Parking your ES? Don't do this.
#16
Racer
Thread Starter
The economic incentive would be small claims court, no?
EDIT: does commercial building code in your area mandate anything in particular about parking barriers? There might be a clause in there somewhere about this exact condition. IMO if so, it's easily open and shut to prove the business isn't compliant and that it resulted in damage to your vehicle.
EDIT: does commercial building code in your area mandate anything in particular about parking barriers? There might be a clause in there somewhere about this exact condition. IMO if so, it's easily open and shut to prove the business isn't compliant and that it resulted in damage to your vehicle.
#17
This is one of these events where the insurer, Erie, wiggles out of their responsibility. In my opinion the parking lot is responsible for your car being damaged. No way, no how that this spike should have been protruding out of the concrete barrier. I thought the bottom portion of the trim could be replaced separately but apparently not. This is the kind of incident that pisses you off for making the mistake. GOOD LUCK!
OP probably had some low level grunt making this decision but if he pushed it and knew how to push it, he can get things to go his way.
put it this way... they'll cut that spike off after this incident.
The following users liked this post:
bc6152 (08-25-23)
#18
double put it this way... if someone tripped and hit their head on that spike or even tripped over it... things would be very different. it should make no difference for a car.
The following users liked this post:
bc6152 (08-25-23)
#19
Racer
Thread Starter
put it this way... they'll cut that spike off after this incident.
__________________
CT, when you're right, you're right. Guess what they did the very next day? Yep, pounded the spike down.
__________________
CT, when you're right, you're right. Guess what they did the very next day? Yep, pounded the spike down.
The following 2 users liked this post by LexFinally:
AndrewLWSN (09-06-23),
lccgl479 (11-04-23)
#20
Shouldn't the backup warning system (whatever they call it) have gone off and alerted you?
The following users liked this post:
lccgl479 (11-04-23)
#21
Racer
Thread Starter
Legitimate question, but the answer was No. It didn't detect an object that small. It was merely semi-warning me about the wall behind the space, which was still a couple feet away. I've learned the visual detection and the beeping both have two levels of urgency, and it was still just at Level One.
#22
Legitimate question, but the answer was No. It didn't detect an object that small. It was merely semi-warning me about the wall behind the space, which was still a couple feet away. I've learned the visual detection and the beeping both have two levels of urgency, and it was still just at Level One.
#23
Legitimate question, but the answer was No. It didn't detect an object that small. It was merely semi-warning me about the wall behind the space, which was still a couple feet away. I've learned the visual detection and the beeping both have two levels of urgency, and it was still just at Level One.
Ask the dealer to change the obstacle detection angle from narrow to wide.
#24
#25
Pit Crew
#26
Legitimate question, but the answer was No. It didn't detect an object that small. It was merely semi-warning me about the wall behind the space, which was still a couple feet away. I've learned the visual detection and the beeping both have two levels of urgency, and it was still just at Level One.
#27
#28
The Owner's Manual has several range/detection zone diagrams as well as written text indicating low objects and objects under the bumpers aren't detected.
As to whether the system should have detected and issued a warning on the concrete parking block with protruding short length of rod you're dealing with a systems engineering trade off between false positive and false negative detection rates. Ideally the system should warn you only about real hazards and never about things that aren't hazardous. But, as of yet, that isn't achievable in the real world with present day sensor technology. If you crank up the sensor system's sensitivity to the level of detecting and warning about all real hazards you're also going to crank up the false warnings about phantom hazards. (There has been several complaints/discussions about the parking support brake slamming on while reversing due to system falsely detecting some phantom hazard.)
WARNING
■ When using the intuitive parking assist
...
● The area directly under the bumpers is not detected.
■ When using the intuitive parking assist
...
● The area directly under the bumpers is not detected.
■ Objects which may not be properly detected
...
● Low objects
...
...
● Low objects
...
Last edited by grp52; 08-26-23 at 01:17 PM. Reason: fixed a typo
The following 2 users liked this post by grp52:
ATL350 (08-28-23),
LexFinally (08-28-23)
#29
The Owner's Manual has several range/detection zone diagrams as well as written text indicating low objects and objects under the bumpers aren't detected.
As to whether the system should have detected and issued a warning on the concrete parking block with protruding short length of rod you're dealing with a systems engineering trade off between false positive and false negative detection rates. Ideally the system should warn you only about real hazards and never about things that aren't hazardous. But, as of yet, that isn't achievable in the real world with present day sensor technology. If you crank up the sensor system's sensitivity to the level of detecting and warning about all real hazards you're also going to crank up the false warnings about phantom hazards. (There has been several complaints/discussions about the parking support brake slamming on while reversing due to system falsely detecting some phantom hazard.)
As to whether the system should have detected and issued a warning on the concrete parking block with protruding short length of rod you're dealing with a systems engineering trade off between false positive and false negative detection rates. Ideally the system should warn you only about real hazards and never about things that aren't hazardous. But, as of yet, that isn't achievable in the real world with present day sensor technology. If you crank up the sensor system's sensitivity to the level of detecting and warning about all real hazards you're also going to crank up the false warnings about phantom hazards. (There has been several complaints/discussions about the parking support brake slamming on while reversing due to system falsely detecting some phantom hazard.)
#30
Everyone here debating the sensor when this is the real news. The fact that they did this is seems like a passive admittance of liability, and a bit of leverage in your pursuit of compensation.
The following 4 users liked this post by F3Woody: