[firehawk72]

I found this fascinating. If you go to insurance institute for highway safety and compare the 2016 Volt with all the safety features (minus ACC which was not offered) and compare to 2017 WITH ACC, the difference is staggering. This is a question many of us have asked but have not had a definitive answer.

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/vehicle/v/chevrolet/volt-4-door-hatchback/2017

2017 Volt with ACC
Overall evaluation

Crash avoidance rating
Superior
with optional
equipment
6 points total
Forward collision warning
This system meets the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's criteria for forward collision warning.
1 point
Low-speed autobrake
In the 12 mph IIHS test, this vehicle avoided a collision. 2 points
High-speed autobrake
In the 25 mph IIHS test, this vehicle avoided a collision. 3 points


2016 Volt without ACC
Overall evaluation

Crash avoidance rating
Advanced
with optional
equipment
4 points total
Forward collision warning
This system meets the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's criteria for forward collision warning.
1 point
Low-speed autobrake
In the 12 mph IIHS test, this vehicle avoided a collision. 2 points
High-speed autobrake
In the 25 mph IIHS test, impact speed was reduced by 5 mph. 1 point

 

[BAZINGA]

Thanks for sharing, I have all these safety features on our 2017 Volt and GMC Acadia and have really come to appreciate them. While the "high-speed auto brake" feature can be a bit disconcerting due to how it reacts vs how you the driver think it should. I have been able to trigger it once and it went to FULL emergency braking in the blink of an eye. But up to that point I kept wondering if it was working and how to test it. No matter how late I tried to brake, I could never get myself to hold off a wee bit longer.

So as a last resort it can easily whoa the car down considerably should you be distracted.

 

[viking79]

What is staggering? Those points are based on features, i.e. a vehicle can't be TSP+ without AEB. Crash performance of the two is the same. I don't think IIHS tests AEB effectiveness yet, just whether it has it or not. You would have to look at studies to see that AEB reduces crashes.

 

[firehawk72]

What is staggering? Those points are based on features, i.e. a vehicle can't be TSP+ without AEB. Crash performance of the two is the same. I don't think IIHS tests AEB effectiveness yet, just whether it has it or not. You would have to look at studies to see that AEB reduces crashes.

Crash performance the same, possibly, but think

Crash prevention, not the same, not even close

 

[DonC]

Agree with viking79 that we're looking at features and that it would be a plus if we could see data from the real world on what features reduced accidents and by how much. I can't remember the details but a few years ago the Institute did list which features reduced accidents and which did not. Not all were effective (I'm thinking the lane departure warnings were not). Having said that, I think all the auto braking systems (including ACC) and the blind spot warnings will be so I'd definitely want them.

 

[firehawk72]

Agree with viking79 that we're looking at features and that it would be a plus if we could see data from the real world on what features reduced accidents and by how much. I can't remember the details but a few years ago the Institute did list which features reduced accidents and which did not. Not all were effective (I'm thinking the lane departure warnings were not). Having said that, I think all the auto braking systems (including ACC) and the blind spot warnings will be so I'd definitely want them.

The striking difference is between the 25 MPH avoidance. The 2016 @ 25 MPH only slowed to 20 MPH and struck the object while the 2017 with ACC totally stopped and did not hit the object. That is impressive and shows just how important ACC with full speed braking can be.

 

[longflare]

As a driver of, 'tractor-trailers', (Semi-trailers here in Australia), that are often 50tons loaded, I'm concerned about what might happen when this feature is triggered in the path of a moving rig.
I wonder if the car driver, once this has happened, being cautious and careful always, (hence the car needing to defend itself), will then be quick thinking enough to move out of the way of the impending rear-end collision; (without moving into the only escape path the rig has remaining)
Notwithstanding, I often observe this sort of situation developing in the traffic ahead, and have nearly stopped before the errant / distracted drivers realize something is going wrong.
I'm not perfect, and can't help others easily from my perspective. I can only make as much room as possible given the situation, (usually to have some other smarty-pants use it)

 

[firehawk72]

As a driver of, 'tractor-trailers', (Semi-trailers here in Australia), that are often 50tons loaded, I'm concerned about what might happen when this feature is triggered in the path of a moving rig.
I wonder if the car driver, once this has happened, being cautious and careful always, (hence the car needing to defend itself), will then be quick thinking enough to move out of the way of the impending rear-end collision; (without moving into the only escape path the rig has remaining)
Notwithstanding, I often observe this sort of situation developing in the traffic ahead, and have nearly stopped before the errant / distracted drivers realize something is going wrong.
I'm not perfect, and can't help others easily from my perspective. I can only make as much room as possible given the situation, (usually to have some other smarty-pants use it)

Assuming you are traveling at a safe distance, why would this be an issue? If I were a state trooper, a proper safe distance would be my pet peeve.

 

[viking79]

The striking difference is between the 25 MPH avoidance. The 2016 @ 25 MPH only slowed to 20 MPH and struck the object while the 2017 with ACC totally stopped and did not hit the object. That is impressive and shows just how important ACC with full speed braking can be.

That assumes the driver did not see obstacle, but overall, I agree with having AEB and ACC. They are going to be a huge safety improvement, probably best since seatbelt. Combined with autonomous driving and the effect will be even greater, probably greater safety impact than seatbelt once most cars are autonomous.

 

[Loboc]

ACC does not 'see' stopped vehicles. Does AEB?

