Doc H

I used the equivalent systems (not quite as advanced as Audi's) in my X5 all the time as well, for much the same reasons. They are driver assistance systems - not driver replacement. In spite of the Tesla hype, we have found, tragically, fully autonomous driving is not yet a general reality - in no small part due to the fact that highway infrastructure is nowhere close to as advanced as the cars that drive on them, and won't be for decades. This coupled with the fact that all cars are not so equipped, and again won't be for decades, but having every car equipped with basic semi-autonomous safety features would make everyone safer. Simple backup cameras - now mandated - being just one example. So I'm content with the half-loaf that Audi represents, and it's a good one.

hitchens97

This is actually my biggest issue with ACC. It doesn't seem to notice the car cutting in until about 80pct of it is in front of you. I asked some friends who have similar systems in other brands, and this seems an Audi issue.

markcincinnati

I'll be on the lookout for the "cutting in front" issue discussed here. There are idiosyncrasies in many, if not most, systems -- and it does bear repeating that this level of autonomy is called Level 2. It also bears repeating that the name of Audi's system is DAP. The "A" is the most important letter in my estimation because it stands for "assistance" not "automation". At most Audi's system is partial-automation, the driver is expected to be in charge, the DAP simply helps in many ways to reduce (under many circumstances) the likelihood of an "incident." None of the systems that have come about over the past decade or two that can (and do) reduce the likelihood of an incident have proven 100% effective. However, some of the systems provide significant safety improvements and incident reduction capabilities.

I saw a presentation on the differing levels of automation and even at level four the automation was not effective 100% of the time, however, it was very effective well into the 90th percentile (beyond 95 as I recall), which was way better than a human, yet many people believe these systems are dangerous. Of course, another "system" (the human being) is significantly more dangerous but a lot of folks remain reluctant to embrace the new "software-based" systems. It still amazes me that there are folks who will not wear seat/shoulder belts, but when I ask them why (when I have to insist they buckle up) they often say they'd rather be thrown from the car in the event of a crash. Usually, the chime telling them they must buckle up wears them down -- that plus the fact that I insist they wear them. Yet, seatbelts are not 100% perfect either -- merely effective above the 90th percentile. However, despite my comments, virtually everyone does wear them.

I'm happy with Audi's ACC -- even when (or if) I find that it is inadequate regarding someone cutting in front of me, I'm sure it bests me most of the time.

We're probably some time away from Level 4 and even Audi will have to wait for the legal system to come up with Level 3 regulations and rules before we'll see it on US Audis -- nevertheless where we are (and not just with Audi) is progress considering traffic density, speed, and what appears to be woefully inadequate driver training (in the US). I'd love to see driver training, real training, be put into law rather than the current practice of virtually handing out DL's like they're little more than state identification cards imparting no level of proficiency in "real life" situations.

I've been through Audi's, BMW's and Porsche's driving schools (2 1/2 days for Audi, 2 days for BMW, and 1/2 day for Porsche). The Audi and BMW schools, at $2,000 and $1,200 respectively are probably not for everyone (financially), but both these schools (and the "free" Porsche school) cover the proper use of ABS, how to recover from under and over-steer, as well as several maneuvers designed to teach and build crash avoidance skills. I've not been through any American car schools (assuming they exist) to know what they teach, but I would imagine they too would include such training, which I believe is the MINIMUM hands-on training that should be REQUIRED to become licensed.

I'm not holding my breath.

Brimstone

The car systems can and will detect things the driver will miss.
The driver can see and anticipate events the car will not.

The logical solution is to use both.