I don't foresee myself ever needing a new car with driver assist features

[jeffandnicole]

OP is going to be old and lose a step one day. Would you rather have the assist or lose your license?

That's assumptive, I know plenty of people who never made to what would normally be considered "old."   Also, how do you know the OP (who doesn't advertise his age) isn't "old"  already?  Also, what is your Mendoza Line for "old?"

It also varies. For many people "Old" is when they hit the gas rather than the brake, sending their car into a store.  Or turning in front of a 18 wheeler that they never saw.

In either case, by then it's too late to say that person shouldn't have been driving, and you hope that they didn't injure or kill others.  At minimum, that 'old' person disturbed the livelihood for those they impacted.

So, yes, believe it or not those assist features will be useful, especially for the victims that were just minding their own business.  We never know when we become old.

[Stormwalker]

My issue with assists is when they reach the point of taking control of the car out of my hands.  I don't trust the computer to be a better driver than me.  This isn't a distrust of the computer itself so much as it's a healthy distrust of the humans doing the programming, speaking as a programmer myself!  Bugs happen!

I don't have a problem with an assist that notifies me of something.  I try very hard to be a good driver, but I know I'm not perfect, and if a blind spot detection assist happens to catch that one moment on a bad day when I've got a lot on my mind and I don't see something I should have, and warn me before that oversight becomes a dangerous mistake, that's great.

I don't want my car braking on its own, though.  Because if it malfunctions somehow and it brakes for no reason at the wrong time, that could be every bit as deadly as failure to brake when it's needed.  Notify me, yes, but don't take control out of my hands.

As for traction/stability control, my current car has it, and... I don't hate it.  The designers of the system for my car at least seem to have done a very good job of making it non-intrusive; I can only think of one time in the seven years I've owned the car that it has engaged, and that was when I hit an imperfection in the pavement during a turn that caused one of the rear wheels to unweight a bit while I was accelerating.

What I do hate is the first-to-fourth skip shift (where if I am light on the throttle starting, instead of letting me shift to second it will gate out second and force me into fourth)!  But that isn't safety equipment, that's a fuel economy thing.  The reason I hate it is the two times when it always activates are the two times I really don't want it to - in parking lots, and in stop-and-go traffic.  This I will be disabling very soon now that my car is out of warranty.

And then there's the Hill Start assist, which I have a love-hate relationship with.  I don't need it - I know how to start on a hill with a manual just fine, thanks.  But it is convenient.  Except that it seems a little flaky about when it does and doesn't activate and that can make it more trouble than its worth (and may have something to do with my distrust of other assists!)

[interstatefan990]

I have many driver assist features on my car, including adaptive cruise, auto emergency brake, lane departure and blind spot warning, lane keep assist, rear cross-traffic alert, and more. I use them pretty much any and every time I drive. I don't see the point in not using them or avoiding purchasing a car equipped with them. I already know that I can drive: I have a license, I've never been in a crash, I've never gotten a traffic ticket, and I rarely get honked at. Would you rather be in a crash and deal with thousands of dollars in damage/costs, possibly totaling your car, increased insurance premiums, trauma, or worse because you "know how to drive and don't need them" or simply take advantage of technology that can easily prevent or significantly reduce the severity of an accident? Yes, these features are not perfect and should not replace an attentive and knowledgeable driver, but if you combine the two, it's a big safety improvement overall. If you think these features are "annoying"  you should probably take a look at your driving skills. When it beeps at you, it means you are doing something wrong.

[tolbs17]

I never had a car but i've driven a 2017 Audi Q5 and it has park assist. I don't need (or want) any of that fancy stuff as a first driver. Cause I'm afraid that I'll crash it and I have little to no experience driving.

The first time I let my adaptive cruise control stop on it's own I thought what if I don't stop that wouldn't be good so I had the cruise set as low as it goes 20 mph and it came to a stop. I thought it was cool.

It don't even have that

[kphoger]

And then there's the Hill Start assist, which I have a love-hate relationship with.  I don't need it - I know how to start on a hill with a manual just fine, thanks.  But it is convenient.  Except that it seems a little flaky about when it does and doesn't activate and that can make it more trouble than its worth (and may have something to do with my distrust of other assists!)

