Then it's a good thing I didn't.
I was replying (with a bit of humor) to the upthread posters notion that because these cars behave in a way that s/he personally finds confusing they are more dangerous (they aren't) and by extension shouldn't be on the road. And that's ridiculous. And the proof to the contrary is that exactly the kind of unsafe situation the poster was complaining about is something that automated systems can almost completely eliminate.
Legal != Safe.
That's a $22 backup camera.
I haven't seen it yet, but I don't know why somebody couldn't develop a similar kit to put on the front bumper that could warn about traffic ahead, lane drifting, etc.
A <$100 kit that can retrofit my old beater with some modern features would be money very well spent to protect a multi-thousand dollar asset, personal injury, and liability.
I believe that all manufacturers are required to build in backup cameras now. Why not require all registered vehicles to be retrofitted?
Next up, auto-braking.
>Then clearly you need to get a car with better proximity detection systems.
As it was nearly a rear-end collision but not actually a read-end collision doesn't that mean that sithadmin's current collision detection system (whatever that may be) is adequate and functioning properly?
Then clearly you need to get a car with better proximity detection systems. That's easily the simplest collision to detect and avoid for any automated system.
I know that sounds glib, but you need to recognize that if your ability to drive safely is so dependent on the "expected" behavior of other drivers, that maybe driving the way you are (which is to say, in the state of being a human) is the wrong way to solve the problem.
> I do believe that they likely increase the risk of minor collisions.
Pretty sure to the extent that this has been studied, exactly the opposite is true. For every "annoyance glitch" you posit, these things are saving 6-7 "loss of attention" fender benders.