BlueCruise Hands-Free Driving Reviews Are In!

[phil]

So if the advantage is that I can take my hands off the wheel, but still have to be vigilant, then what is the value here? I would totally get this if I could find the value beyond keeping my hands down vs on the wheel. I figure I'm missing some important detail.

I agree. I think the value of BlueCruise is mainly as a toy, for amusement value. I ordered it, and look forward to trying it out, and seeing how much they can improve it in future years, and having a little fun with it.

But I will not rely on BlueCruise to keep me alive and safe. Not for a second. I believe someone who finds advanced cruise control "relaxing" or "less stressful" is relaxed for a reason - they are, subconciously, being less vigilant. And that is very dangerous. A false sense of security is always dangerous. When I am driving a two-ton vehicle at 70 mph, I am responsible for my safety, and that of others on the road, often including my children and other family members. I refuse to "relax". I'm sure BlueCruise usually works just fine. But usually is not nearly good enough.

Someday, this will all change. Someday, a few decades from now, a computer will be a better driver than I am, and users/passengers will be able to relax, safely. Until then, I plan to remain suitably "stressed" while driving. I will not relax while there's any chance my relaxation will risk the life of any innocent bystander.

Sponsored

 

[Stang68]

I agree. I think the value of BlueCruise is mainly as a toy, for amusement value. I ordered it, and look forward to trying it out, and seeing how much they can improve it in future years, and having a little fun with it.

But I will not rely on BlueCruise to keep me alive and safe. Not for a second. I believe someone who finds advanced cruise control "relaxing" or "less stressful" is relaxed for a reason - they are, subconciously, being less vigilant. And that is very dangerous. A false sense of security is always dangerous. When I am driving a two-ton vehicle at 70 mph, I am responsible for my safety, and that of others on the road, often including my children and other family members. I refuse to "relax". I'm sure BlueCruise usually works just fine. But usually is not nearly good enough.

Someday, this will all change. Someday, a few decades from now, a computer will be a better driver than I am, and users/passengers will be able to relax, safely. Until then, I plan to remain suitably "stressed" while driving. I will not relax while there's any chance my relaxation will risk the life of any innocent bystander.

Do you white knuckle the steering wheel at all times?

These are driver *assistance* systems. They're not autonomous and it's the responsibility of the driver to still drive the car.

Just as the invention of cruise control didn't cause people to forget how to drive, this next level won't cause us to careen off the roads (thanks, in part, to the eye-tracking tech that makes people pay attention). Humans adapt and learn.

And I'm sorry, but with more and more people looking at their damn phones while driving, I welcome any driver assistance tech manufacturers (responsibly) implement.

 

[Plutoman15]

I agree. I think the value of BlueCruise is mainly as a toy, for amusement value. I ordered it, and look forward to trying it out, and seeing how much they can improve it in future years, and having a little fun with it.

But I will not rely on BlueCruise to keep me alive and safe. Not for a second. I believe someone who finds advanced cruise control "relaxing" or "less stressful" is relaxed for a reason - they are, subconciously, being less vigilant. And that is very dangerous. A false sense of security is always dangerous. When I am driving a two-ton vehicle at 70 mph, I am responsible for my safety, and that of others on the road, often including my children and other family members. I refuse to "relax". I'm sure BlueCruise usually works just fine. But usually is not nearly good enough.

Someday, this will all change. Someday, a few decades from now, a computer will be a better driver than I am, and users/passengers will be able to relax, safely. Until then, I plan to remain suitably "stressed" while driving. I will not relax while there's any chance my relaxation will risk the life of any innocent bystander.

Pilots use autopilot all the time during certain phases of flight. Even shooting approaches into airports are easier when using autopilot with monitoring and following closely. Releasing your hands free up your brain's processer time to monitor the bigger picture closer. The key is to stay alert and monitor and then take over when something unexpected happens or it is time to land (unless you have auto-land as well).

High traffic will be hands on for me, but low or not traffic on the interstate will be very relaxing having the car steer for me (already is with lane centering).

 

[phil]

Do you white knuckle the steering wheel at all times?

I do not. My reference was to other folks - in this thread and elsewhere - who find driver assistance causes them to feel more "relaxed" and less "stress". Why do they feel less stress? Because they are less alert, less focused on the driving task, at least part of the time. That can be dangerous. Maybe not often, but once is enough.

 

[phil]

And I'm sorry, but with more and more people looking at their damn phones while driving, I welcome any driver assistance tech manufacturers (responsibly) implement.

No need to apologize. Differing views are common, and often reasonable.

My concern is that we may come to rely too much on this "assistance". False sense of security is a danger in many contexts and has been well-known for centuries. If it only works 99.999% of the time, it's great, but it's not enough for safety.

 

[Stang68]

No need to apologize. Differing views are common, and often reasonable.

My concern is that we may come to rely too much on this "assistance". False sense of security is a danger in many contexts and has been well-known for centuries. If it only works 99.999% of the time, it's great, but it's not enough for safety.

Agreed on that point. As Tesla drivers have shown us, you give them an inch and they’ll take a yard when it comes to driver assistance systems. I think Ford (and most other manufacturers) are on the right track with the eye tracking technology.

