Here's the thing, these systems are not at the level of learning how you drive and adapting the safety systems to fit your individual needs. They aren't mind readers. I'm not even sure how they would "learn" your particular driving style, it's not like it would be able to discern whether a "close call" was intentional or accidental. They have limitations, so again, you need to adjust your expectations and adapt, or get a car that doesn't have this safety tech. That's what it comes down to.
Regarding the bolded/red text, manufacturers can design their systems for large regions (North America, Colombia, Australia) based on the regulations in those regions. They do not design their systems to differentiate between driving style in Lancaster and driving style in Calgary, for example. These systems are designed to err on the side of safety. They've saved lives much more often than they caused accidental rear end collisions, I'm sure.
IMO it does what it is supposed to do, which is mitigate a potential collision based on the information available.
Here's a little more background for you...my profession is as an Industrial Automation Controls Systems engineer...my entire working career after...long before the automotive world even dreamed of single port TBI, one of the first "electronically controlled" primary vehicle functions. Machine and process control, electrical design and programming...it's what I do, and as I'd indicated previously, the automation in modern vehicles is deplorable. Thus far, most all of it does not account for the exceptions, the what-ifs of the real world that you wouldn't even dream of. It can't. Automation requires repeatable conditions in order to operate properly, consistently, and most important,
predictably. Automation 101. These relatively low-budget systems (in the grand scheme of controls) such as those being designed into modern vehicles are also anything but capable of meeting the 101 criteria. There isn't enough money on the planet to properly automate a car to function reliably on a public course (American roads), which, also from an automation perspective, are anything but consistent or repeatable.
Mazda's footnote (aka "legal" disclaimers) from their 2018 CX-5 Sales Brochure (which I'm certain everyone here had seen, read, and truly understood before purchasing their new car w/ these features).
Footnote 16 is my issue:
15. Smart City Brake Support operates under certain low-speed conditions between about 2 and 18 mph. It is not a substitute for safe and attentive driving. Factors
including movement and shape of the object in front of the vehicle, weather and road conditions can all impact automatic stopping. Please see your Owner*s Manual for
further details.
16. Smart Brake Support operates under certain conditions above 10 mph. It is not a substitute for safe and attentive driving. Factors including movement and shape of the
object in front of the vehicle, weather and road conditions can all impact automatic brake control and collision warning. Please see your Owner*s Manual for further details.
Please pay particular attention to the bold highlighted portions of the brochure's footnotes above...well no chit Sherlock...the SBS system can't handle the buggy, nor react to my in-progress rounding (steering input) of the object, period. Therefore in the real world instance of driving the vehicle where I live, on my course, it fails miserably from an automation perspective...in my professional not-so-humble opinion (and by Mazda's own clear admissions above). And before anyone goes off of the "Safe" portion, that's is another great little disclaimer. Who is to say the common way in which we round buggies here is, or isn't, safe? I'm certainly "attentive" while doing so lest I be plowing into the back of them regularly.
Consequently as the owner/operator of this particular, partially automated machine, I desire, and should be able, to completely disable this experimental marketing 'feature', completely at my discretion. I am actually appalled I have to pay for it in the first place. This feature wouldn't be in any machine controls I would design as it fails to meet basic automation criteria. It's truly impossible at any reasonable cost in an automotive application. Sure, throw enough time and money at the problem and it
may be possible for this SBS concept to function reliably (that's all it is at the moment, a concept that we the consumers are acting as beta testers for) in a vehicle on a completely chaotic, unpredictable course (U.S. road systems). How do you feel about a $100,000 CX-5? It's all about the bucks.
The suggestion of opting for another vehicle is a ridiculous one as well, so please, refrain from suggesting that as an alternative. I want to purchase a new zero mile vehicle every so often. Maybe when I reitire I'l look for a pre-electronics vintage vehicle that doesn't require OBDII connections to figure out why it won't run. Seriously, what new vehicle of any comfort, or worth, today isn't packed full of this half-azzed automation? The field is pretty thin if nonexistent.
Certain automated vehicle systems are beneficial, have proven their worth, and are reliable w/o interfering with normal driving dynamics. Recently, the industry has gone too far, too fast and we're experiencing the consequences. How about that CD issue and rocker arms falling off as prime example. Yeah, fix that mechanical design defect w/ a software update...right. That's not a fix. It's an attempt at a reduction in occurrences to lessen their liability, bringing the legal consequences odds back into their financial favor.
A car is a machine, like any one of the hundreds of other machines and processes I've automated in my life. Mazda's coy little footnote admissions above are clear indication that these modern day automotive automation engineers have no business automating vehicles. Not yet at least. What automation qualifications, exactly, do these people have, really, to be automating a vehicle and putting us at risk? "We put the feature in the car...but hey, we told you can't rely on it so we're off the hook." So I ask, what good is it? If it doesn't cause me grief in my everyday driving, then fine, whatever. Take it or leave it. Still not happy about paying for it though. If an industrial automation designer or engineer knows of, or even thinks, a feature is not capable of 100%, normal operational reliability, then one designs in a permanent over-ride or bypass... if the feature is ever implemented in the first place. Likely not in my world because my customers aren't in the habit of paying for me to put 'features' into their controls that a) don't function reliably and b) cost them more money with no, or negative, ROI.
A button on the dashboard to permanently kill the SBS, much like the Lane Departure Warning system kill switch would be nice, a settings 'permanent disable' was required, and Mazda neglected to provide it in my CX-5.