Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker on our website.
Kittycat wrote: ↑Sat Nov 24, 2018 11:44 am
Tbh mine doesn’t go off that often only if I am a bit late breaking which is rare so I don’t see the point why anyone would would want to deactivate them unless you are a last minute breaker and it’s constantly going off
It's not just linked to approaching the back of cars.
If you drive on country lanes, as I do, it can get confused and go off.
For example, there's one right hand bend with a wall lining it on my work route.
It honestly thinks I'm going to drive into the wall every morning, it's so annoying.
If you want to enquire more about this then contact Alex at VAG Car Coding. He is fully insured and recognised by all VAG companies. He will tell you if it can be done or not. He coded my Polo GTI and told me about a lot of features the car has that i wasn't aware of. You can find him on Instagram, not too sure about facebook as i don't have it but his services are top quality.
As monkeyhanger has said, I don't think insurance companies would have a leg to stand on if you permanently disabled a feature that can already be disabled at will.
Different if you're disabling something thaty has no normal option to be disabled.
Andy Beats wrote: ↑Wed Nov 28, 2018 10:05 am
As monkeyhanger has said, I don't think insurance companies would have a leg to stand on if you permanently disabled a feature that can already be disabled at will.
Different if you're disabling something thaty has no normal option to be disabled.
Maybe, but if a driver of a car with front assist has chosen to switch it off and that driver ‘rear ends’ another car while it’s turned off, what approach would the insurer of that car / driver be likely to take? There’s a good chance they’d reduce the claim payment amount, on the basis that the driver chose to switch off a feature that could’ve prevented the accident. Insurers aren’t renowned for being over generous when paying claims, so they’ll use opportunities like this to ‘manage’ the amount they pay.
IMO people need to consider the possible implications before turning off front assist. Just my opinion though..................
Andy Beats wrote: ↑Wed Nov 28, 2018 10:05 am
As monkeyhanger has said, I don't think insurance companies would have a leg to stand on if you permanently disabled a feature that can already be disabled at will.
Different if you're disabling something thaty has no normal option to be disabled.
Maybe, but if a driver of a car with front assist has chosen to switch it off and that driver ‘rear ends’ another car while it’s turned off, what approach would the insurer of that car / driver be likely to take? There’s a good chance they’d reduce the claim payment amount, on the basis that the driver chose to switch off a feature that could’ve prevented the accident. Insurers aren’t renowned for being over generous when paying claims, so they’ll use opportunities like this to ‘manage’ the amount they pay.
IMO people need to consider the possible implications before turning off front assist. Just my opinion though..................
It's an OPTIONAL system, the insurance company wouldn't have a leg to stand on unless they prove their T+C's insist on all optional safety systems being switched on at all times.
if you can find T+Cs that say this, I'd be very interested.
Otherwise we're all just assuming and some (like yourself) are needlessly scaremongering.
Andy Beats wrote: ↑Wed Nov 28, 2018 10:05 am
As monkeyhanger has said, I don't think insurance companies would have a leg to stand on if you permanently disabled a feature that can already be disabled at will.
Different if you're disabling something thaty has no normal option to be disabled.
Maybe, but if a driver of a car with front assist has chosen to switch it off and that driver ‘rear ends’ another car while it’s turned off, what approach would the insurer of that car / driver be likely to take? There’s a good chance they’d reduce the claim payment amount, on the basis that the driver chose to switch off a feature that could’ve prevented the accident. Insurers aren’t renowned for being over generous when paying claims, so they’ll use opportunities like this to ‘manage’ the amount they pay.
IMO people need to consider the possible implications before turning off front assist. Just my opinion though..................
How will they "manage" the amount they pay unless in a write-off situation? They either pay for the repairs needed or they won't in a repair scenario. They may well be sniffing around for signs of a pedal box or remap to avoid pay out if you've made your car more powerful without informing them, or perhaps your tyre tread depth is categorically illegal. Turning off an optional item is not going to figure into their considerations at all.
Anyone turning off their front assist should not be worried about insurance implications for doing do.
These systems are not infallible anyway - the insurer would find it difficult to prove that the system, had it been on, would have prevented you from hitting the car in front.
My ACC always seems to work perfectly well in the service of maintaining a gap while using cruise control in traffic, but I have on occasion deliberately left it late to brake (covering the brake while doing so) and have been surprised by the lack of intervention - both on the Polo and my Golf R (which has the first iteration of the system with the sensor mounted in the lower grille of the front bumper).
It is an extra reassurance but not to be absolutely relied upon - otherwise people with the system who had left it on would be suing VW if they ram the car in front.
Not had a chance to try this fancy cruise system yet, it's a town car.
TBH I'd rather the car had auto wipers than fancy cruise anyway.
I find it really odd that, with the high gearing and fancy cruise, VW appear to have made the car a mile muncher.
Who buys a 1.0 engined car to munch miles....?
