2024 ADAS Issue and Work Around (USA)

[anand]

Pre purchase agreement should, as I stated before, require driving a new Subaru with all safety systems engaged. It's like driving a casino slot machine around.

 

[S52]

As I approach the speed limit (by feel, I hardly ever look at a speedo in any car) I usually lift off the throttle a little. Most of the time it prevents the clicking. I've had my grenadier about 10 days and have only bothered turning off the speed warning once to see if it makes a difference. Going through the favorites honestly bugs me more than the occasional clicks on my commute and I have pretty bad misophonia. If this is what people are griping about with the Grenadier, Ineos has done a great job.

Have you driven on CA interstates before? Posted speed limit is 65 flow of traffic is typically 75-80. Doing the speed limit or below would be downright dangerous the way folks drive out here (and CHP seemingly doesn't care)

 

[Bruce]

Have you driven on CA interstates before? Posted speed limit is 65 flow of traffic is typically 75-80. Doing the speed limit or below would be downright dangerous the way folks drive out here (and CHP seemingly doesn't care)

I go with the flow of traffic, so on the freeway I still don't need to look at the speedo. If there's no traffic I generally use cruise control on the interstate. Once you've been driving for 30 years you have a pretty good feel for how fast you're going and no I'm not parked in the left lane.

 

[GPFACTOR]

Have you driven on CA interstates before? Posted speed limit is 65 flow of traffic is typically 75-80. Doing the speed limit or below would be downright dangerous the way folks drive out here (and CHP seemingly doesn't care)

This is the same on most of the highways in PA, especially the Turnpike, and the same for Northern Virginia and the DC Corridor. Flow of traffic is a solid 10-15 over the speed limit. Cops dont care.

 

[S52]

I go with the flow of traffic, so on the freeway I still don't need to look at the speedo. If there's no traffic I generally use cruise control on the interstate. Once you've been driving for 30 years you have a pretty good feel for how fast you're going and no I'm not parked in the left lane.

I think you missed the point of my post... The ADAS clicking going off at 1mph over the limit would be a big nuisance as it would literally click and distract a driver on every use of the vehicle around here without disabling it. Yes it is possible to disable the feature by going through the menu but why should an owner have to! Just make it remember the previous setting. I can only imagine letting my mother or some other relative/ friend borrow my IG and having to leave a checklist for them to prepare the vehicle for use every time the ignition is cycled would be ridiculous.

This tech isn't even groundbreaking! My first car (1987 E30 BMW 325is) had a speed limiter alert function. But it was an optional feature that actually had to be enabled every drive cycle instead of defaulted to on.

I guess driving the Grenadier is going to become an awful lot like my day-job after all LMAO

 

[pmatusov]

As I approach the speed limit (by feel, I hardly ever look at a speedo in any car) I usually lift off the throttle a little.

I do the opposite.

 

[255/85]

I think you are basing your post on the idea that the only objection to the speed warning is the actual noise itself. For some folks, this may accurately represent their grievance. But for others, the concern is not just the noise - which, as you say, can be shut off - but the presence of a set of features that they find invasive. The speed warning, automatic braking, and drowsy driver detection represent for a bunch of us on this forum, a degree of government over-reach that we find both practically and ethically problematic. I've aired my thoughts more comprehensively on this in other posts, so I won't do that again here, but I hope that the 'short version' makes sense. Best.

I share some of your concern - vis-à-vis governmental overreach - but I think there's a more problematic aspect to added vehicle complexity whether from ADAS or luxury refinements or "tech" in general:

Obsolesence.

Over the last two years since placing our reservation with Ineos, I have inadvertently learned more than I ever intended to about the difficulties involved in driving older vehicles in regions other than my own - both here in my home country and abroad. Initially I was astounded at just what was required of (for example ) LR owners to operate their older vehicles on Britain's public roadways. I now have tremendous respect for those that put forth the effort. Consequently, as someone who habitually measures vehicle ownership in decades, I find myself wondering how difficult it will be for a Grenadier to pass a vehicle inspection/MOT/road-worthiness test 20 years hence when something as much of a "non-issue" as the ADAS system is kaputt?