 

[zhackwyatt]

If it only works 99.999% of the time, it's great, but it's not enough for safety.

That's probably better rate than people.

 

[phil]

That's probably better rate than people.

In fact, it is not. Let's do the math!

Over the past 40 years, I have driven for about 13,000 hours - reasonably similar to the average per year for American adults, perhaps somewhat more than average.

99.999% accuracy over that 40-year period means 12,999.87 hours of perfect driving, and about 8 terrifying minutes of God-knows-what mistakes. Would we be willing to spend 8 random minutes over the course of a lifetime, driving with our eyes closed? I wouldn't. The result could be a bunch of fender benders, and/or a couple of fatal crashes. I want at least a couple more nines in that reliability rating. I expect we will get there someday. But not today.

 

[phil]

Agreed on that point. As Tesla drivers have shown us, you give them an inch and they’ll take a yard when it comes to driver assistance systems. I think Ford (and most other manufacturers) are on the right track with the eye tracking technology.

I agree. On the right track and we'll get there someday. I feel sorry for those Tesla drivers, their victims, and their families.

 

[Mirak]

The Drive:

In the cabin, a camera in the upper corner of the center stack tracks eye and head movement to ensure the driver is keeping their eyes on the road. Infrared lights mounted to the left and right of the driver help eye-tracking in dark conditions (and through sunglasses). And while the camera tracks your eyes, it won’t record you picking your nose. “There’s no data saved,” said Larkin. “Nothing leaves the camera module.”

I did not know there was a camera seperate from the IR sensors.

 

[RW Journey]

I do not. My reference was to other folks - in this thread and elsewhere - who find driver assistance causes them to feel more "relaxed" and less "stress". Why do they feel less stress? Because they are less alert, less focused on the driving task, at least part of the time. That can be dangerous. Maybe not often, but once is enough.

ICC monitors speed limit signs and adjusts when necessary. There are a few stretches of road I travel which have multiple deliberate speed traps. While I know where they are and do pay attention, having the car monitor this does provide me with a "less stressed" drive.

ICC also remove stress when I am going down the road and encounter a driver without their lights on. A few times the vehicle radar saw the car before my eyes did. Had that vehicle been driving much slower than the speed limit, I might have seen it too late.

IMO, two sets of eyes (human and vehicle) are better than one.

 

[JohnnyForensic]

I don't really see how this is much different than what I already have with ACC. My Accord can almost drive itself to work, I can remove my hands for 15 seconds or so, and it can handle light corners. In fact, I'd be afraid that the hand's off could cause me to zone out after a lunch.

I think it's a nice to have but hardly a need to have.

I have an Acura RDX which has a similar system to your Accord. It gives up on anything more than the lightest of curves, and it ping-pongs a bit in the lane, and it often thinks the median line and right shoulder are optional paths of travel. From what I've read here, the current ACC + Lane Centering is MUCH more reliable and handles a larger degree of curve on its own, and with BlueCruise, that just goes up even higher--without hands on the wheel (assuming you're in a BlueCruise mapped area, of course).

It's just the next degree of comfort/assistance/driver fatigue mitigation. Yes, the Honda/Acura system helps to X degree, but BlueCruise will help to some factor higher than X. You could also walk to your destination, at some factor much lower than X, but you wouldn't want to.

 

[zhackwyatt]

In fact, it is not. Let's do the math!

Over the past 40 years, I have driven for about 13,000 hours - reasonably similar to the average per year for American adults, perhaps somewhat more than average.

99.999% accuracy over that 40-year period means 12,999.87 hours of perfect driving, and about 8 terrifying minutes of God-knows-what mistakes. Would we be willing to spend 8 random minutes over the course of a lifetime, driving with our eyes closed? I wouldn't. The result could be a bunch of fender benders, and/or a couple of fatal crashes. I want at least a couple more nines in that reliability rating. I expect we will get there someday. But not today.

Your forgetting about mistakes you have made that you are not even aware of. And your are going to an extreme of 8 random minutes. I bet most people have closed their eyes (or waned their attention) for 2 seconds at a time over two hundred times throughout their lifetime.

 

[Stang68]

The Drive:



I did not know there was a camera seperate from the IR sensors.

Believe that’s only in the F150(?).

 

[OH2AZ2OH]

Your forgetting about mistakes you have made that you are not even aware of. And your are going to an extreme of 8 random minutes. I bet most people have closed their eyes (or waned their attention) for 2 seconds at a time over two hundred times throughout their lifetime.

I don't think that I'll spring for this since I suspect that at most 5 miles of my daily commute will be covered, but I can certainly see the value in it. Have you ever had a terrible night of sleep and then drove to work? Or work a 14 hr day and then drive home? Have a knock down drag out fight with a significant other/family member/coworker? I guarantee you weren't 100% attentive the whole drive after any one of those. Just because you didn't crash doesn't mean you didn't make a mistake.

I suspect that these systems will overall improve road safety. But I also know that the first accident that happens when this is in use will get a whole lot more attention than the 100s of accidents that never happened because of it. Logically, that is an overall benefit to society, but I bet there were some pretty heated cost/benefit discussion because of it.


How much of that $600 subscription do you think is going to the legal fund?

Sponsored