Both my late model Japanese cars have two systems capable of steering the car toward the middle of the lane. One is an always-on (unless disabled) passive safety system that only kicks in when you actually appear to be drifting off the road, and the other is a system that actively tries to keep the car in the middle of the lane. The latter system has to be toggled on and off and is meant to be complementary with adaptive cruise.
What you're describing sounds like the former system, while the latter one is what should be compared to Tesla's "autopilot" or "FSD" or whatever the fuck. It works very well on both my cars and is a game changer for longer drives.
I consider good implementations of this and adaptive cruise to be basic equipment now, and asking $99/month for them is absolutely wild, especially since what you're getting isn't the "full self driving" we were promised. You still have to be fully engaged with what the car is doing and ready to take over in a fraction of a second.
> I consider good implementations of this and adaptive cruise to be basic equipment now, and asking $99/month for them is absolutely wild
The article doesn't mention it but other articles say that their version of adaptive cruise control (Traffic Aware Cruise Control or TACC) that was part of Autopilot is becoming a standard feature.
What you're describing sounds like the former system, while the latter one is what should be compared to Tesla's "autopilot" or "FSD" or whatever the fuck. It works very well on both my cars and is a game changer for longer drives.
I consider good implementations of this and adaptive cruise to be basic equipment now, and asking $99/month for them is absolutely wild, especially since what you're getting isn't the "full self driving" we were promised. You still have to be fully engaged with what the car is doing and ready to take over in a fraction of a second.