Others have argued that luxury/tech features like heated steering wheels, full-time rear view cameras in lieu of mirrors, or rear cross-traffic warning devices should have been included in the Grenadier's list of amenities because their failure or malfunction wouldn't stop the vehicle from otherwise running normally. Maybe, but I just have to ask...

Are you certain that, a decade or two in the future, you won't be forced to scrap your beloved car for lack of a $10 widget?

 

[255/85]

This is the same on most of the highways in PA, especially the Turnpike, and the same for Northern Virginia and the DC Corridor. Flow of traffic is a solid 10-15 over the speed limit. Cops dont care.

Unless you're driving like a jerk. Then they'll be all up in your business.

 

[Tom109]

Are you certain that, a decade or two in the future, you won't be forced to scrap your beloved car for lack of a $10 widget?

Not going to happen, at least in the US. I drive 58yo Land Rover that cannot be held to current vehicle regulations - or my '95 RRC for that matter!

 

[Krabby]

Correct - at least here in NJ. Once a vehicle is registered as a “classic” (25 years+) no inspection and TBH no one cares. My Series didn’t even have seatbelts. I added them because they make sense, but I was not bound to legally because they were not mandatory for that MY.

 

[Lord Ripon USA]

Are you certain that, a decade or two in the future, you won't be forced to scrap your beloved car for lack of a $10 widget?

based on ECM evolution pertaining to older Ferraris, BMWs, Jaguars, all the early fuel injected engines provided with Bosch injection systems, there will be aftermarket replacements for all those little gadgets.

 

[stickshifter]

I completely understand this position. However, there was a time seat belts, airbags, laminated safety glass and energy absorbing designs (frames, bumpers, interior structure) were also considered to be over reach. They violated personal liberty, increased purchase costs and reduced aesthetics. Few would now argue that these items do not increase safety in a very meaningful way. The question becomes when do additional safety features cross into regulatory over reach. This is a very fuzzy line that is constantly moving.

I hear you - and I understand that a lot of people will welcome these new features. But there are two very significant differences between these new 'safety' features and those that you describe:

(1) All the safety features you mention are passive systems, many of these new ones are active systems; autonomous braking, for example, is fundamentally different than a seatbelt or airbag.

(2) These new features will soon have the ability to incapacitate your vehicle.

A month ago I was running on a snowy trail. I was wearing a baseball cap and I was looking down at my footing. A heavy branch was down over the trail and I ran right into it at a pretty good clip - right on the eyebrow. Five miles later I was back at the car, and my eye was swollen nearly shut. Beginning in 2027, drowsy driver software will have the capability to prevent vehicle operation if it detects that you are drowsy or drunk. My closed eye could well have prevented the operation of my vehicle. It was 14 degrees Fahrenheit, I had no cell reception, and I was at a trailhead 12 miles from home, and government-mandated software might prevent me from driving home?

That is just one scenario. There are others. Think about how many glitches we have heard about with the Grenadier and with other new vehicles. A simple glitch might leave you or a loved one stranded somewhere. Is that "safe"?

Maybe this evolves, and government gains control over these systems in the name of safety, and shuts down everyone's car during a snowstorm, or during the next pandemic. Maybe your name gets confused with someone else who is overdue on their registration, and your car is immobilized. Maybe a local cop or sheriff decides to immobilize their scorned lover's car. This kind of power is not necessary, and should not exist. Power tends to get used.

The reality is this: drowsy driver detection with the capability of immobilizing a vehicle is a way to control everyone - both the law-breakers and the law-abiding. It is policy-making catering to the lowest common denominator, and it is either lazy policy-making or worse - it is an excuse to pursue a dangerous political agenda.

