A recent report has raised concerns about the safety and effectiveness of automated driving features in vehicles. Conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), the study examined 14 automated systems from various automakers, revealing significant shortcomings in their performance.
“Some drivers may feel that partial automation makes long drives easier, but there is little evidence it makes driving safer,” David Harkey, president of the IIHS said. “As many high-profile crashes have illustrated, it can introduce new risks when systems lack appropriate safeguards.”
Point phone camera here
Among the key findings, 11 of the systems evaluated received “poor” ratings, including Tesla’s Autopilot feature, while none attained the agency’s highest possible rating of “good.” Only one system developed by Lexus was deemed “acceptable” by the IIHS.
“We evaluated partial automation systems from BMW, Ford, General Motors, Genesis, Lexus, Mercedes-Benz, Nissan, Tesla, and Volvo,” Harkey said. “Most of them don’t include adequate measures to prevent misuse and keep drivers from losing focus on what’s happening on the road.”
One of the concerns highlighted in the report was the systems’ inability to effectively handle inattentive drivers. The study found that none of the automated systems adequately monitored for distracted drivers, with some even exacerbating the problem by making lane changes without driver input, further disengaging those behind the wheel.
The IIHS also pointed out other safety lapses, such as features working despite drivers not wearing seat belts and vehicles maintaining high speeds even when drivers were not paying attention for extended periods of over half a minute.
Some automakers disputed the findings in response to the report, insisting these features are safer than what has been claimed. Citing its own data, Ford said that its cars with automated features are 10 times less likely to swerve out of their lane.
However, the IIHS emphasized the importance of its rankings in informing consumers about potential hazards associated with automated driving features, especially considering the current lack of regulation by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
“These results are worrying, considering how quickly vehicles with these partial automation systems are hitting our roadways,” Harkey said. “But there’s a silver lining if you look at the performance of the group as a whole. No single system did well across the board, but in each category, at least one system performed well. That means the fixes are readily available and, in some cases, may be accomplished with nothing more than a simple software update.”
The IIHS hopes that its testing will help educate the public about the safety limitations of each automaker’s version of this technology, aiming to promote greater awareness and informed decision-making among consumers.
Tags: Artificial Intelligence, Auto industry, Automation, Autopilot, BMW, Electric vehicles, Ford, General Motors, Lexus, National Transportation Safety Board, Tesla
[JACK AYLMER]
HAVING BLIND FAITH IN TECHNOLOGY MAYBE ISN’T THE BEST IDEA.
SINCE THE DAYS ‘THE OFFICE’ WAS ON THE AIR – WE’VE GONE FROM GPS DIRECTING OUR EVERY MOVE – TO VEHICLES THAT WANT TO MOVE ON THEIR OWN.
BUT ARE THESE ‘AUTOMATED DRIVING FEATURES’ HELPFUL OR ARE THEY PUTTING PEOPLE IN HARM’S WAY?
A FIRST OF ITS KIND REPORT IS REVEALING SOME TROUBLING ISSUES ACROSS THE INDUSTRY.
THE INSURANCE INSTITUTE FOR HIGHWAY SAFETY LOOKED AT 14 OF THESE AUTOMATED SYSTEMS FROM A VARIETY OF AUTOMAKERS.
THE RESULTS: NOT GREAT.
11 OF THEM EARNED A POOR RATING, INCLUDING TESLA’S AUTOPILOT FEATURE.
NONE OF THE SYSTEMS TESTED RECEIVED THE AGENCY’S HIGHEST POSSIBLE RATING OF GOOD.
ONLY ONE – MADE BY LEXUS – MANAGED TO BE RATED AS ACCEPTABLE.
OTHER CONCERNS FROM THE IIHS INCLUDED HOW THESE AUTOMATED DRIVING FEATURES HANDLE DRIVERS WHO HAVE BECOME INATTENTIVE.
THE STUDY FOUND NONE OF THE SYSTEMS DID A GOOD ENOUGH JOB AT MONITORING FOR DISTRACTED DRIVERS AND SOME EVEN MADE THE PROBLEM WORSE.
SOME OF MODELS MADE LANE CHANGES FOR DRIVERS WITHOUT EVEN ASKING IF THAT’S SOMETHING THEY WANTED TO DO.
THE AGENCY SAYS THIS IS UNSAFE BECAUSE IT FURTHER INVITES PEOPLE TO DISENGAGE FROM DRIVING.
OTHER SHORTFALLS INCLUDED FEATURES WORKING DESPITE PEOPLE NOT WEARING SEATBELTS AND VEHICLES THAT MAINTAIN HIGH SPEEDS EVEN IF A DRIVER HASN’T BEEN PAYING ATTENTION FOR OVER HALF A MINUTE.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE IIHS SUMMED UP THESE TEST RESULTS SAYING:
“SOME DRIVERS MAY FEEL THAT PARTIAL AUTOMATION MAKES LONG DRIVES EASIER, BUT THERE IS LITTLE EVIDENCE IT MAKES DRIVING SAFER.”
SOME AUTOMAKERS PUSHED BACK AGAINST THE REPORT.
FORD SAYING THEY DON’T AGREE WITH THE AGENCY’S FINDINGS –
POINTING TO THEIR OWN DATA WHICH SHOWS THAT THEIR CARS WITH AUTOMATED FEATURES ARE 10 TIMES LESS LIKELY TO SWERVE OUT OF THEIR LANE.
THE IIHS ARGUES THESE RANKINGS ARE IMPORTANT FOR PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND POTENTIAL HAZARDS ASSOCIATED WITH AUTOMATED DRIVING FEATURES.
PARTLY BECAUSE RIGHT NOW, THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION DOESN’T REGULATE THEM.
IN LIGHT OF THIS, THE IIHS HOPES ITS TESTING WILL HELP EDUCATE PEOPLE ON THE SAFETY LIMITATIONS FOR EACH AUTOMAKER’S VERSION OF THIS TECHNOLOGY.
VOTE WITH THE UNBIASED, STRAIGHT FACTS.™
We promise you context and clarity when it matters the most!
