IIS and a preliminary report

If you ask IIS to set up a test with more angularity - you KNOW they'll make sure the Toyota can't use its radar. Next, they'll set up the test with one of these.



.

 

True.

But a flat box must have some kind of radar signature. I'd be interested to see Toyota's response.

 

First its the IIHS, not IIS. IIS is a microsoft product. I don't think IIHS has anti-toyota bias, but they have shown a pro-tank built type vehicle (SUV) bias. They enjoy making vehicles heavier and more expensive. The prius v, if it were a very safe car, would get rid of all those pro-SUV arguments, and reason they have fought cafe standards. As we get further from the slower speed limits, bigger heavier cars are needed to make us safe, the IIHS loses power.

 

I'd have to know a little bit more about the target (and [sic] Pre-Collision) system before I accused the IIHS of malfeasance or of "Prius Hate."

OK...so the target probably wasn't aluminized mylar-wrapped foam. Even if it was radar-transparent, that slab-sided aluminum carrier sure as heck isn't.
I'm thinking that the Prius should have sniffed that out and started a backing bell before it plowed through the target.

 

I agree this is not prius hate, but.... IIHS has to keep showing safe cars are unsafe. The primary safety device in a car, always was and always will be the drivers brain. As cars become safer drivers become more complacent. Its best to get drivers not to drive distracted (drunk, texting, eating), than expect these drivers to be protected by the IIS. But, if we have the technology, and it appears like it is developing, why not make these distracted drivers safer. Not having it work perfectly on a target does not make the prius v unsafe, it simply means the driver must continue to be that safety system. If IIHS was saying, the stystem is a rip off, that it doesn't work that well, that would be one thing, but a driver is hardly less safe with it than in a car without it, unless she/he is realying on it instead of their brains.

 

I have a 2010 Prius 5 with the Advanced Tech Package that has the PCS similar to if not the exact same as this vehicle. If I recall correctly, the manual states that the PCS will only stop the vehicle if it determines a crash is unavoidable with a MOVING object. I believe that by design, it won't prevent an impact with a STATIONARY object.

... I can't seem to find it in the online version of the manual, so I might be wrong about this. It does say "The sensor cannot detect plastic obstacles such as pylons"

... under the section for dynamic radar cruise control, pg. 229 in the manual says the sensor may not correctly detect "Vehicles that are not moving." I always interpreted that in ANYTHING using the sensor (PCS included) may not detect/react to stationary objects/vehicles.

 

I'm not feeling paranoid today, so I'll give the IIHS and CR the benefit of the doubt and just suggest that Toyota gets singled out as a compliment, as one of the leaders of pack in safety.

I acknowledge that Toyota may not see it that way, and reasonable behaviour by the IIHS would have been to forward the results and test protocol to Toyota for comment before they publish. That way any peculiarity of the testing system that failed the car in the test, but would not be seen in actual use could have been sorted out.

 

It has to be a Photoshopped image. Why else would the rear wheels be blurred (moving forward) while the front wheels are already stopped (not blurred)? The front headlights are stopped and the tail lights are blurred and still moving forward.

Mike

 

Looks like too long of a shutter speed on a vehicle that was moving then stopped. Don't know the vehicle though.

 

The system activates based on speed differentials with up coming objects. So it should work for a stopped car. Other wise the system would be of no help in stop and go traffic.
http://www.toyota.com/t3Portal/document/om/OM47840U/pdf/sec_02-04.pdf
The pre-collision system is on page 256.

 

This happens when you're panning to try to capture motion (with a slower shutter speed, rather than trying to "freeze" the car in the image). I think its referred to as the parallax effect.

Here's an example:

Trucks OTR. - Canon Digital Photography Forums

 

Right absolutely, but don't see the pan, because the blow up obstacle is stable. It makes it look like the car stopped and did not hit the battle bot. I would like the article would not want the given photographic effect.

 

I thought the reason why IIHS was better than government testing was because they had the money to simulate 'realistic' crashes. What next, a cardboard pedestrian?

 

Would you volunteer to be a 'real' pedestrian?

 

It is.

 

If so then wouldn't the camera see the foam mockup? I suspect it relies on radar only - no camera, but that's just a speculation.