There are - of course - many other ways to make the roads safer without infringing on the liberties of law-abiding citizens, and opening them up to abuse, making them vulnerable to hackers and other miscreants, or expanding government control over our lives.
1- more rigorous driver-education and licensing
2- more enforcement of distracted driver violations
3- more stringent penalties for violations
4- on-board breathalyzers for first-time violators of drunk-driving laws
5- your ideas here

It is likely that you and I have had different life experiences, and as a consequence, we will see all kinds of things differently. My experiences in the service, and in subsequent employment, has forever shaped my thinking on these topics.

 

[Krabby]

A month ago I was running on a snowy trail. I was wearing a baseball cap and I was looking down at my footing. A heavy branch was down over the trail and I ran right into it at a pretty good clip - right on the eyebrow. Five miles later I was back at the car, and my eye was swollen nearly shut. Beginning in 2027, drowsy driver software will have the capability to prevent vehicle operation if it detects that you are drowsy or drunk. My closed eye could well have prevented...

Our Subaru has some kind of detection system too but thankfully it has a "Pirate Mode," so if you have an eye-patch on it doesn't mess with you. I always keep this kit in the car just in case.

 

[grnamin]

I hear you - and I understand that a lot of people will welcome these new features. But there are two very significant differences between these new 'safety' features and those that you describe:

(1) All the safety features you mention are passive systems, many of these new ones are active systems; autonomous braking, for example, is fundamentally different than a seatbelt or airbag.

(2) These new features will soon have the ability to incapacitate your vehicle.

A month ago I was running on a snowy trail. I was wearing a baseball cap and I was looking down at my footing. A heavy branch was down over the trail and I ran right into it at a pretty good clip - right on the eyebrow. Five miles later I was back at the car, and my eye was swollen nearly shut. Beginning in 2027, drowsy driver software will have the capability to prevent vehicle operation if it detects that you are drowsy or drunk. My closed eye could well have prevented the operation of my vehicle. It was 14 degrees Fahrenheit, I had no cell reception, and I was at a trailhead 12 miles from home, and government-mandated software might prevent me from driving home?

That is just one scenario. There are others. Think about how many glitches we have heard about with the Grenadier and with other new vehicles. A simple glitch might leave you or a loved one stranded somewhere. Is that "safe"?

Maybe this evolves, and government gains control over these systems in the name of safety, and shuts down everyone's car during a snowstorm, or during the next pandemic. Maybe your name gets confused with someone else who is overdue on their registration, and your car is immobilized. Maybe a local cop or sheriff decides to immobilize their scorned lover's car. This kind of power is not necessary, and should not exist. Power tends to get used.

The reality is this: drowsy driver detection with the capability of immobilizing a vehicle is a way to control everyone - both the law-breakers and the law-abiding. It is policy-making catering to the lowest common denominator, and it is either lazy policy-making or worse - it is an excuse to pursue a dangerous political agenda.

There are - of course - many other ways to make the roads safer without infringing on the liberties of law-abiding citizens, and opening them up to abuse, making them vulnerable to hackers and other miscreants, or expanding government control over our lives.
1- more rigorous driver-education and licensing
2- more enforcement of distracted driver violations
3- more stringent penalties for violations
4- on-board breathalyzers for first-time violators of drunk-driving laws
5- your ideas here

It is likely that you and I have had different life experiences, and as a consequence, we will see all kinds of things differently. My experiences in the service, and in subsequent employment, has forever shaped my thinking on these topics

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-Benjamin Franklin

 

[YellowLab]

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-Benjamin Franklin

Easy for Ben Franklin to say that - he drives a Rolls Royce while flipping off the peons from his heavily tinted windows.....

 

[pmatusov]

I find myself wondering how difficult it will be for a Grenadier to pass a vehicle inspection/MOT/road-worthiness test 20 years hence when something as much of a "non-issue" as the ADAS system is kaputt?

Remarkably, in California there's no inspection/MOT/road-worthiness test of any kind. As long as your emissions are tits, you're golden.

 

[TCMColorado]

I hear you - and I understand that a lot of people will welcome these new features. But there are two very significant differences between these new 'safety' features and those that you describe:

(1) All the safety features you mention are passive systems, many of these new ones are active systems; autonomous braking, for example, is fundamentally different than a seatbelt or airbag.

