In light of sluggish progress and persistent safety concerns plaguing driverless car initiatives, automakers are redirecting their efforts toward partially automated systems.
These systems, which may ring familiar to owners of relatively modern vehicles, encompass features such as adaptive and active cruise control, electronic stability controls, and parking assistance mechanisms. They utilize sensors to detect proximity to curbs or potential collisions with pedestrians. Car manufacturers advocate for these partially automated driving systems as pathways to achieving “zero crashes” and enhancing road safety for both drivers and pedestrians.
However, a recent report from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) casts doubt on the efficacy of most of these programs. The 65-year-old auto safety nonprofit evaluated 14 driver-assistance systems across categories including driver monitoring, attention reminders, and safety features, yielding a solitary passing grade.
The Lexus Teammate with Advanced Drive secured an “acceptable” rating, marking the highest achievement according to the IIHS criteria. Only two systems—General Motors’ Super Cruise and Nissan’s ProPILOT Assist with Navi-link—garnered a “marginal” rating, with the remaining 11 systems receiving the lowest designation of “poor.”
Notable among the poorly rated systems were Ford Motor Co.’s BlueCruise and Adaptive Cruise Control variant, Tesla’s Autopilot and Full Self-Driving, and Volvo’s Pilot Assist. Nonetheless, some automakers exhibited commendable performance in specific IIHS test categories. For instance, only GM’s Super Cruise and Tesla’s Full Self-Driving received poor ratings for driver-involved lane changing, a feature designed to aid drivers in safely changing lanes by monitoring surrounding traffic and blind spots.
David Harkey, president of IIHS, emphasized the importance of ensuring driver involvement in critical driving decisions. He expressed reservations about systems executing maneuvers without explicit confirmation from the driver.
Despite the underperformance of bundled systems, standalone components such as automatic emergency braking systems were hailed for their efficacy in reducing front-to-rear crashes by approximately 50%, according to Harkey.
The IIHS rankings aim to incentivize automakers to integrate safeguards that deter prolonged driver distraction or misuse of technology. However, none of the tested systems received a high rating for “driver monitoring,” a crucial aspect for gauging driver engagement and readiness to assume control of the vehicle.
Acknowledging the limitations of IIHS tests, Harkey noted that some examined systems have already undergone upgrades or been replaced with newer models. Several companies have responded positively to the institute’s feedback, committing to revisions to enhance system performance.
Contrary to the safety-focused approach advocated by most automakers, many packaged systems are marketed primarily as convenience features geared toward facilitating driving in various conditions, whether navigating urban traffic or embarking on highway journeys.
Notably, Tesla stands out as the sole carmaker scrutinized by IIHS for its divergent approach. Tesla’s Autopilot and Full Self-Driving systems have drawn criticism for implying diminished driver responsibility. The company has faced allegations of false advertising from California’s Department of Motor Vehicles and scrutiny from the state attorney general’s office regarding its marketing practices.
In defense of Tesla’s systems, CEO Elon Musk has asserted their superior safety compared to human-driven vehicles. Despite regulatory and public scrutiny, Musk maintains that supervised Full Self-Driving is substantially safer than human-operated vehicles.
