Drivers are increasingly drawn to new vehicles with features like automatic lane changing and highway speed control. Marketed as ADAS (Advanced Driver-Assistance Systems), these features are touted as a win-win for convenience and safety, especially on long journeys. However, a groundbreaking report by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) throws a wrench into these claims.
The IIHS, a leading independent safety organization, tested ADAS systems from 14 major car manufacturers. Shockingly, none received the top "good" rating, with a concerning 11 receiving "poor." These results highlight the critical need for rigorous testing to ensure these heavily advertised features function as intended and don't create unintended safety hazards.
"While partial automation may make long drives easier for some," stated IIHS President David Harkey, "there's little evidence it enhances safety. High-profile crashes demonstrate that these systems can introduce new risks when safeguards are inadequate."
ADAS: A Closer Look
Vehicles with ADAS utilize onboard cameras and sensors to analyze the road, helping drivers stay in their lane, maintain speed, and even automatically apply brakes. Some, like Tesla's popular Autopilot and Full Self-Driving, can even change lanes on their own. These features are rapidly gaining popularity, with Counterpoint Research estimating that ADAS-equipped vehicles comprised 46% of new car sales in the US during the first half of 2022.
It's crucial to understand that ADAS systems are not the same as fully autonomous, self-driving vehicles. Self-driving cars are rated on a six-level autonomy scale (0-5). For instance, Autopilot is considered Level 2, while more advanced driverless systems that don't require a human behind the wheel (like those pursued by Waymo) are Level 4. Drivers using ADAS are still legally obligated to monitor their vehicles and be ready to take control at a moment's notice.
Questioning the Safety Benefits
The IIHS report, evaluating systems from major players like BMW and Tesla, challenges the notion that ADAS necessarily improves road safety. Most tested systems failed to adequately determine if a driver was looking at the road or lacked effective attention reminders to prevent distraction. In some cases, the IIHS found drivers could activate the systems without even buckling their seatbelts.
For ADAS to be considered safe, the IIHS argues they must consistently detect a driver's eye position and hand placement on the wheel. Worryingly, none of the 14 systems fully met these criteria. The IIHS emphasizes that when drivers aren't paying attention, ADAS systems should issue visual and audible alerts within 10 seconds, followed by an emergency slowdown within 20 seconds. However, several systems failed to provide these timely warnings. Even more concerning, some systems continued changing lanes without new driver input after a driver stopped for over two minutes. The IIHS argues that such a lack of human input can dangerously "discourage drivers from being physically involved in the driving process."
Combating Misuse and Ensuring Accountability
The IIHS also assessed how these systems responded to a driver's failure to respond to a warning for over 35 seconds, indicating potential driver incapacitation or misuse. Ideally, the vehicles should automatically initiate emergency braking and contact emergency services. Notably, only General Motors' Super Cruise system met these specifications.
"Most systems lack adequate measures to prevent misuse and keep drivers focused on the road," concluded Harkey.
The Road Ahead
Leading carmakers have long relied on IIHS safety ratings to promote their vehicles. Founded by insurance associations, the IIHS is a non-profit organization dedicated to reducing car injuries. Their decision to create this ADAS rating system stems from the lack of comparable standards from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).
The IIHS hopes these new ratings will pressure carmakers to take stronger measures against "intentional misuse" by drivers. Additionally, they aim to discourage manufacturers from allowing system activation without automatic braking and seatbelt use. Many of the safety issues identified by the IIHS can potentially be addressed through over-the-air software updates.
"No single system excelled across the board," said Harkey, "but there were strong performers in each category. That means the fixes are readily available, potentially requiring only a software update."
While ADAS technology has the potential to make driving safer, rigorous testing is essential to ensure these systems function as advertised. Only then can we be confident that ADAS is truly living up to its promise of enhancing road safety.