(2) These new features will soon have the ability to incapacitate your vehicle.

A month ago I was running on a snowy trail. I was wearing a baseball cap and I was looking down at my footing. A heavy branch was down over the trail and I ran right into it at a pretty good clip - right on the eyebrow. Five miles later I was back at the car, and my eye was swollen nearly shut. Beginning in 2027, drowsy driver software will have the capability to prevent vehicle operation if it detects that you are drowsy or drunk. My closed eye could well have prevented the operation of my vehicle. It was 14 degrees Fahrenheit, I had no cell reception, and I was at a trailhead 12 miles from home, and government-mandated software might prevent me from driving home?

That is just one scenario. There are others. Think about how many glitches we have heard about with the Grenadier and with other new vehicles. A simple glitch might leave you or a loved one stranded somewhere. Is that "safe"?

Maybe this evolves, and government gains control over these systems in the name of safety, and shuts down everyone's car during a snowstorm, or during the next pandemic. Maybe your name gets confused with someone else who is overdue on their registration, and your car is immobilized. Maybe a local cop or sheriff decides to immobilize their scorned lover's car. This kind of power is not necessary, and should not exist. Power tends to get used.

The reality is this: drowsy driver detection with the capability of immobilizing a vehicle is a way to control everyone - both the law-breakers and the law-abiding. It is policy-making catering to the lowest common denominator, and it is either lazy policy-making or worse - it is an excuse to pursue a dangerous political agenda.

There are - of course - many other ways to make the roads safer without infringing on the liberties of law-abiding citizens, and opening them up to abuse, making them vulnerable to hackers and other miscreants, or expanding government control over our lives.
1- more rigorous driver-education and licensing
2- more enforcement of distracted driver violations
3- more stringent penalties for violations
4- on-board breathalyzers for first-time violators of drunk-driving laws
5- your ideas here

It is likely that you and I have had different life experiences, and as a consequence, we will see all kinds of things differently. My experiences in the service, and in subsequent employment, has forever shaped my thinking on these topics.

While an important topic worthy of deep inquiry, a discussion of government regulation and personal liberty is arguably outside the scope of this thread on what is an automotive enthusiast forum. Yes the ADAS system of the Grenadier has a connection to these issues but in the greater scope of things it is an insignificant aspect of the problems facing society. For purposes of this discussion the "annoying" aspects of the ADAS alerts and user interface are more appropriate to the intent of this forum. There are a plenitude of other venues available to discuss the finer points of politics, government and society.

 

[[ Adam ]]

While an important topic worthy of deep inquiry, a discussion of government regulation and personal liberty is arguably outside the scope of this thread on what is an automotive enthusiast forum. Yes the ADAS system of the Grenadier has a connection to these issues but in the greater scope of things it is an insignificant aspect of the problems facing society. For purposes of this discussion the "annoying" aspects of the ADAS alerts and user interface are more appropriate to the intent of this forum. There are a plenitude of other venues available to discuss the finer points of politics, government and society.

in other words

 

[Tom109]

Remarkably, in California there's no inspection/MOT/road-worthiness test of any kind. As long as your emissions are tits, you're golden.

Same in NJ, except for any OBD2 code.

 

[DaBull]

While an important topic worthy of deep inquiry, a discussion of government regulation and personal liberty is arguably outside the scope of this thread on what is an automotive enthusiast forum. Yes the ADAS system of the Grenadier has a connection to these issues but in the greater scope of things it is an insignificant aspect of the problems facing society. For purposes of this discussion the "annoying" aspects of the ADAS alerts and user interface are more appropriate to the intent of this forum. There are a plenitude of other venues available to discuss the finer points of politics, government and society.

Hi TCMBoulder, The fact that this vehicle appeals to independent thinkers is the reason some discussions about government over regulation and personal liberty comes up in discussions from time to time, (hopefully respectfully). I agree that the forum should be for vehicle centric discussions, however understand when a few lightly and perhaps rightly vent about government overreach as that is part of the Ethos of the Grenadier. DaBull