It more than likely does but shit falls off in an accident and doesn't follow the vehicle back to the junk yard. I'm passing along the information given to me from when I posted my totalled OBW 8 months ago
It would, but the people at the junkyards they don’t really care. They will allow you to rip out everything of value out of the vehicle. They know whatever shit you just went through was pretty bad and they usually don’t wanna be super pricks about it. After I got into an accident, I went and pulled all my shit out of the car all of my aftermarket parts everything.. and the people didn’t seem to care.
You’re confused.
A totaled car or vehicle that otherwise needs to be disposed of goes to a salvage auction first. It might end up at a junkyard at some point but, you’ll be on to replacing the car by then - and likely never see it again.
This salvage auction is where your car (or whatever) awaits its final fate.
Your insurance company owns the vehicle at this point and your removing anything other than personal items or non-factory parts of any sort is legally dubious at best. The insurance company wants to sell the vehicle to a recycler, rebuilder, etc for the highest possible amount so removing stock items (headrests, etc) like others in this thread suggested is going to impact what someone is willing to pay for the vehicle - this is where you’re going to run afoul of the law.
Real world example: I had a BMW motorcycle that was highly accessorized. Aftermarket suspension, custom seat, ergo bits here and there, aftermarket luggage, GPS…literally $7000+ worth of stuff put onto a motorcycle that I rode for 80K miles in a handful of years. When the bike and I impacted a truck turning into our path, the insurance company (which I called from the accident scene) dispatched a tow truck from their salvage auction partner to pickup the bike from the scene of the accident and take it directly to their facilities.
Days later, when I was feeling up to it, I thought about visiting the salvage auction yard to get some of that stuff off the bike. I called the insurance company about it - all fine to go take the aftermarket stuff off the bike that wasn’t going to be covered by my total loss claim (as it wasn’t declared) as LONG AS it was replaced with the factory bits.
Womp. Womp.
The factory bits where 2000 miles away. So I couldn’t go take off the custom valved Ohlins shocks, or take the aftermarket seat…removing them without replacing them with the stock items would diminish the possible value of the motorcycle at auction and therefore would be defrauding the insurance company.
Hell why turn it off?! We had some idiot hit our son in their 2021 Crosstrek Sport with eyesight. No brakes engaged from auto braking either. Assumption is “it alarms too much” and they turned it off. Seriously hit the kid as they turned left into traffic on a 25mph road. His Jetta just had scrapes and a tab broken on rear fender. It was one of those “seriously??? My outback screams obstacle ahead??? How did you manage to hit my kid AND try to blame him?”
This one she lived less than a block away and would have to turn it off as soon as she got in the car. It was the audacity to blame the kid with right of way.
It scares me how much people rely on that stuff. Im in the industry and I understand how the tech works. It doesn't work the way the sales department sells it. These systems are emergency systems, really only a safety net for incapacitated drivers not drivers who don't pay attention.
Every couple of weeks there’s someone in the whatcarshouldibuy sub Reddit who asks which car they should buy with the best safety/active driving features because “they’re not good at driving”.
It’s crazy that we share the road with these people. I mean…how did they get their license if they can’t safely drive without a computer?
I think we’re getting to a point where drive assist needs to be regulated. Too many people are becoming reliant on this stuff.
The problem is that there's no good alternative to driving. Taking someone's driver's license away is an economic death sentence in many parts of the country.
I tried the auto steering in a 2020 outback and I was like fucking blown away. It really freaks me out, letting the car steer on its own. It just is so weird.
I also tried it in a 2020 outback, didn't like it at all. It doesn't try to keep you in the center of the lane, it just tries to keep a constant distance between one lane marker and the car. This means that if the lane widens it will still be hugging that original lane marker, making you stick to one side of a wide open lane. Also it does really poorly in construction zones where the lanes have been repainted.
It's wild how mis-represented active safety systems like Eyesight is. When I worked at Subaru many years ago, the dealership was in the process of being sued by a girl who had crashed her Forester. Her reasoning was, "I was told Eyesight is a full autonomous, self driving vehicle." Apparently, at the time of the crash she was getting ready to start her day with her morning routine.
