What high tech features you DON'T use?

DRCC: is very good, use it every time I drive.

LKA: only used occasionally on long trips when I might get sleepy.

IPA: I have only used it a couple of times to "impress my friends" but for me it is of no practical value.

PCS: Great to have, hope to never use it.

Nav System: A Garmin is better but the Toyota built in unit was part of the package so I use it. Like most factory nav units the only advantage is that it's built in.

I bought the Prius V (five) mainly because to quicker steering and better wheels and tires. Figured since I was spending that much I might as well spend some more and get the ATP. I'm glad I did, the DRCC is really a great option.

NOTE: Solar roof is only available on the III and IV and ATP is only available on the V. But the Nav system with bluetooth was available on any of the three, III, IV, or V. The Nav was the only part of the ATP that you could buy separately.

 

I never use, nor will I ever use the IPA.
By the time that thing has parked anything, I would be the number one hate object in the area by my fellow drivers

 

I use DRCC and LKA a lot, usually on longer trips than my daily route. I always use both together.

I think PCS activated in one close call, but can't be absolutely sure as it happened so fast.

Like Tumbleweed, I use IPA mainly for the wow factor, but I've used it several times by myself just because I have it. I'm not a fan of the NAV system (hate the crappy screen) but I also use it because it's there.

It's significantly faster if you skip the pre-support system, especially if you're experienced in pulling into the correct initial spot. The only thing your fellow drivers might accuse you of is being a slow-poke pulling into the parking spot (a limitation of IPA).

 

Have you test drive that used prius with technology package yet? I was in the same situation as you last week therefore I try to test drive it several times and try to use the feature (ie: solar roof, radar cruise control, parking assist). I found out I can leave without the parking assist (eventhough it's nice to have it but I try it several times and I can't get it work out). Because of that, I decide to move on to wait a 2012 instead of buying a 2011. I think you should try it too since it's you to going to use the car.

 

I wish we had the radar cruise, but the sunroof was more important. I think it is a good safety item.

 

Reverse. The beeping, and the chiming, and the chiming, and the beeping...

I'll never get over Macho Grande...

(Seriously, I have a Two, so not many of the fancy features to not use. Hill Keep Assist, perhaps, but that's about it)

 

I never use the 3 rear view mirrors. What's behind you doesn't matter.......

Keith

 

I have to say, I think some of these features (lane keep assist, auto-park, dynamic cruise), are really a mixed bag. As technology goes, great - it's neat that automakers are pushing the envelope.

On the flipside, it feels as though we're "stupidproofing" the cars - will the driving test now allow the student to push a button to parallel park? - and I can just see people saying it's OK now to text in the car because it will keep them in the lane at a proper distance from the car in front of them.

And even for those who don't think that way I think it's just an opportunity for skills to atrophy. Look at Air France 447 - that crash was ultimately due to human error in not recognizing the state of the aircraft when a part froze over - the automation helped to mask the true conditions surrounding the pilots. Apples and oranges? Sure. But we make pilots go through continuous training, and then we put all of these features in cars and just tell people to read the manual.

</rant>

 

Congratulations on your choice, and welcome to the forum. My experience with some of the gadgetry has been on other cars rather than the Prius, but here are my thoughts. I like the lane departure warning systems (Mercedes in my case) and solar powered cooling (Maybach and Mercedes) but don't care much for radar cruise control (same cars). On a gentle freeway curve it sometimes catches the movement of a car slightly ahead in the next lane and is activated when not really needed. I tend to drive with my finger close to the cc button, and prefer to disengage it myself.
One really slick feature on a new Rolls Ghost I drove recently was the HUD speedometer. (I know, not on the Prius you are buying.)
I work as a private chauffeur, which exposes me to cars and gadgets I would not otherwise experience.
Good luck with your car and all the new "toys." :welcome:

 

Unfortunately, that's true for most safety features (at least those that don't direct reduce fatality rate such as seat belts), not just high end adv. tech features. There's a concept called [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_homeostasis"]risk homeostasis[/ame] where drivers take on additional risk and carelessness because they assume, for example, anti-lock brakes would take care of them. Same is true with the increased ER visits after the motorcycle/bicycle helmet laws were passed.

The DMV won't allow self-parking to fly as a test for parallel parking and we already have law against texting on the book, so those are moot.

 

You have to be careful with statistics like this, though... I once read an anecdote (not sure if it was based on truth or not, but it seems plausible) about a nation being alarmed at the high number of head injuries sustained by their armed forces during a war. In response, they issued helmets to the soldiers, only to find that the rate of head injuries increased. This wasn't because they were doing more dangerous things though - it was because the helmet was protecting soldiers from death. Soldiers that previously would have died were now only being injured.

