Ncap uses the term Lane Support Systems containing the following sub systems:
- lane departure warning (LDW):Alert option on MG4
- Lane keep assist (LKA): lane departure assist on MG4
- Emergency Lane Keeping (ELK): similar name and third assist mode on MG4
- Blind Spot Monitoring (BSM)
The performance of the car in NCAP tests to keep it within lanes uses only an s-bended road at three different speeds. All possible systems are used, except BSM.
The maximum score is achieved if the car stays within a single lane during both parts of the s-bend.
ELK on the MG4 is defaulted, indicating that the MG systems do not score enough points to achieve a 5 star rating when ELK is NOT activated.
NCAP has admitted it needs more practical road testing to correctly judge these systems. Which for now leaves a lot of opportunities on the table where any of three systems create a risk instead of safety, and without affecting the NCAP score.
This is exactly why the user finds objective reasons (=systematic faults) to shut these systems off: where it may fit the s-bend but not in many others. But MG ignores this because it does not want to lose its ratings and NCAP still had no tests to point a finger....
The interesting thing is that all car manufacturers, including MG, know this and cover the risks associated with these faults by stating "the driver is always fully responsible". To strengthen their position most of them specify the conditions where the systems could be at fault.
Yet, they do not allow the driver of the car to TAKE full responsibility because they enforce defaulted systems known to be faulty.
Disabling these systems could be an escape road for the manufacturer. But it isn't when systems can only be canceled if taking the attention away from the road (e.g. going into the menu etc), as this is essentially a risk factor itself.
To be honoust, the Ombudsman should go for the true safety concerns and not for NCAP scoring of a manufacturer. But to make point, he/she needs practical examples where assisting systems add risk instead of safety and vice versa. For now, this information is lacking and NCAP isn't ready for it either.
Than there is also a sense of subjectiveness to being responsible. If, at any circumstance, you experience uncontrolable and non-logical actions of car, particularly in possibly hazardous situations, the sense of no longer being in control may cause fear. Fear in the car that may lead to a kind of behaviour that increases risks instead of reducing it. This allone could cause people to reject cars, solely on the anticipation of what could happen....(some already mentioned this here).
What we need to do is to describe as much as possible when systems actually fail. True, most of it will be anecdotical. But it will at least it help to make a proper statement.