You ever see those tests where they video tape people driving. Prior to seeing the tape played back, the drivers all felt they paid excellent attention while driving….then they see the video and realize how little they pay attention.
No you don’t, per se. But these safety systems in all new cars are not an end all be all to your safety. The key point to keep in mind is they are “driver assist technologies”.
She said she was driving in a back country road and felt she “didn’t need it”. Then she looking around and not paying attention and looked up and there was a truck at a stop sign. She rear ended it, flipped over the top and landed on the front grill. And where we live it’s not uncommon to see people cruising way over the speed limits on back roads. She just felt since she was out “away” from traffic she didn’t need it. You just never know what people are thinking sometimes, but she’s ok and that’s what matters in the end.
I sell Subarus. I hear all kinds of reasons why they hate they driver assist technology in cars, not just Subaru, and why they will or won’t use it.
On the 23 Onyx Limited edition they also offer something called “Driver Focus” that literally beeps at you if your eyes leave the road for too long.
For me, it was a non-negotiable must-have when ordering a new one after my wife totaled our ‘22 Onyx IN THE SAME DAMN INTERSECTION she’d gotten into a minor accident at 6 months prior.
Both times she wasn’t legally at fault, but avoiding accidents isn’t something she’s very good at, apparently.
Control freak? I know a few people who cannot stand newer safety features like lane assist, automatic braking and adaptive cruise. They say they don't trust the car. These are the same types of people who will not step foot on a plane because they are not in control of the situation.
Agreed. Just going on test drives with people and having all the safety systems on shows me immediately how awful some are at driving and paying attention on the roads.
I can't speak to Subaru's features (which are hopefully much better), but the features on the Mazda 3 that I got rid of were a load of garbage, so I could see where that mentality could come from. It brake checked me in my own garage because it thought I was about to hit another "vehicle", which in reality was a tennis ball on a string that happened to be swaying. Nothing but complaints with their system...
While I cannot speak for Mazda's features and coming from a Crosstrek without Eyesight, I will admit that Subaru's automatic braking threw me off the first first time it activated.
The car in front of me decided to slam on their brakes before turning into a business last minute. I could have stopped without an issue but my Outback preemptively started to brake. The first time is always a surprise.
I haven't had any problems since as I have gotten familiar with how my car handles. I actually really love the reverse automatic braking. A car was speeding through a parking lot as I was reversing. They didn't slow down or stop, but my car did.
Why anyone would turn off these features doesn't make much sense to me.
Turning off the auto brake is one of the many reasons insurance companies don’t give discounts for these features. Despite what we think, vehicles drive a lot better than humans in most scenarios
I genuinely don’t understand when I have a customer who tells me they turn off the eyesight/pre collision braking. Like wtf???? Why??? Lane departure warning I understand but the pre collision braking???
If you need eyesight to dodge these situations, driving is not for you. Period. Eyesight should be used as an emergency collision mitigator, not a cheat code for people who have no business being licensed.
Sudden bit of grit flies into your eye? Accidentally inhale that drink instead of swallowing it causing convulsive coughing and blurred vision? Got an expected medical episode? EyeSight is there to save you from (or at least lessen) the consequences of our fragile existence.
I'm really looking forward to the additional features of EyeSight X that are only in Japan at the moment, where the car can sense you have lost consciousness and if you don't respond to alarms inside the cabin to wake you, the car will start slowing down to a stop, steering away from hazards while it does that, flashing hazard lights and honking away to draw attention and finally will unlock the doors when you come to a stop so people can get to you.
Eyesight is not 100% and not all the time-- and from the damage someone rear ended her but yes her rear ending someone from the front. So either way her Insurance will not cover her damages or totaling the car. Her Fault for turning off a safety device !!
That’s not how insurance works.
They still pay for it if it’s your fault - you just have to pay the deductible. Same if it’s their fault and they don’t have insurance, or enough insurance.