 

Great point! The same could be said of seat belts protecting drivers from death but lead to other injuries. Critics of risk homeostasis theory like to point this in order to try to debunk the theory (wrongfully IMO), but I think risk homeostasis only works in certain cases.

I have personally seen risk homeostasis at play in my martial arts training. I've witnessed less or no injuries with a more dangerous variation of a technique and many more injuries with a less dangerous variation of the same technique, only because students tend to be much more careful when performing the more dangerous variation.

 

And I can just see people saying it's OK now to not be able to shift, because the car will change gears for them...

If most cars get pushbutton parallel park, why not allow it at the DMV? They allow you to take the exam with an automatic transmission, after all. (My parents, however, did not.)

Some of my professors and teachers in the past have had similar theories with respect to using calculators, books, and other outside sources during a test: in the real world, you can go grab a calculator, or find a math book, or google for help - so they should teach you to use the tools you'll normally have access to. (Others, however, seem to have decided that somebody has to remember how to do these things by hand so they can write the textbook, design the calculator, and answer questions on the internet.)

In general, there are far more errors made when people (including pilots) take over from the computer than errors made by the computer. Google's autonomous car, which has driven hundreds of thousands of miles, was involved in an accident - but it was being driven by the human at the time of the crash. The driver is the sole cause of 57% of all accidents, and is at least a contributing cause in 93% of all accidents. Get rid of the driver, and there's a huge potential to reduce accident and fatality rates. People are far more tolerant of an accident from a human than they are from a computer - the computer can be "fixed", the human isn't broken (just incapable) and thus can't be.

We just need to make these computerized systems very reliable (they typically are), and prevent us humans from doing something stupid with them. I'm not aware of any significant number of accidents blamed on having traction control, stability control, ABS, etc. - they just work, so you can't turn them off or override them in the heat of the moment. They won't prevent all accidents, but they can certainly help avoid certain types.

 

Good responses all, and the "risk homeostastis" one is especially interesting - I'll be reading that one today! I'd like you, though, to look at my comments in light of the notion that people get driving training at 16, and then never again.

Look, folks, I'm not a Luddite, and I'm not anti-convenience - I'm saying we need to be cautious about technologies that would bring out the careless side in people.

ABS and automatic transmissions don't do that. Lane keep assist, radar-based cruise control, and automatic parking do. Push a button and let go.

Traction control is a little more dicey, but it's not about carelessness - each car's works differently, I'm not against it, but people need to be made clearly aware of how the system is working in their car. Found out in an icy intersection that it's different on my Prius than other cars I've owned, including my Camry Hybrid. Had to find out about that after the fact, HERE (Thanks, p/c!)

And my point about AF447 was that the pilot at the controls didn't know how to handle the situation - because what I didn't post was that the autopilot had gone to alternate law - it was deliberately not behaving normally, and the pilot couldn't read the cues. Had he done so, there were manual procedures he could have applied. And that's largely because the automation lulls us out of the application of skills.

Probably my biggest issue is that we throw new technologies at people, tell them they're going to make their lives safer, and give them no training other than an owner's manual. Here's a perfect example - my wife had a 15 y/o Taurus with no ABS. Absent any other training, what would you expect her to do in her new RAV4? She thought she was supposed to pump the brakes, which pretty much defeats the safety feature. Do you really think that her assumption was "hey, I need to read up in the manual on how to use the brakes?" I took care of that training issue.

Here's a question for anyone who has a Prius with LKA and DRCC - Did your dealer refuse to let you take delivery until they had shown you on the road how to use them, and make you sign off on knowledge of a safety feature of the car?

 

If the risk homeostasis hypothesis is to be believed, ABS can indeed bring out the careless side in people, under the theory that they'd follow cars more closely, plow through large pools of water, drive faster in the rain, etc. thinking ABS will save their nice person.

Not sure what you're asking. How's this any different from standard cruise control in every other cars out there? Lots of dealers are after the money and couldn't care less if you crash your brand new car 30 seconds after driving off their lot.

 

What I'm saying is that, in the absence of any other training, and let's face it, most people outside these forums aren't reading their manuals, that the dealer is the last point of information most people will have.

And DRCC is VERY different - it's not just saying it'll maintain your speed, it's also saying that it will keep you from hitting the car in front of you - if that doesn't increase complacency, I don't know what will! LKA is the same deal - don't worry, we'll take care of keeping you from going off the road.

I don't use cruise control myself, because I've felt the loss of focus that disconnecting yourself from the throttle can have - don't really like it.

As for ABS, I don't drive that way because I'm naturally risk-averse.

I guess time will tell - DRCC and LKA are new technologies - we'll have to see what the accident/risk statistics actually turn out to be over a few years!