 

[longflare]

Essentially, with a heavy vehicle, there isn't a safe distance. Heavy vehicles are dangerous beasts that need special consideration.
Most of the problem isn't the vehicle's ability to stop, slow or maneuver, but the load's ability to do the same, and stay in one piece, and on the vehicle.
I constantly have to slow down to increase my forward safety zone, because when it is big enough, someone thinks it is theirs to use.
So the cycle continues.
As a professional operator, it is my job to deal with this, graciously.
Of course, slowing down to alleviate the problem compounds it, by making me into a rolling roadblock that everyone wants to get in front of.

 

[DonC]

The striking difference is between the 25 MPH avoidance. The 2016 @ 25 MPH only slowed to 20 MPH and struck the object while the 2017 with ACC totally stopped and did not hit the object. That is impressive and shows just how important ACC with full speed braking can be.

Sometimes there are differences between the lab and the real world. For example, in the first test of EPO as an aid to performance in cycling, the study (which was good -- prospective, double blind, etc) found a difference in performance in the lab but not in actual races.

I did find one study in Europe that said accidents were reduced but it was just a conclusion without any backup.

 

[firehawk72]

Sometimes there are differences between the lab and the real world. For example, in the first test of EPO as an aid to performance in cycling, the study (which was good -- prospective, double blind, etc) found a difference in performance in the lab but not in actual races.

I did find one study in Europe that said accidents were reduced but it was just a conclusion without any backup.

Practically every accident is a result of human error. Distraction has become the 800 pound gorilla as people are texting and/or cell phone use ( which causes 28% of all accidents...National Safety Council) and of course driving while putting on makeup or reading a book or whatever it is. Being able to stop (physically stop the car) a distracted driver will be a huge benefit for reducing accidents caused by distraction.

 

[Laughing Sawfish]

I think it would be very interesting to see some stats (eventually) on the number of occurrences of vehicles with ACC that get rear-ended due to the distracted driver behind them...

-Jeff

 

[PJL]

I think it would be very interesting to see some stats (eventually) on the number of occurrences of vehicles with ACC that get rear-ended due to the distracted driver behind them...

-Jeff

Hmmm....getting rear-ended only isn't better than hitting the vehicle in front of you and then getting rear-ended also (which is likely to be the case)?

 

[PJL]

ACC does not 'see' stopped vehicles. Does AEB?

Since when? It does on my ACC-equipped 2017 since it slows down and stops automatically if there is a stopped vehicle in front of me.

 

[Random]

Since when? It does on my ACC-equipped 2017 since it slows down and stops automatically if there is a stopped vehicle in front of me.

I had the same thought, but I think the group is correct. I do so much manual intervention as a matter of course, I had not completely understood this point (another reason why this forum is so informative!)

The consensus seems to be that if a vehicle is already tracking (e.g. stop and go driving), and it slows and stops, ACC will slow and stop. However, if you are approaching a stopped vehicle which was not previously being tracked, ACC does not seem to register it, or at least ACC does not react in a well behaved way.

The green car icon does eventually show, but by then, it is probably a matter of forward automatic braking, no longer normal ACC operation.

I think of it as, at this version of VOLT ACC, ACC does not work for stopped vehicles which were not previously being tracked.

 

[Upper5Percent]

As a driver of, 'tractor-trailers', (Semi-trailers here in Australia), that are often 50tons loaded, I'm concerned about what might happen when this feature is triggered in the path of a moving rig.
I wonder if the car driver, once this has happened, being cautious and careful always, (hence the car needing to defend itself), will then be quick thinking enough to move out of the way of the impending rear-end collision; (without moving into the only escape path the rig has remaining)
Notwithstanding, I often observe this sort of situation developing in the traffic ahead, and have nearly stopped before the errant / distracted drivers realize something is going wrong.
I'm not perfect, and can't help others easily from my perspective. I can only make as much room as possible given the situation, (usually to have some other smarty-pants use it)

Just be on alert for THE Intercetor sitting by the side of the road...

 

[Foxtrot]

I had the same thought, but I think the group is correct. I do so much manual intervention as a matter of course, I had not completely understood this point (another reason why this forum is so informative!)

The consensus seems to be that if a vehicle is already tracking (e.g. stop and go driving), and it slows and stops, ACC will slow and stop. However, if you are approaching a stopped vehicle which was not previously being tracked, ACC does not seem to register it, or at least ACC does not react in a well behaved way.

The green car icon does eventually show, but by then, it is probably a matter of forward automatic braking, no longer normal ACC operation.

I think of it as, at this version of VOLT ACC, ACC does not work for stopped vehicles which were not previously being tracked.

Your description exactly fits my experience with my 17 Volt.
It will sometimes pick up stopped vehicles in time, but if the speed differential is large, it will be too late.

 

[Barry]

Practically every accident is a result of human error. Distraction has become the 800 pound gorilla as people are texting and/or cell phone use ( which causes 28% of all accidents...National Safety Council) and of course driving while putting on makeup or reading a book or whatever it is. Being able to stop (physically stop the car) a distracted driver will be a huge benefit for reducing accidents caused by distraction.

This is the key issue with all new safety features. People are lulled into a greater sense of safety, so they focus less on the driving task, or drive faster, and the accident rates have typically gone back up to their previous levels. The new crop of safety features that are moving us incrementally to automation may finally break that pattern. We need safety features that do not just encourage driver distraction, but actually reduce accidents despite increased driver distraction. The only way this dynamic between rising safety and rising driver distraction will ever be completely overcome is with full automation, so I'm glad that is starting to emerge.