

It sucks when the sun os just above the horizon and you have to drive straight into it.
That's when you would need the assistance the most.
Can they use sonar for that?

The camera is only used at speeds below 20 MPH. That said, I would not use cruise control in any instance where I'm visually limited.

 

[Avoidin Deer]

The camera is only used at speeds below 20 MPH. That said, I would not use cruise control in any instance where I'm visually limited.

Yeh, but when you're blinded by the sun, you're also at risk of losing Smart Braking System at a time it would be real handy to have. Of course, none of us should be driving at a time we can't see...

 

[sm1ke]

Yeh, but when you're blinded by the sun, you're also at risk of losing Smart Braking System at a time it would be real handy to have. Of course, none of us should be driving at a time we can't see...

I've got the solution!

In all seriousness, times like those are when an extra pair of sunglasses come in handy. I wear prescription lenses all the time, so one year I used my vision benefits on a pair of prescription sunglasses specifically for when the sun (or the sunlight reflected on a wet road) is blinding me. Just gotta make sure your sunglasses aren't polarized if you have the HUD.

 

[Avoidin Deer]

I've got the solution!

In all seriousness, times like those are when an extra pair of sunglasses come in handy. I wear prescription lenses all the time, so one year I used my vision benefits on a pair of prescription sunglasses specifically for when the sun (or the sunlight reflected on a wet road) is blinding me. Just gotta make sure your sunglasses aren't polarized if you have the HUD.

I love me some As Seen On TV stuff.
And who doesn't want to see the hidden Statue of Liberty?

I wear prescription glasses but my vision's still good enough that I'm not required to wear glasses when I drive, so I have options. Someone else here (you?) mentioned not wearing polarized lenses with the HUD, so I bought some non-polarized clip-ons for my prescription glasses. I now carry 2 types of clip-ons and a pair of non-script sunglasses.

I got the non-polarized clip-on sunglasses here. That's all this place sells...clip-on sunglasses. Over 60 different sizes for a perfect fit for different eyeglass styles, with tons of choices within each size and several different ways to match up one of the 60+ shapes/sizes to your frame (including scanning your eyeglasses and emailing the document to them so they can do it.) Great return policy as well.

Sorry for the commercial, but I got a pair on sale that were a perfect size & finish match for my eyeglasses for just over $10USD delivered. And they're good quality.

 

[GTA-CX9]

Huh, never knew the polarized issue. I have a new pair of clip ons, which i requested polarized but have been suspicious if they really are. Gonna find out later!

 

[Avoidin Deer]

Huh, never knew the polarized issue. I have a new pair of clip ons, which i requested polarized but have been suspicious if they really are. Gonna find out later!

When you look at the HUD through polarized lenses, it gets faint and sort of fades in and out.

You can tell if your glasses are polarized by using your computer:

Turn your computer screen to its brightest setting. Most electronics have the same anti-glare technology as polarized glasses. You’ll be able to test the polarization by looking at the screen.

• Open a white screen, because the brightness will make the effect of the test more prominent.

Put on your sunglasses. Once you’re in front of the computer, just put the sunglasses on like you’d normally wear them. Make sure you’re sitting directly in front of the screen (not at an angle).

• It might be helpful to elevate your computer screen to eye level if it isn’t already positioned there.

Tilt your head 60 degrees to the left or right. While you’re in front of the screen, tilt the top of your head to the left or right side of your body. If the sunglasses are polarized, the screen will appear to turn black due to the anti-glare properties cancelling each other out.

• If one side doesn’t work, try tilting your head to the other side. If that doesn’t work, the sunglasses are not polarized.

If you can't tell when using your monitor for this test, use the lap[top's native screen.

You can also test them when outside by holding the glasses in front of you, looking at a bright light through them, then tilting the glasses about 60 degrees either way. You'll see a difference if the lenses are polarized.

 

[GTA-CX9]

When you look at the HUD through polarized lenses, it gets faint and sort of fades in and out.

I tested in the car, they are polarized. I should be more trusting...

 

[Avoidin Deer]

I tested in the car, they are polarized. I should be more trusting...

