2 Fatal MME BlueCruise Crashes / Distracted Drivers

[Accord07]

As I recall, nearly two years ago the 44 year old driver in the San Antonio crash came here to ask callously if his car should be considered totalled, omitting the fact that someone had been killed in the crash, never mind that he had barely looked at the road leading up to the crash as the investigation revealed later.

Sponsored

 

[JoeDimwit]

Is Smurfmobile a synonym for fake taxi?
If so I see a business proposition!

No that’s my cars name.

 

[Tomm]

I find looking at the infotainment screen to adjust temp, switch to radio, start I tunes, etc very distracting, more so than dials or buttons. I finally started using voice controls.
I pull over if I have to study the map for something.

 

[Mach-Lee]

Mach-Lee,

In your post you wrote, "Above 65 MPH, adaptive cruise control will not respond to stationary objects." I read that to mean the system is purposely programmed this way.

But then later you wrote, "But BlueCruise has limitations and is not able to detect stationary vehicles at freeway speeds.", which I read as meaning the technology used for BC is just not capable of detecting a stationary vehicle at high speeds.

Would you please clarify if the lack of BC response was a programming issue or a capability issue (though I guess it could be both)?

I will quote the NTSB report on this:

At speeds above 29 m/s (65 mph), the ACC is designed not to respond (decelerate) to detected stationary vehicles, which are defined as those that have never been detected as moving by the Mach-E sensors. According to Ford, this operational design choice was made due to false alarm concerns (when other objects, such as signs, overpasses, or bridge abutments are misidentified as stationary vehicles) and the impact of sudden phantom deceleration (braking without cause) on surrounding traffic. At higher speeds and longer distances, the sensor limitations become more prominent, and the risk of false detections and incorrect target selections increases.*

While this restriction does not apply at speeds below 29 m/s (65 mph), the ACC's deceleration in response to detected stationary vehicles is still dependent on the sensors' determination that the detected object is indeed a hazard. Furthermore, the ACC may not decelerate in response to a detected stationary vehicle during the vehicle's (i.e., Mach-E’s) execution of a high complexity maneuver (such as during a sudden lane change; the exact response threshold depends on a function of distance, yaw rate, and speed).

*Ford representatives stated: “…at long ranges, which equates to higher speeds, there is a greater probability of an incorrect target selection. Ford algorithms are developed to balance the risk of false detections and subsequent unnecessary braking events. Ford believes its consideration of false detection risks is consistent with the industry.”

In summary, the response to stationary objects at higher speeds had to be nulled to avoid phantom braking events. This is due to technical limitations of the radar, it cannot reliably detect stationary objects with the required range and angular resolution to enable collision avoidance at freeway speeds. There would be false alarms and missed detections. Again, that sort of detection and mitigation scenario would likely require the range and accuracy of LiDAR.

The NTSB also noted: "The vehicle owner’s manual does not specifically state that ACC will not decelerate in response to detected stationary vehicles at speeds above 29 m/s (65 mph)." I personally think that should be in there.

 

[T1328]

No question that if the ADAS doesn’t stop for stationary vehicles at speeds over 65mph, that should be in the user manual. It should be in more than the user manual. The driver should be notified once they get over that speed that it won’t stop. I understand the issues with the algorithm, and I understand their desire to prevent phantom braking. I had that very badly with one of the Teslas that I had. But at least keep us informed.

 

[RickMachE]

The car is taking pics of your lovely faces while driving. Did you all know that? Like @Bonehead mentions, I certainly did not.

Yes I knew that.

 

[933233311602]

I remember reading a Car & Driver opinion article decades ago about exactly this scenario as automatic emergency braking tech was emerging.

Will this tech embolden some drunk drivers to take more risks, believing that the car will stop itself?

Now it's not just automatic braking, but semi-automated driving.

Sadly, this selfishness is even more dangerous in a modern EV. The Mach E weighs more than most gas F150 models.

 

[RickMachE]

The reality is that drivers that drive drunk lack judgment before they got drunk and after they got drunk. No matter what you have from a technology standpoint, they're going to kill someone eventually. Lock their asses up

 

[933233311602]

I find looking at the infotainment screen to adjust temp, switch to radio, start I tunes, etc very distracting, more so than dials or buttons. I finally started using voice controls.
I pull over if I have to study the map for something.

I wish this tech was given more attention than "Blue Cruise" or other party trick self-driving money pits.

I've seen / heard voice command recognition in the 90s that was blazing fast when concentrated to a role. (In that trade show demo case it was quick-as-you-could-talk stock order trading, changing, and cancelling.) There's no reason why, in 2026, we can't command every function, from picking a song to play, to setting the AC blower speed, to asking the car to report battery charge and range remaining.

The car doesn't need to interpret everything I say. It just needs to respond quickly to car-specific commands.

The fetish with touchscreens would actually be a sensible move towards design simplicity if we could voice command like Star Trek, as should be current-level tech for cars in 2026.

 

[kens]

The NTSB also noted: "The vehicle owner’s manual does not specifically state that ACC will not decelerate in response to detected stationary vehicles at speeds above 29 m/s (65 mph)." I personally think that should be in there.

I agree it should be in there, and am perplexed as to why the owners manual very directly states there is no limit:

Brake support and automatic emergency braking are active up to the maximum speed of the vehicle.

 

[GreaseMonkey]

Yes I knew that.

Where did you find that info, Rick? I’m specifically asking about driver-facing and front vehicle cameras and their ability to record videos not just be used in “monitoring” driver alertness.

 

[GreaseMonkey]

I wish this tech was given more attention than "Blue Cruise" or other party trick self-driving money pits.

I've seen / heard voice command recognition in the 90s that was blazing fast when concentrated to a role. (In that trade show demo case it was quick-as-you-could-talk stock order trading, changing, and cancelling.) There's no reason why, in 2026, we can't command every function, from picking a song to play, to setting the AC blower speed, to asking the car to report battery charge and range remaining.

The car doesn't need to interpret everything I say. It just needs to respond quickly to car-specific commands.

The fetish with touchscreens would actually be a sensible move towards design simplicity if we could voice command like Star Trek, as should be current-level tech for cars in 2026.

What the Austin dude was doing is totally doable with existing tech. Siri can route you to a fast charger. As for party girl, well, that’s an entirely different story.

And I get your point. There’s no reason to physically interact with the car. Voice commands work very well but do not control all functions yet.

 

[RickMachE]

Where did you find that info, Rick? I’m specifically asking about driver-facing and front vehicle cameras and their ability to record videos not just be used in “monitoring” driver alertness.

As I recall, it came up a year or two ago, maybe when that idiot was smashing the side of his car into the highway divider, blaming BlueCruise, and they came up with the internal video?

 

[GreaseMonkey]

As I recall, it came up a year or two ago, maybe when that idiot was smashing the side of his car into the highway divider, blaming BlueCruise, and they came up with the internal video?

Got it. Forum stuff, but not official notification from Ford. I recall the Austin guy posting and asking your favorite question: is my car totaled? Post since has been deleted.

 

[RickMachE]

Got it. Forum stuff, but not official notification from Ford. I recall the Austin guy posting and asking your favorite question: is my car totaled? Post since has been deleted.

Official Ford? Nope. Definitely not.

Sponsored