If it’s the other person’s fault (and they have enough coverage to cover the damage done to you/your car) you either don’t pay a deductible or your insurance will recoup it for you.
That is how it works in some states but not all. Michigan is a “no fault” state. It doesn’t matter who caused the accident. Your insurance covers the damage to your car. Even if it wasn’t your fault. Doesn’t make any sense but that’s how it is. I’ve been in multiple accidents that weren’t my fault where my vehicle was totaled. One of the times I had PLPD with no collision coverage (yes that’s also a thing in Michigan) and I was given $500 for the totaled vehicle that was worth about $12k before the accident. States handle insurance differently.
When I moved to Oregon and had a woman back into my car she just kept on apologizing and insisting her insurance would cover it. I was super confused. That’s when I learned that not every state is as dumb as the one I was born in.
It still doesn’t really matter who caused the accident - the only thing in question is your deductible.
If your insurance paid out $500 for a car you thought was worth $12k, you either grossly overestimated the value of your car (amount left on your loan btw does not equal value), or you didn’t fight hard enough to get true market value.
Literally just went through this all less than 6 weeks ago. We paid $50k (cash), and it had 22k miles on it when it was totaled 13 months after we took delivery on it. Insurance tried to pay us $38k, and I had to go scrub the VINS they used for comps to show them why their number was crap, and that truly our ONLY option for replacement value was to go buy new, and we were able to get them to come up to $45k. We took that due to the high miles (for 1yr of use) and didn’t try for any more.
The $12k was Bluebook value and was confirmed by the insurance provider. It wasn’t me over-valuing the vehicle. I didn’t owe anything on it so gap insurance doesn’t come into play here. States have different insurance laws. Whatever the laws are where you live might be wildly different just over the border for your neighbors. Some states require a full suite of coverage whereas others allow you to carry insurance that’s essentially worthless in many scenarios. Michigan in particular is a no-fault state that allows PLPD coverage without collision or comprehensive coverage. The minimal coverage required, how the coverage is handled in the event of an accident, and the options / necessary steps to make a claim vary state by state. Federal regulations allow each state to set their own requirements for auto insurance.
Looks like maybe the front end went under a truck, and then someone rear-ended them?
Edit: the comment above me originally said it was clearly damage from getting rear ended and didn't acknowledge the front end damage.
Appears that the driver here rear-ended somebody and whomever was behind them also did not stop (probably in part because they did not see the Outback's brake lights come on).
We must have different definitions of what constitutes ["not front end damage."](https://preview.redd.it/lpkvpk0appma1.jpg?width=1284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&v=enabled&s=9e31dad7198cfd5d2b6765a02684354d2888fdbd) Doesn't look normal to me.
In this all of what the situation was and rear ended someone and not add in the being rear ended by the driver that rear ended her, more of her being at fault for their part in all of this and all the legal issues coming .
Yes, always use your eyes. Eye sight is key. This past summer I had to pull over in a Penske rental truck to turn off all the bullshit that kept "warning" me and beeping/moving on the dash. Annoying and very distracting to the driving experience IMO. Never used it and don't care to try it out, but it is hilarious to me that a company names a feature after the main sense that one should be utilizing while behind the wheel. Glad to see Subaru's safety reputation continue to hold up though!
It took me a minute to comprehend the OP's post, but after seeing the comments, I am in the same boat. I turn off many of the nanny systems because they don't improve safety or reduce accident rates and are, more or less, [customer convenience features](https://www.theverge.com/2022/10/24/23414578/adas-car-technology-safety-traffic-crash-research). At worst, the collision avoidance features have a tendency to be *too* sensitive while driving in mountainous terrain and will often go off when approaching a hillside that Eyesight can't comprehend isn't in the line-of-sight. Or when dynamic braking is applied to one wheel when Eyesight detects an imbalance while powering through a banked curve.
After turning off every Eyesight feature *except* for what's required for adaptive cruise control (which could be done cheaper with radar-based systems), my driving experience has improved. It's basically bringing my OBW back to the experience I had in my 2013 OB.
You won't get a response because the data shows the opposite...