There's always the hand brake.

I once drove my now-mother-in-law's Ford Mustang across Branson, Missouri.  I'd never driven it before.  The clutch was almost completely shot, to the point that the pedal was almost completely up before it would grab.  I got a red light on an Ozark uphill, and the driver behind me didn't leave much rollback room.  Loved the hand brake!

[jakeroot]

And then there's the Hill Start assist, which I have a love-hate relationship with.  I don't need it - I know how to start on a hill with a manual just fine, thanks.  But it is convenient.  Except that it seems a little flaky about when it does and doesn't activate and that can make it more trouble than its worth (and may have something to do with my distrust of other assists!)

There's always the hand brake.

I once drove my now-mother-in-law's Ford Mustang across Branson, Missouri.  I'd never driven it before.  The clutch was almost completely shot, to the point that the pedal was almost completely up before it would grab.  I got a red light on an Ozark uphill, and the driver behind me didn't leave much rollback room.  Loved the hand brake!

I try and trick my VW (which has hill-hold) into letting me use the handbrake on hills, but I have to completely let go of the brake and rely solely on the handbrake to do so. So learning hill-holds in my manual has been a long process, as I don't like putting unnecessary stress on my handbrake.

But that's fine, since I live in a city with hills like this (the carved-up sidewalk should be a good example of how steep this street is), where hill-hold is extremely helpful. I've seen older trucks and cars with manuals, driven by middle-aged and older people (aka: experienced!) struggle to get up that hill in their non-hill-hold-equipped vehicles. Like, repeated stalling levels of difficulty. This was exacerbated early on by the top of the hill being a two-way stop for years.

[Stormwalker]

And then there's the Hill Start assist, which I have a love-hate relationship with.  I don't need it - I know how to start on a hill with a manual just fine, thanks.  But it is convenient.  Except that it seems a little flaky about when it does and doesn't activate and that can make it more trouble than its worth (and may have something to do with my distrust of other assists!)

There's always the hand brake.

I once drove my now-mother-in-law's Ford Mustang across Branson, Missouri.  I'd never driven it before.  The clutch was almost completely shot, to the point that the pedal was almost completely up before it would grab.  I got a red light on an Ozark uphill, and the driver behind me didn't leave much rollback room.  Loved the hand brake!

I mean, as noted, I don't have any problem starting on a hill without the assist.  It's just the unpredictability of whether it's going to activate or not gets a little exasperating.  The bigger problem is when it activates when I'm not expecting it, rather than not activating when I am (because if I'm on a hill steep enough to worry about it?  I'm not putting my faith in that thing anyway!)

[seicer]

Don't you have an indicator or hear the brake activate and release? Because that's the indicator to know when it's working or not. It doesn't activate when you aren't expecting it - it's a user input that activates it. I use it in the Subaru all the time to prevent rollback - I press a button, the electronic parking brake engages. Once I attempt to start out, the electronic parking brake disengages and I can safely maneuver out.

[jakeroot]

Don't you have an indicator or hear the brake activate and release? Because that's the indicator to know when it's working or not. It doesn't activate when you aren't expecting it - it's a user input that activates it. I use it in the Subaru all the time to prevent rollback - I press a button, the electronic parking brake engages. Once I attempt to start out, the electronic parking brake disengages and I can safely maneuver out.

Hill hold is a different feature. It holds the car in place for a few moments after letting off the brake to give you time to accelerate, activating automatically at a certain incline whenever the brake pedal is depressed. It prevents rollbacks. Particularly helpful for manual drivers who are ostensibly in neutral when stopped and don't have the added benefit of being in gear all the time (which naturally causes the car to move when the engine is on in an automatic).

[jeffandnicole]

My issue with assists is when they reach the point of taking control of the car out of my hands.  I don't trust the computer to be a better driver than me.  This isn't a distrust of the computer itself so much as it's a healthy distrust of the humans doing the programming, speaking as a programmer myself!  Bugs happen!