You did it right:

Be more trusting, but be more verifying.

 

[Ronzuki]

Again,

Take the time to read and understand exactly what is being conveyed here. Replace plane w/ car and fly with drive...be careful what you wish for in your car...The airline industry has been automating far longer than the automotive industry, and look where there are....be careful what you wish for.

Is software enough to keep pilots safe? : Air Facts Journal

As pilots, we are all to familiar with the problems on the Boeing 737 MAX. We are being told that faulty software is the cause. Yes, there were or could have been problems with the pilot training, but Boeing is re-writing the software and when complete, the problem will go away and the aircraft...

airfactsjournal.com

 

[Hammers]

First, I'll ask again, who is deeming these novelties as safety rated? There are very specific criteria involved in automation to imply, deem, or install systems rated as such. I see zero evidence that any of these systems comply with any regulatory body certifying this garbage as 'safety' rated. So please, cease referring to this "stuff" as safety! You are spreading mis-information.

I have a very realistic view of what automation does to any skill set in the REAL world. It promotes the human error you and everyone else are so concerned about, like it or not, want it or not. You apparently aren't getting it...the more humans do not do anything for themselves, the less capable they become at the task, any task, should they need to. The more nanny-minders added to cars, the worse the operator's driving skills become at executing the task, because they don't have to...until they must. Too late. As I say I've been involved in every level of automation for far longer than the automotive world has thought about it. I've designed it, programmed it, installed it, commissioned it, fought with it, lived w/ it, trained operators how to use it, taught maintenance on how to troubleshoot and fix it, and most importantly, in all that time, observed and learned what tech works what doesn't, when automation provides beneficial assistance, and under what circumstances and when it doesn't. Experience. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. I've lived the results, the re-designs, the expense, the lawyers, all to fix stupid. It's a viscous cycle that can't be won. Throw in schedules, budgets and profitability into the equation, and you end up w/ half-baked systems more times than not. You're attempting to explain to me that which I've already been experiencing my entire working career. I'm attempting to open YOUR eyes to the reality.

The real problem no one is addressing, here or elsewhere, is: what are all of the operators to do when the automation fails because their skills, well, suck? Oh yeah...it's called crash. What happens to an aircraft when the automation fails (or was efed right from the start) and the operators in the planes (no longer pilots since they really don't fly the things anymore) really don't have the experience to fly the plane, or as we are beginning to see in the spotlight, simply can't because the designs are overly reliant on the automation to keep the plane in the air? Oh yeah...crash.

I agree, I see the degredation of human driving skills every day as well (don't know how exactly you would know who is driving 100% manual, or not, distracted, or not). I sit behind people daily sitting at lights not moving, holding up traffic, because they're pre-occupioed looking at their dumb-phone. People can't back out of my driveway w/o weaving all over the place, even w/ a back-up camera. Then there's that...tech can't fix the real problems here. This poor performance is being supported by distraction promoting technologies (because all that marketing crap sells cars, phones etc.).

Ever go to a store and hand someone additional change along w/ the larger bills to get an even dollar in return as opposed to a handful of change? You know, after they've already prematurely keyed in the cash tendered? The results for any task are the same...brain freeze, can't comprehend, they give up, and storm off to go find the manger. 15-20 years ago I used to think it was funny. Not anymore. Technology isn't going to fix that. The cash register is progress technology that has assisted in turning our brains to mush. Then we get to my age and I have to hear about brain exercises...that's funny in terms of human progress wouldn't you agree?




Agreed. Only difference, my car doesn't have a HUD. I've mentioned this little automation issue before as well...lack of automotive automation standardization. It's a problem from an automation perspective. So your HUD isn't there or stops working, now were equal. Your foot and brain aren't connected to the throttle and you're gaining or slowing w/o conscious awareness. Foot and Brain are the human I/O and processor which is now not controlling the task. OK. but you are technically distracted, your thoughts are elsewhere because your brain isn't focused on the act of driving. I realize it is happening after the fact as well when I'm utilizing the RACC.

The sooner all vehicles are autonomously controlled, with no human interaction, the safer all road users, including pedestrians and cyclists, will be.