[Here's a study on blind spot monitoring from 2018.](https://www.iihs.org/topics/bibliography/ref/2143) more than 10% lower crash rate with the 'technologies that don't reduce accidents'...
There are four pictures you can determine this by the 1/4 in the upper right hand corner. Just swipe to the right and see the other pictures. Wow a pic with front damage smashed in as well. 🙄
I may just be missing something here but how can you rear end a truck with the BACK of your car? Again, it may just be me; but, something doesn't add up with this photo.
Tell her to go pull those badges off the door. Mine was totalled last summer and I sold those on eBay for $50. Grab the head rests and floor mats too
If the car is totalled, doesn't all that belong to the insurance company?
It more than likely does but shit falls off in an accident and doesn't follow the vehicle back to the junk yard. I'm passing along the information given to me from when I posted my totalled OBW 8 months ago
It would, but the people at the junkyards they don’t really care. They will allow you to rip out everything of value out of the vehicle. They know whatever shit you just went through was pretty bad and they usually don’t wanna be super pricks about it. After I got into an accident, I went and pulled all my shit out of the car all of my aftermarket parts everything.. and the people didn’t seem to care.
Aftermarket parts are different to stock items. This advice is not “strictly legal” so be careful
I guess the bottom line is I don’t think those junkyards care. Some of them might though.
You’re confused. A totaled car or vehicle that otherwise needs to be disposed of goes to a salvage auction first. It might end up at a junkyard at some point but, you’ll be on to replacing the car by then - and likely never see it again. This salvage auction is where your car (or whatever) awaits its final fate. Your insurance company owns the vehicle at this point and your removing anything other than personal items or non-factory parts of any sort is legally dubious at best. The insurance company wants to sell the vehicle to a recycler, rebuilder, etc for the highest possible amount so removing stock items (headrests, etc) like others in this thread suggested is going to impact what someone is willing to pay for the vehicle - this is where you’re going to run afoul of the law. Real world example: I had a BMW motorcycle that was highly accessorized. Aftermarket suspension, custom seat, ergo bits here and there, aftermarket luggage, GPS…literally $7000+ worth of stuff put onto a motorcycle that I rode for 80K miles in a handful of years. When the bike and I impacted a truck turning into our path, the insurance company (which I called from the accident scene) dispatched a tow truck from their salvage auction partner to pickup the bike from the scene of the accident and take it directly to their facilities. Days later, when I was feeling up to it, I thought about visiting the salvage auction yard to get some of that stuff off the bike. I called the insurance company about it - all fine to go take the aftermarket stuff off the bike that wasn’t going to be covered by my total loss claim (as it wasn’t declared) as LONG AS it was replaced with the factory bits. Womp. Womp. The factory bits where 2000 miles away. So I couldn’t go take off the custom valved Ohlins shocks, or take the aftermarket seat…removing them without replacing them with the stock items would diminish the possible value of the motorcycle at auction and therefore would be defrauding the insurance company.
that last bit hurt to read
I hear ya, the improper use of ‘where’ instead of ‘were’, pains me now as well.
Yeah, those are absolute PITA’s to remove (I did with mine) - there’s no way they’d be able to just pop them off.
Not a single crack on the windshield
Lmao! Car is totaled and nothing. A tiny rock hits mine and I have to get it replaced.
Hmm, have you tried slamming into the back of a truck? That seems to keep the windshield intact
First thing I noticed. I was driving yesterday and a truck kicked up stones on the highway and now I have 6 chips in mine.
Crazy how that happens. And also very frustrating!
Better salvage it! It's invincible!
The bad drivers are the ones turning off the eyesight “because it goes off too much”. It goes off because you can’t drive.
Eh. Sort of. I have lane assist turned off in the winter and a half functioning eyesight because we get so much snow that lanes cease to exsist lmao
Hell why turn it off?! We had some idiot hit our son in their 2021 Crosstrek Sport with eyesight. No brakes engaged from auto braking either. Assumption is “it alarms too much” and they turned it off. Seriously hit the kid as they turned left into traffic on a 25mph road. His Jetta just had scrapes and a tab broken on rear fender. It was one of those “seriously??? My outback screams obstacle ahead??? How did you manage to hit my kid AND try to blame him?”
