My original point was that the sensor rules are confusing, ambiguous, and illogical, and I think the debate in this thread proves that. If the rules were clear, there would be no debate.
Kirk's argument is that the vehicle is part of the wireless network, and receives information about traffic conditions from networked sources other than its own sensors. It would certainly make sense for a system to be designed that way, but I'm afraid the rules don't say that explicitly. It is reasonable and expedient to assume it...but that still leaves us with a problem that shadowrunners are likely to encounter, which is that if you can't or won't be part of a wireless network feeding you traffic info, your sensors aren't much good.
Sengir's argument is that vehicle sensors have a fixed signal of 5, and cites the Signal Range Table on SR4A 222, although that offers "vehicle autonav sensors" as an example of a device with Signal 3. But even if we assume that Sensors 3 have the same range as Signal 3, that's still only 400 meters, and the unaided eye can detect objects the size of an automobile, if not a metahuman or even a dog, at ranges much further than that - so why have sensors?
In any case, all of the arguments in this thread are either interpretations of very ambiguous rules or pure house-ruling. I think it was CanRay who said vehicle sensors work to the same range as line of sight, and I think for practical expediency, that's the rule I'm going to use.
