>> I agree. It’s an improvement in road safety. Who would not wish that it was
>> fitted to a vehicle approaching you at 60.mph whose driver has nodded off and is
>> drifting towards you. I expect it will become mandatory on all vehicle in a few
>> years.
Head-ons are nasty and a system that might prevent them is certainly a good idea. But it hasn't happened to me or anyone I know and the near misses I've had have generally been related to somebody's optimistic overtaking attempt, so I'm pleased not to have had 50 years of the car trying to steer itself.
Many of the white lines round here are worn away in any case, and the edges of the minor roads are in such bad condition that I default to driving up the middle and moving over when a vehicle approaches. I use the available road when I can so I'm always crossing lane markings.
ASC, ABS and EBA are the best things since sliced bread. They work like a charm and are undetectable until they are needed. Lane keeping would be OK if the same could be said, but a safety system that intrudes constantly to prevent a 1 in 1,000 years event needs some development as far as I'm concerned.
N. Ludd.
Apropos hire car companies, I hired a Luton van for a couple of days about a month ago from Enterprise. The extended mirrors on a Transit are great for looking in but very large and sticky-out and I had a glancing encounter with someone going the other way, breaking the lens on the side repeater which would have been better positioned somewhere other than the extremity of the mirror housing.
They kept my £200 deposit. I've just got £110 back, after a charge of £40 for repairs and a £50 fee, which I think is OK. It would have been even better had I remembered to take out an annual CDW as I usually do when I hire a vehicle.
It's possible I suppose that had the Transit had lane-keeping it might have tugged the wheel a bit and saved me £90. It was brand new too, surprised it wasn't fitted.
|