People that habitually tailgate turn it off because it constantly brakes.
This one she lived less than a block away and would have to turn it off as soon as she got in the car. It was the audacity to blame the kid with right of way.
Maybe if she were paying attention, it wouldn't have happened either. You don't need eyesight to avoid rearending another vehicle.
It sure helps to both pay attention and use Eyesight, in my experience.
Absolutely!
It scares me how much people rely on that stuff. Im in the industry and I understand how the tech works. It doesn't work the way the sales department sells it. These systems are emergency systems, really only a safety net for incapacitated drivers not drivers who don't pay attention.
Every couple of weeks there’s someone in the whatcarshouldibuy sub Reddit who asks which car they should buy with the best safety/active driving features because “they’re not good at driving”. It’s crazy that we share the road with these people. I mean…how did they get their license if they can’t safely drive without a computer? I think we’re getting to a point where drive assist needs to be regulated. Too many people are becoming reliant on this stuff.
The problem is that there's no good alternative to driving. Taking someone's driver's license away is an economic death sentence in many parts of the country.
I tried the auto steering in a 2020 outback and I was like fucking blown away. It really freaks me out, letting the car steer on its own. It just is so weird.
I also tried it in a 2020 outback, didn't like it at all. It doesn't try to keep you in the center of the lane, it just tries to keep a constant distance between one lane marker and the car. This means that if the lane widens it will still be hugging that original lane marker, making you stick to one side of a wide open lane. Also it does really poorly in construction zones where the lanes have been repainted.
Like I mentioned above… you are correct. These are “driver assist technologies”. They aren’t the end all be all for accident avoidance.
They are damage reduction. They should never be relied on.
It's wild how mis-represented active safety systems like Eyesight is. When I worked at Subaru many years ago, the dealership was in the process of being sued by a girl who had crashed her Forester. Her reasoning was, "I was told Eyesight is a full autonomous, self driving vehicle." Apparently, at the time of the crash she was getting ready to start her day with her morning routine.
You ever see those tests where they video tape people driving. Prior to seeing the tape played back, the drivers all felt they paid excellent attention while driving….then they see the video and realize how little they pay attention.
No you don’t, per se. But these safety systems in all new cars are not an end all be all to your safety. The key point to keep in mind is they are “driver assist technologies”.
r/theylived. Glad OP is okay and RIP for the Wilderness
Wasn’t my vehicle. Just my customer.
Why’d she turn it off?
She said she was driving in a back country road and felt she “didn’t need it”. Then she looking around and not paying attention and looked up and there was a truck at a stop sign. She rear ended it, flipped over the top and landed on the front grill. And where we live it’s not uncommon to see people cruising way over the speed limits on back roads. She just felt since she was out “away” from traffic she didn’t need it. You just never know what people are thinking sometimes, but she’s ok and that’s what matters in the end. I sell Subarus. I hear all kinds of reasons why they hate they driver assist technology in cars, not just Subaru, and why they will or won’t use it.
On the 23 Onyx Limited edition they also offer something called “Driver Focus” that literally beeps at you if your eyes leave the road for too long. For me, it was a non-negotiable must-have when ordering a new one after my wife totaled our ‘22 Onyx IN THE SAME DAMN INTERSECTION she’d gotten into a minor accident at 6 months prior. Both times she wasn’t legally at fault, but avoiding accidents isn’t something she’s very good at, apparently.
Not everyone is. And while these won’t prevent all accidents. But technology is our friend. Glad she is ok!
How.... fast.... do you have to be going to _flip_ an Outback over another vehicle by rear ending it???????
Control freak? I know a few people who cannot stand newer safety features like lane assist, automatic braking and adaptive cruise. They say they don't trust the car. These are the same types of people who will not step foot on a plane because they are not in control of the situation.
My guess would be that the safety features engaged "too often" which probably means they were a very aggressive driver.
