Hacker News Reader

Comment by Someone1234 | Hacker News Reader

I just want to say, I have a similar vehicle system (Eyesight, rather than Honda Sensing) and I agree with everything you are saying. It isn't self-driving, it is just a bunch of really cool driver assist technology.

Unfortunately the reason why these systems fail on sharp turns is that the lane-line literally falls outside of the camera's vision. Aside from adding two more cameras (which I'd welcome) I cannot see them fixing it in software.

I totally would have purchased a 2016 Accord but no all-wheel-drive option. To me AWD, Blind Spot, Cross Traffic, and Eyesight made for one amazing overall safety package. The Accord has some nice unique features (e.g. Android Auto) but they need more than just Honda Sensing as OPTIONS.

View on HN

Subaru has the best overall value with their Eyesight system when considered with the rest of the car IMHO. It's why I bought my Forester (not in the price range of the Civic). Definitely not self driving, but adaptive cruise control works in steady traffic- it has a tendency to "rubber-band" when traffic changes speeds- and has saved my bacon by preventing a collision when the car in front of me stopped. The only downside is that it is fully camera based and has no radar at all, and on a road trip heading west this winter the setting sun killed the Eyesight system and the cruise control completely disengaged and I had to manually control my speed for about an hour.

Agreed - my wife just bought a new Subaru with the Eyesight package. I was very dubious at first, but after a few long freeway trips, I'd much rather drive her car than my older vehicle. I believe that Subaru in Japan has published some impressive statistics about accident reduction with the Eyesight package. IMO, these technologies should be mandated on all new cars.

I'm impressed Honda is offering it on all models (LX, Sport, EX, EX-L, Touring) instead of saying "Sorry, Touring only".

Now that I've had Honda Sensing for a few months I really like (in a rental right now and miss parts of it), but I'd like real blind spot indicators and the cross traffic alert.

Either way, serious upgrade from a 'dumb' car.

AWD is actually not that important in safe driving. AWD ensures you can always go forward. In a bad situation you don't care about going forward, you care about stopping and steering. So brakes and tires matter. We all have 4 wheel brakes, so set there. Get some awesome snow tires and 2WD and you will steer/stop fine in the snow. Plow up a hill through snowbanks? Maybe not.

AWD assures you always have traction, tracking means steering, therefore AWD means you retain steering in bad conditions. If you move to a snowy area the majority of vehicles have either AWD or 4WD, the few that don't NEED snow tires just to make it work.

AWD used to be questionable because of the price and fuel economy, but these days thanks to computer controls, it is close to 1 MpG, and the price has come down to within a thousand dollars of a non-AWD vehicle (in fact several manufacturers do 1-1.5K AWD upgrades).

> AWD assures you always have traction, tracking means steering, therefore AWD means you retain steering in bad conditions. If you move to a snowy area the majority of vehicles have either AWD or 4WD, the few that don't NEED snow tires just to make it work.

I have lived my entire life in areas where it snows. This is fundamentally not true.

Traction has to do with tires. Good snow tires - awesome traction. Bald summer tires - bad traction. If you need to steer around something, the tires is what matter - NOT AWD or 4WD.

The reason the majority of cars up north have AWD or 4WD is because people are sheep, and believe in marketing material over facts.

If you would like to read more about this, please check out: http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2014/12/01/all-wheel-drive-do...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com