“Some drivers may feel that partial automation makes long drives easier, but there may be little evidence it makes driving safer,” IIHS President David Harkey said.
Photo: IIHS
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety is introducing a brand new rankings program to encourage automakers to include more robust safeguards into their partial driving automation systems. Out of the primary 14 systems tested, just one earns a suitable rating. Two are rated marginal, and 11 are rated poor.
“We evaluated partial automation systems from BMW, Ford, General Motors, Genesis, Lexus, Mercedes-Benz, Nissan, Tesla and Volvo,” IIHS President David Harkey said. “Most of them don’t include adequate measures to forestall misuse and keep drivers from losing deal with what’s happening on the road.”
The Teammate system available on the Lexus LS is the one system tested that earns a suitable rating. The GMC Sierra and Nissan Ariya are each available with partial automation systems that earn marginal rankings. The LS and Ariya each offer an alternate system that earns a poor rating. The Ford Mustang Mach-E, Genesis G90, Mercedes-Benz C-Class sedan, Tesla Model 3 and Volvo S90 also earn poor rankings, in some cases for multiple version of partial automation.
The rankings only apply to the particular models tested despite the fact that systems with the identical names could also be used on multiple vehicles from the identical manufacturer.
“Some drivers may feel that partial automation makes long drives easier, but there may be little evidence it makes driving safer,” Harkey said. “As many high-profile crashes have illustrated, it might probably introduce latest risks when systems lack the suitable safeguards.”
Vehicles with partial automation should not self-driving — though automakers sometimes use names that imply their systems are. The human driver must still handle many routine driving tasks, monitor how well the automation is performing and remain able to take over if anything goes flawed. While most partial automation systems have some safeguards in place to assist ensure drivers are focused and prepared, these initial tests show that they’re not robust enough.
“The shortcomings vary from system to system,” said IIHS Senior Research Scientist Alexandra Mueller, who led the event of the brand new program. “Many vehicles don’t adequately monitor whether the motive force is taking a look at the road or prepared to take control. Many lack attention reminders that come soon enough and are forceful enough to evoke a driver whose mind is wandering. Many may be used despite occupants being unbelted or when other vital safety features are switched off.”
How Partial Automation Tech Works
Today’s partial automation technology — which incorporates designated systems like Tesla’s Autopilot and GM’s Super Cruise in addition to feature bundles that provide similar capabilities — uses cameras, radar, or other sensors to “see” the road and other vehicles. It combines adaptive cruise control (ACC), lane centering and various other driver assistance features. ACC maintains a driver-selected speed but will routinely slow to maintain a set following distance from a slower moving vehicle ahead after which speed up when the way in which is obvious. Lane centering repeatedly adjusts the steering to assist the motive force keep the vehicle centered within the travel lane. Automated lane changing can be becoming more common.
The brand new IIHS rankings aim to encourage safeguards that may help reduce intentional misuse and prolonged attention lapses in addition to to discourage certain design characteristics that increase risk in other ways — comparable to systems that may be operated when automatic emergency braking (AEB) is turned off or seat belts are unbuckled.
Scores are awarded based on a battery of tests conducted over multiple trials, and a few performance areas are weighted more heavily than others.
When possible, tests are conducted on a closed test track. For certain tests that have to be conducted on public roads, a second IIHS worker sits within the front passenger seat to observe the driving environment and the vehicle systems.
In some cases, manufacturers are already making changes to their systems through software updates, which can lead to adjustments to those rankings. The 2 Tesla systems evaluated, for instance, used software that preceded probably the most recent recall in December 2023.
IIHS expects improvements to be rapid.
“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 happen to have a look at the performance of the group as a complete. No single system did well across the board, but in each category no less than one system performed well. Meaning the fixes are available and, in some cases, could also be completed with nothing greater than a straightforward software update.”
Driver Monitoring Essential
Effective driver monitoring is important to creating partial automation secure. Systems should have the ability to detect if the motive force’s head or eyes should not directed on the road and whether the motive force’s hands are on the steering wheel or able to grab it if mandatory.
To guage this capability, IIHS engineers record what happens when the lens of the motive force monitoring camera is blocked, the motive force’s face is obscured, the motive force is looking down, and the motive force’s hands should not on the steering wheel. For systems that allow hands-free driving, the engineers also record what happens when the motive force’s hands are holding a foam block the approximate size of a cellphone. Systems shouldn’t activate under these conditions, and, in the event that they’re already switched on, they need to issue an alert.
