Those are both good suggestions. Thanks.

 

out of all the responses, this is the more correct one. i know how this stuff works.

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Shouldn't the backup warning system (whatever they call it) have gone off and alerted you?

 

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.

 

OK, so the warning didn't go off. But should it have gone off?

 

Ask the dealer to change the obstacle detection angle from narrow to wide.

 

Ummm... No, it isn't. While there's quite a few variations of purpose descriptions for concrete parking stops they all boil down to preventing drivers from damaging other things or driving into prohibited areas.

 

That spike seems like such a small target to detect and I frequently back up over those concrete blocks and never get a warning on my '23 hybrid.

 

Visual detection isn't used for static object detection. Visual (rear camera) detection is used for pedestrian detection. Instead, the ultrasonic sensors are used for static object detection.

 

OK, but is it smart enough to ignore a concrete parking bock that's low enough to go under the car, but alert the driver when there's a spike sticking up that's tall enough to damage the car?

 

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.)

 

Thanks for the citations. I don't see anything in the manual that says that the warning shouldn't have gone off. In fact, it explicitly says that the warning won't go off if the object fits under the bumper. That seems to imply that it should have gone off for an object that doesn't fit under the bumper.

 

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.