But just because your car doesn't have one, the car in front of you, behind you, and on either side of you may have one.  How often have you been hit by another car due to their car's computer having bugs and suddenly brakes or speeds up into you?

[J N Winkler]

I just moved from New York where inspections are required annually at $20/vehicle. I had a check engine light on, and despite my attempts at disguising it (it was a walnut lodged in the active shutter grill), I had to have the car repaired before I could pass. But what was great is that I didn't see vehicles with smokestacks on trucks barreling black diesel soot into the air, or vehicles with aftermarket additions that made their cars unsafe to drive and unsafe to be around.

Really glad I don't live in a state that requires such.

My car has had a CEL light on since I bought it.  Two of the codes are for "camshaft position timing over-advanced", which is probably either due to an oil leak in the timing assembly or else a nearly un-diagnose-able electrical or mechanical timing issue remaining after extensive timing work.  But anyway, I don't see how such a CEL code should disqualify me from registering the vehicle.  All they mean is that the VVT has to work extra hard to correct timing.

I'm happy not to have to deal with the compliance red tape in a typical Northeast state, where you just have to show clean OBD-II to pass emissions.  I've heard horror stories about the California smog test.  On the other hand, on car forums it does irritate me a little when a poster identifies himself (it is nearly always a he) as living in Kansas and then goes on to brag about replacing the catalytic converter with a straight pipe.

Earlier in the thread, cruise control was a topic. I went to the grocery store this morning and on my way through our neighborhood, I set my cruise control (not adaptive cruise) at 35 mph to keep my speed down. There are one or two decent hills and I've found over the years that if I set the cruise in my wife's car with an automatic transmission, the car will accelerate down the hills; I also found this way back when I was learning to drive in the Volvo 740 my mom then had. Yet when I set the cruise control in my car with a six-speed manual, it doesn't accelerate down the hills–it holds the speed pretty much where I set it. Wondering whether other people have found the same sort of phenomenon as to using cruise control in manual versus automatic-shift cars.

It really isn't anything to do with manual versus automatic.  It has more to do with whether the ECM has been programmed to sense hills and hold the set speed both uphill and downhill, insofar as this is possible without added input from the driver.  Toyota added this logic in the mid-noughties as (so far as I can tell) a corporate-wide decision.

Once I took a 2005 Toyota Camry over the Fred Hartman Bridge in Houston, with the cruise control set at the speed limit of 60.  The cable-stayed span has a fairly steep climb and descent to clear a shipping channel.  On the climb everyone else was slowing down, so I was in the left lane passing them all, at 60.  On the descent everyone else was speeding up, so I was in the right lane being passed by them all, at 60.

[jakeroot]

Once I took a 2005 Toyota Camry over the Fred Hartman Bridge in Houston, with the cruise control set at the speed limit of 60.  The cable-stayed span has a fairly steep climb and descent to clear a shipping channel.  On the climb everyone else was slowing down, so I was in the left lane passing them all, at 60.  On the descent everyone else was speeding up, so I was in the right lane being passed by them all, at 60.

There is something remarkably comedic about the thought of you (of all people) blowing the doors off other cars in a 2005 Camry.

[davewiecking]

As long as it still has a steering wheel and at least 2 pedals on the floor, I'm good with whatever else is added.

[kphoger]

On the other hand, on car forums it does irritate me a little when a poster identifies himself (it is nearly always a he) as living in Kansas and then goes on to brag about replacing the catalytic converter with a straight pipe.

In our old Grand Caravan, we drove it about 100,000 miles and at least six years with the cat installed backwards and the downstream O₂ sensor completely broken off against the heat shield.  Don't hate me.

Our current vehicle has had two CEL codes for catalyst inefficiency since we bought it 4½ years and 63,000 miles ago, and even my mechanic has never even suggested doing anything to fix it.

Granted, neither instance is as egregious as installing a straight pipe.  On the other hand, our American friends living in Mexico once came back to their parallel-parked vehicle to find that someone had stolen all four catalytic converters out from under it, presumably to sell them for cash.  I bet it's really tempting to just bypass them!