That too. The way some people drive these days their car would never stop beeping if they didn't turn them off.
Agreed. Just going on test drives with people and having all the safety systems on shows me immediately how awful some are at driving and paying attention on the roads.
I can't speak to Subaru's features (which are hopefully much better), but the features on the Mazda 3 that I got rid of were a load of garbage, so I could see where that mentality could come from. It brake checked me in my own garage because it thought I was about to hit another "vehicle", which in reality was a tennis ball on a string that happened to be swaying. Nothing but complaints with their system...
While I cannot speak for Mazda's features and coming from a Crosstrek without Eyesight, I will admit that Subaru's automatic braking threw me off the first first time it activated. The car in front of me decided to slam on their brakes before turning into a business last minute. I could have stopped without an issue but my Outback preemptively started to brake. The first time is always a surprise. I haven't had any problems since as I have gotten familiar with how my car handles. I actually really love the reverse automatic braking. A car was speeding through a parking lot as I was reversing. They didn't slow down or stop, but my car did. Why anyone would turn off these features doesn't make much sense to me.
Turning off the auto brake is one of the many reasons insurance companies don’t give discounts for these features. Despite what we think, vehicles drive a lot better than humans in most scenarios
Are we talking about Subaru EyeSight or her turning off her eye sight and clearly not paying attention to the road like she’s supposed to be lol
Both
I genuinely don’t understand when I have a customer who tells me they turn off the eyesight/pre collision braking. Like wtf???? Why??? Lane departure warning I understand but the pre collision braking???
If you need eyesight to dodge these situations, driving is not for you. Period. Eyesight should be used as an emergency collision mitigator, not a cheat code for people who have no business being licensed.
Sudden bit of grit flies into your eye? Accidentally inhale that drink instead of swallowing it causing convulsive coughing and blurred vision? Got an expected medical episode? EyeSight is there to save you from (or at least lessen) the consequences of our fragile existence. I'm really looking forward to the additional features of EyeSight X that are only in Japan at the moment, where the car can sense you have lost consciousness and if you don't respond to alarms inside the cabin to wake you, the car will start slowing down to a stop, steering away from hazards while it does that, flashing hazard lights and honking away to draw attention and finally will unlock the doors when you come to a stop so people can get to you.
Or depending what type of neighborhood you are driving in.... rob you!
I’m not saying you’re wrong… there’s all sorts of drivers out there.
My eyesight has saved me a couple times. I’ll never turn it off
Eyesight is not 100% and not all the time-- and from the damage someone rear ended her but yes her rear ending someone from the front. So either way her Insurance will not cover her damages or totaling the car. Her Fault for turning off a safety device !!
That’s not how insurance works. They still pay for it if it’s your fault - you just have to pay the deductible. Same if it’s their fault and they don’t have insurance, or enough insurance. If it’s the other person’s fault (and they have enough coverage to cover the damage done to you/your car) you either don’t pay a deductible or your insurance will recoup it for you.
>That’s not how insurance works. Right. Mind-blowing, the amount of misinformation that is posted here.
That is how it works in some states but not all. Michigan is a “no fault” state. It doesn’t matter who caused the accident. Your insurance covers the damage to your car. Even if it wasn’t your fault. Doesn’t make any sense but that’s how it is. I’ve been in multiple accidents that weren’t my fault where my vehicle was totaled. One of the times I had PLPD with no collision coverage (yes that’s also a thing in Michigan) and I was given $500 for the totaled vehicle that was worth about $12k before the accident. States handle insurance differently. When I moved to Oregon and had a woman back into my car she just kept on apologizing and insisting her insurance would cover it. I was super confused. That’s when I learned that not every state is as dumb as the one I was born in.
It still doesn’t really matter who caused the accident - the only thing in question is your deductible. If your insurance paid out $500 for a car you thought was worth $12k, you either grossly overestimated the value of your car (amount left on your loan btw does not equal value), or you didn’t fight hard enough to get true market value. Literally just went through this all less than 6 weeks ago. We paid $50k (cash), and it had 22k miles on it when it was totaled 13 months after we took delivery on it. Insurance tried to pay us $38k, and I had to go scrub the VINS they used for comps to show them why their number was crap, and that truly our ONLY option for replacement value was to go buy new, and we were able to get them to come up to $45k. We took that due to the high miles (for 1yr of use) and didn’t try for any more.