Not one of the 14 systems meets all these requirements, though the Ford systems come very close. Ford BlueCruise and Ford Adaptive Cruise Control with Stop & Go and Lane Centering Assist immediately issued alerts when the motive force’s face or the camera lens was covered, for instance, but didn’t detect when the motive force’s hands were occupied with one other task. The BMW system didn’t react when the camera lens or driver’s face was covered, and the Mercedes-Benz system lacks a driver-monitoring camera altogether, though each vehicles were in a position to detect when the motive force’s hands weren’t on the steering wheel.
Persistent Attention Reminders Needed
Timely and protracted attention reminders are also key. When a partial automation system detects that the motive force’s eyes aren’t directed on the road or their hands aren’t able to take over the steering, it should begin a dual-mode alert, comparable to an audible and visual warning, inside 10 seconds. Before the 20-second mark, it should add a 3rd mode of alert or begin an emergency procedure to slow the vehicle.
Lexus Teammate, each Ford systems and GM Super Cruise meet all these requirements. For instance, when the test driver deliberately looked away from the road and held the froth block in each hands, Teammate began audible and visual alerts after 4 seconds and commenced an emergency slowdown procedure after 16 seconds.
Each the hands-on Nissan ProPILOT Assist with Navi-link and hands-free ProPILOT Assist 2.0 systems and Tesla Full Self-Driving performed almost as well. The hands-on Nissan system, for instance, provided audible and visual alerts about 6 seconds after driver disengagement, however it didn’t provide a 3rd form of alert until around 21 seconds had passed, when it pulsed the brakes. Seven other systems didn’t even provide dual-mode alerts inside the first 15 seconds.
Emergency Procedures Mandatory
Partial automation systems need appropriate emergency escalation procedures to reduce the danger to occupants and other road users if the motive force doesn’t reply to those attention reminders. No matter how many alternative modes of alerts they issue, systems should begin a slowdown procedure inside 35 seconds of driver disengagement. Drivers who ignore alerts for this long are either in distress or misusing the system. The system should send an SOS message to emergency responders or a 24-hour help center, and the motive force needs to be prevented from restarting the automation for the rest of the drive.
Of the 14 systems tested, only GM’s meets all these requirements. Five systems include two of the three emergency procedures, and five include one. Lexus’ combination of Dynamic Radar Cruise Control with Lane Tracing Assist system and the 2 Genesis systems all fail to take any emergency motion if the motive force disengages from driving and doesn’t reply to repeated warnings.
Driver Involvement Required
One other group of necessities is aimed toward ensuring drivers stay involved in decision-making. All lane changes needs to be initiated or confirmed by the motive force. When traffic causes the ACC to bring the vehicle to an entire stop, it shouldn’t routinely resume unless the system can confirm the motive force is taking a look at the road and not more than two minutes have passed. The lane-centering feature shouldn’t switch off routinely when the motive force makes manual steering adjustments inside the lane, as that may discourage drivers from being physically involved within the driving, and physical involvement may help prevent mental disengagement.
More systems performed well in these categories than any of the others. GM Super Cruise and Tesla Full Self-Driving are the one ones that can make a lane change with none driver input. Super Cruise and each Tesla systems are the one ones that switch off lane centering when the motive force does any manual steering.
Many systems allow ACC to resume routinely after a stop of greater than two minutes or when the motive force will not be taking a look at the road. Each Tesla systems and BMW Energetic Driving Assist Pro will resume ACC in each scenarios, for instance, while several others will restart in one in all the 2 situations. Volvo Pilot Assist is one in all seven systems that is not going to routinely resume in either scenario.
Safety Advantages Not Realized
There may be little evidence that partial automation has any safety advantages, so it’s essential that these systems can only be used when proven safety features are engaged. These include seat belts, AEB and lane departure prevention. For a very good rating on this category, a partial automation system shouldn’t activate if the motive force is unbelted or AEB or lane departure prevention will not be energetic. If already in operation and the motive force unfastens their seat belt, the system should immediately begin its multi-mode, driver-disengagement attention reminders. Finally, it have to be not possible to change off AEB or lane departure prevention if the automation is engaged.
The hands-free ProPILOT Assist 2.0, Lexus Teammate, and GM Super Cruise systems are the one ones that meet all these requirements. The hands-on ProPILOT Assist with Navi-link and the BMW system come close, but each deactivates without issuing an alert when a key safety feature is disengaged. That is dangerous because the motive force is probably not aware that they should resume full control of the vehicle.
In contrast, a lot of the systems fail multiple safety feature requirements. Volvo Pilot Assist, for instance, deactivates without an alert when the motive force unbuckles, may be activated with lane departure prevention turned off and likewise stays energetic if the feature is switched off mid-drive. The 2 Genesis systems fail all safety feature requirements.
This Article First Appeared At www.automotive-fleet.com
