I just want to outline my overarching concern off the bat with similar sentiments I see expressed exactly in this vein by people: there's a very strong potential for serious cognitive biases, and, frankly, simple flawed logic, to be operant in the statement, "I do not need emergency assistance because I am skilled driver".
The fallacy is that simply because a low-probability event hasn't happened to you, doesn't mean that you wouldn't benefit from assistance if it did. It seems to be a combination of optimism bias/competence bias/dunning-kruger. Systems that can mitigate "human error" are extremely critical and desirable, even by highly skilled/talented/trained machine operators like airline pilots.
Anyhow, it feels like your specific critiques apply to proactive systems, which actually don't really fall under the umbrella of what I'm outlining per se.
Proactive systems are either very intentionally engaged (i.e. lane centering or adaptive cruise) or highly theoretical and not widely implemented, for example, proactive driver assist in TSS3, if enabled (which it isn't fresh out of the factory for reasons you likely outline here), makes subtle corrections to the driver's experience, e.g. engaging brakes when cars ahead slow down or on curves. I have strong hopes for technology like this as being a good bridge between the challenges of full driver assistance and current technology, which, at the cutting edge, is undoubtedly impressive. They may very well not be there yet, which is suggested by Toyota's reluctance to make this the default experience on their equipped vehicles.
Conversely, reactive systems like AEB are widely tested by regulators and, for example, the IIHS, and should only ever genuinely engage in emergency situations. Certain systems do this better than others, which is software/sensor based. Some do exceptionally. Some do not.
Quick note:
(~2024 RAV4): Uses TSS2.5, not TSS3. There appears to be a large difference here in competence. I haven't driven with either system extensively.
> I just want to outline my overarching concern off the bat with similar sentiments I see expressed exactly in this vein by people: there's a very strong potential for serious cognitive biases, and, frankly, simple flawed logic, to be operant in the statement, "I do not need emergency assistance because I am skilled driver".
Sure; and I'm sure you likewise recognize that there's a difference between "This could never help me", "I don't need this", and "I don't want this". People don't live their lives by making game theory optimal choices at every turn. There's also a difference between a safety regime offered as a cost-extra feature on a car, a regulatory requirement on a car, and a regulatory requirement on an airliner.
The fallacy is that simply because a low-probability event hasn't happened to you, doesn't mean that you wouldn't benefit from assistance if it did. It seems to be a combination of optimism bias/competence bias/dunning-kruger. Systems that can mitigate "human error" are extremely critical and desirable, even by highly skilled/talented/trained machine operators like airline pilots.
Anyhow, it feels like your specific critiques apply to proactive systems, which actually don't really fall under the umbrella of what I'm outlining per se.
Proactive systems are either very intentionally engaged (i.e. lane centering or adaptive cruise) or highly theoretical and not widely implemented, for example, proactive driver assist in TSS3, if enabled (which it isn't fresh out of the factory for reasons you likely outline here), makes subtle corrections to the driver's experience, e.g. engaging brakes when cars ahead slow down or on curves. I have strong hopes for technology like this as being a good bridge between the challenges of full driver assistance and current technology, which, at the cutting edge, is undoubtedly impressive. They may very well not be there yet, which is suggested by Toyota's reluctance to make this the default experience on their equipped vehicles.
Conversely, reactive systems like AEB are widely tested by regulators and, for example, the IIHS, and should only ever genuinely engage in emergency situations. Certain systems do this better than others, which is software/sensor based. Some do exceptionally. Some do not.
Quick note:
(~2024 RAV4): Uses TSS2.5, not TSS3. There appears to be a large difference here in competence. I haven't driven with either system extensively.