Once I took a 2005 Toyota Camry over the Fred Hartman Bridge in Houston, with the cruise control set at the speed limit of 60.  The cable-stayed span has a fairly steep climb and descent to clear a shipping channel.  On the climb everyone else was slowing down, so I was in the left lane passing them all, at 60.  On the descent everyone else was speeding up, so I was in the right lane being passed by them all, at 60.

There is something remarkably comedic about the thought of you (of all people) blowing the doors off other cars in a 2005 Camry.

There is something slightly comedic about Jonathan passing anybody, for that matter...

FWIW, I slow down on steep up-hills and speed up on steep down-hills also.  My general rule is that I try not to let the automatic transmission downshift more than once on inclines–twice on really steep ones.  In the Missouri Ozarks, this often leaves me doing 50 in a 65.  And then I have no problem letting momentum carry me up to 80 on the other side.  I don't use cruise control at all on steep hills, no matter which side of the crest.

[formulanone]

Once I took a 2005 Toyota Camry over the Fred Hartman Bridge in Houston, with the cruise control set at the speed limit of 60.  The cable-stayed span has a fairly steep climb and descent to clear a shipping channel.  On the climb everyone else was slowing down, so I was in the left lane passing them all, at 60.  On the descent everyone else was speeding up, so I was in the right lane being passed by them all, at 60.

There is something remarkably comedic about the thought of you (of all people) blowing the doors off other cars in a 2005 Camry.

I get a kick out of doing this in my little car; I downshift at the bottom of the hill, give it just a little more gas, and pass nearly everyone who started out at 75-80 and wound up at 50-55 (or less).

[jemacedo9]

Don't you have an indicator or hear the brake activate and release? Because that's the indicator to know when it's working or not. It doesn't activate when you aren't expecting it - it's a user input that activates it. I use it in the Subaru all the time to prevent rollback - I press a button, the electronic parking brake engages. Once I attempt to start out, the electronic parking brake disengages and I can safely maneuver out.

Hill hold is a different feature. It holds the car in place for a few moments after letting off the brake to give you time to accelerate, activating automatically at a certain incline whenever the brake pedal is depressed. It prevents rollbacks. Particularly helpful for manual drivers who are ostensibly in neutral when stopped and don't have the added benefit of being in gear all the time (which naturally causes the car to move when the engine is on in an automatic).

The Subaru hill hold is a feature that you can toggle on and off and leave it set.  You don't have to press it at each hill.  When it is toggled on, then the actual hill hold feature as described works on its own.   I have that in mine, but it's an automatic and i can't really find a reason to use it.

[jakeroot]

Don't you have an indicator or hear the brake activate and release? Because that's the indicator to know when it's working or not. It doesn't activate when you aren't expecting it - it's a user input that activates it. I use it in the Subaru all the time to prevent rollback - I press a button, the electronic parking brake engages. Once I attempt to start out, the electronic parking brake disengages and I can safely maneuver out.

Hill hold is a different feature. It holds the car in place for a few moments after letting off the brake to give you time to accelerate, activating automatically at a certain incline whenever the brake pedal is depressed. It prevents rollbacks. Particularly helpful for manual drivers who are ostensibly in neutral when stopped and don't have the added benefit of being in gear all the time (which naturally causes the car to move when the engine is on in an automatic).

The Subaru hill hold is a feature that you can toggle on and off and leave it set.  You don't have to press it at each hill.  When it is toggled on, then the actual hill hold feature as described works on its own.   I have that in mine, but it's an automatic and i can't really find a reason to use it.

My Golf does not have any button that I can use to quickly activate or deactivate the hill hold like some vehicles, unfortunately, although I can fully disable it through the OBD port. Some cars have buttons to control the parking brake (like seicer's vehicle, it seems), but this is unrelated to the operation of hill hold which simply maintains the brake pressure automatically until X-number of seconds has passed, or the throttle is depressed. The parking brake is quite obviously unrelated to the brake pedal.

[Stormwalker]

Don't you have an indicator or hear the brake activate and release? Because that's the indicator to know when it's working or not. It doesn't activate when you aren't expecting it - it's a user input that activates it. I use it in the Subaru all the time to prevent rollback - I press a button, the electronic parking brake engages. Once I attempt to start out, the electronic parking brake disengages and I can safely maneuver out.