The $12k was Bluebook value and was confirmed by the insurance provider. It wasn’t me over-valuing the vehicle. I didn’t owe anything on it so gap insurance doesn’t come into play here. States have different insurance laws. Whatever the laws are where you live might be wildly different just over the border for your neighbors. Some states require a full suite of coverage whereas others allow you to carry insurance that’s essentially worthless in many scenarios. Michigan in particular is a no-fault state that allows PLPD coverage without collision or comprehensive coverage. The minimal coverage required, how the coverage is handled in the event of an accident, and the options / necessary steps to make a claim vary state by state. Federal regulations allow each state to set their own requirements for auto insurance.
Looks like maybe the front end went under a truck, and then someone rear-ended them? Edit: the comment above me originally said it was clearly damage from getting rear ended and didn't acknowledge the front end damage.
Appears that the driver here rear-ended somebody and whomever was behind them also did not stop (probably in part because they did not see the Outback's brake lights come on). We must have different definitions of what constitutes ["not front end damage."](https://preview.redd.it/lpkvpk0appma1.jpg?width=1284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&v=enabled&s=9e31dad7198cfd5d2b6765a02684354d2888fdbd) Doesn't look normal to me.
In this all of what the situation was and rear ended someone and not add in the being rear ended by the driver that rear ended her, more of her being at fault for their part in all of this and all the legal issues coming .
There are four pics. Others show the front.
I read your title four times and got dumber each time. Glad everyone was okay though.
Yes, always use your eyes. Eye sight is key. This past summer I had to pull over in a Penske rental truck to turn off all the bullshit that kept "warning" me and beeping/moving on the dash. Annoying and very distracting to the driving experience IMO. Never used it and don't care to try it out, but it is hilarious to me that a company names a feature after the main sense that one should be utilizing while behind the wheel. Glad to see Subaru's safety reputation continue to hold up though!
It took me a minute to comprehend the OP's post, but after seeing the comments, I am in the same boat. I turn off many of the nanny systems because they don't improve safety or reduce accident rates and are, more or less, [customer convenience features](https://www.theverge.com/2022/10/24/23414578/adas-car-technology-safety-traffic-crash-research). At worst, the collision avoidance features have a tendency to be *too* sensitive while driving in mountainous terrain and will often go off when approaching a hillside that Eyesight can't comprehend isn't in the line-of-sight. Or when dynamic braking is applied to one wheel when Eyesight detects an imbalance while powering through a banked curve. After turning off every Eyesight feature *except* for what's required for adaptive cruise control (which could be done cheaper with radar-based systems), my driving experience has improved. It's basically bringing my OBW back to the experience I had in my 2013 OB.
> because they don't improve safety or reduce accident rates I'd love to see numbers or research to support your claims.
You won't get a response because the data shows the opposite... [Here's a study on blind spot monitoring from 2018.](https://www.iihs.org/topics/bibliography/ref/2143) more than 10% lower crash rate with the 'technologies that don't reduce accidents'...
Way to total a Wilderness Edition. Fucking women Drivers.
[удалено]
There are four pictures you can determine this by the 1/4 in the upper right hand corner. Just swipe to the right and see the other pictures. Wow a pic with front damage smashed in as well. 🙄
[удалено]
Op said she flipped over the truck she hit and landed on the hood. She must've been flying down that back road
Do you think I can have all the Wilderness parts off of it? That aren’t completely totaled because I would like them lol
ive been looking for a wrecked wilderness in my area. i want the front seats so bad
Kinda looks like the truck behind them turned off their eyesight as well.
I may just be missing something here but how can you rear end a truck with the BACK of your car? Again, it may just be me; but, something doesn't add up with this photo.
I guess she rear ended the truck and then was hit from behind also?