Hill-Start Assist in my car (2014 Camaro SS) is automatic, there's not a user input to activate it.  The computer decides when to engage it.  And no, the brake engaging is not audible, or at least if it is, it's not loud enough that I have ever noticed it.  It displays a "Hill Start Assist is Active" message on the Driver Information Display (which is in the middle of the instrument panel), but I often don't look at the instrument panel when I am stopped except possibly to check temperature and oil pressure (which I do somewhat habitually after having a 1965 Mustang as my daily driver for years), and don't look at it terribly often when moving, either, since I have a heads-up display that shows me my speed.

So frequently, my first awareness that it has engaged is a higher-than-expected amount of resistance when I start the car rolling forward, which if I was being light on the throttle (behind someone who is accelerating slowly, perhaps), might not quite be enough and forces me to add a bit more power quickly to avoid killing the engine.  It's really only a problem when it sometimes oddly decides to engage on hills that are so slight that I didn't even realize I was on a slope at all.

[Stormwalker]

My issue with assists is when they reach the point of taking control of the car out of my hands.  I don't trust the computer to be a better driver than me.  This isn't a distrust of the computer itself so much as it's a healthy distrust of the humans doing the programming, speaking as a programmer myself!  Bugs happen!

But just because your car doesn't have one, the car in front of you, behind you, and on either side of you may have one.  How often have you been hit by another car due to their car's computer having bugs and suddenly brakes or speeds up into you?

I've never seen an automated assist that would result in speeding up.  And if such a thing exists, that would be a bad design in my opinion.

If someone in front of me brakes suddenly, it doesn't matter whether it was the computer or the driver braking, it's my responsibility as a driver to maintain a reasonable following distance so that I have time to react to their sudden braking.

I'm not responsible for what someone else's car does, but I am responsible for what my car does, and as such I want to be in control of it!

[seicer]

Yikes. I had no idea that some of these features (like hill hold assist) are automatic. Even worse, it can't be disabled.

[jakeroot]

Yikes. I had no idea that some of these features (like hill hold assist) are automatic. Even worse, it can't be disabled.

Given my specific situation (manual transmission, very hilly city), I don't see what I would gain by being able to enable/disable hill hold on the fly.

[Scott5114]

Yikes. I had no idea that some of these features (like hill hold assist) are automatic. Even worse, it can't be disabled.

Given my specific situation (manual transmission, very hilly city), I don't see what I would gain by being able to enable/disable hill hold on the fly.

I think the problem is when you have someone from a not very hilly city who drives the car for 10 years, then drives to Seattle and the car starts doing things of its own volition.

[Takumi]

The only advanced driver assistance feature my TL has is blind spot monitoring, which I've actually found useful over the years. A few months ago I was cruising on I-64 at night and didn't see another car on the road, and suddenly my blind spot monitor lit up. Right after that a car with no lights on flew past me going close to 100.

[seicer]

I find blind-spot monitoring very useful for larger SUVs where it can be difficult in even the best scenarios to see a clearing.

[jakeroot]

Yikes. I had no idea that some of these features (like hill hold assist) are automatic. Even worse, it can't be disabled.

Given my specific situation (manual transmission, very hilly city), I don't see what I would gain by being able to enable/disable hill hold on the fly.

I think the problem is when you have someone from a not very hilly city who drives the car for 10 years, then drives to Seattle and the car starts doing things of its own volition.

I find it remarkable that someone could drive a car for even a year without realizing it can hold itself at a 3% grade.

There is a lot of forums dedicated to people trying to turn off hill hold. Main argument is something along the lines of "if you can drive a manual properly, you don't need a computer to hold the car for you". Which is fine on the small hills around DC. Try living without hill hold in San Francisco, Seattle, Portland, Duluth, etc. It's fun at first and then it just gets annoying.

Seriously: I'd love to see some of the manual drivers on this forum drive up Marion St in Seattle during rush hour without some form of hill assist. Seattleites did it for years, to be fair...maybe that's why the "I drive manual" stickers are everywhere around here...