As autonomous driver tech continues to improve, automakers like Tesla want you to think that they are incredibly safe. A new report from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) seems to disagree, with only 1 out of 14 vehicles assessed being rated as ‘acceptable’ by its latest rating program.
The nonprofit research organization instituted the new rating program to push automakers to incorporate more robust safeguards for their partially automated driving capabilities.
The first sample included systems like Tesla’s Autopilot, Ford’s BlueCruise, GM’s Super Cruise, and others that combine adaptive cruise control and lane centering to handle some driving tasks.
“We evaluated partial automation systems from BMW, Ford, General Motors, Genesis, Lexus, Mercedes-Benz, Nissan, Tesla and Volvo”, IIHS President David Harkey said in a press release published yesterday. “Most of them don’t include adequate measures to prevent misuse and keep drivers from losing focus on what’s happening on the road.”
The Lexus LS equipped with the Teammate system was the only vehicle to earn an “acceptable” rating. The GMC Sierra with Super Cruise and Nissan Ariya with ProPILOT Assist were rated “marginal.” All other models tested, including the Tesla Model 3, Ford Mustang Mach-E, Mercedes-Benz C-Class, and multiple Genesis and Volvo vehicles received a “poor” rating.
“Some drivers may feel that partial automation makes long drives easier, but there is little evidence it makes driving safer”, Harkey stated. “As many high-profile crashes have illustrated, it can introduce new risks when systems lack the appropriate safeguards.”
Four Safety Aspects Were Tested, Most Vehicles Failed to Meet Standards
While these systems can handle aspects of driving like steering, braking, and acceleration, the driver must remain engaged and ready to take over at any time. However, the IIHS testing found that most of the systems evaluated lacked adequate safeguards to prevent misuse and ensure drivers stay focused on the road.
“The shortcomings vary from system to system”, explained IIHS Senior Research Scientist Alexandra Mueller, who spearheaded the development of the program. “Many vehicles don’t adequately monitor whether the driver is looking at the road or prepared to take control. Many lack attention reminders that come soon enough and are forceful enough to rouse a driver whose mind is wandering. Many can be used despite occupants being unbelted or when other vital safety features are switched off.”
Also read: 1 in 10 Cars Will be Self-Driving by 2030
To perform the tests, IIHS engineers ran the vehicles through numerous test scenarios on closed courses and public roads with a second staff member monitoring from the passenger seat in the latter circumstance.
Tests were performed to assess the system’s performance in areas like driver monitoring, providing timely alerts if driver attention wandered, taking emergency measures if the driver failed to regain control, and more.
Failing Driver Monitoring
One key area where most systems faltered was driver monitoring. IIHS says that effective monitoring that can detect if a driver’s eyes or head are not on the road or if their hands are on the wheel is critical for safe operation.
Engineers recorded instances where the driver’s face was obscured, the camera was blocked, or the driver was looking down or holding an object instead of the wheel.
“None of the 14 systems meets all these requirements, though the Ford systems come very close”, the IIHS report stated. Ford’s BlueCruise did alert right away when the camera or driver’s face was blocked but failed to detect distraction from an object in the driver’s hands.
The BMW system did not react when the driver’s face was covered while the Mercedes-Benz lacks a monitoring camera altogether. Only Ford (F) was generally able to reliably detect when the driver’s hands left the wheel.
Delayed Alerts and Emergency Procedures
Automakers also struggled to provide adequate attention reminders and emergency procedures if the driver failed to regain control after an alert.
The IIHS report specified that systems should start audible and visual alerts within 10 seconds if driver disengagement is detected, add a third type of alert like brake pulsing before 20 seconds, and initiate an emergency slowdown within 35 seconds if there is still no response.
The Lexus Teammate and GM Super Cruise systems were among the few to meet these criteria. Most other automakers missed the mark, with some not even providing dual-mode alerts within the first 15 seconds of driver distraction or disengagement.
GM was the only automaker whose system checked all the boxes for emergency procedures by beginning to slow the vehicle, alerting emergency responders, and preventing the driver from reactivating the system for the remainder of the trip if alerts were ignored for over 35 seconds.
A Simple Software Upgrade May Resolve Many of These Shortcomings, IIHS Head Says
The IIHS’s ratings also looked at whether safety features like automatic emergency braking, lane keeping assist, and seatbelt reminders were active and able to remain on while the partially automated system operated. Several automakers failed this criteria by allowing systems to remain active even if seatbelts were unbuckled or safety tech was disengaged.
The Nissan ProPILOT Assist 2.0, Lexus Teammate, and GM Super Cruise systems were the only ones that met all the safety feature requirements by restricting operation if occupants were unbuckled or safety systems were off.
“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 head of the research institute further commented.
What is The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS)?
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) is an independent, nonprofit scientific and educational organization dedicated to reducing deaths, injuries, and property damage from motor vehicle crashes.
IIHS is wholly supported by auto insurers and insurance associations. The institute’s research covers areas including roadway and vehicle factors, driver behavior, and federal and state policies.
IIHS engineers evaluate passenger vehicles in test modes that represent the most common crashes. The organization rates vehicles for occupant protection in moderate overlap front, side, roof strength, and head restraint tests. It also evaluates factors that increase crash avoidance potential, such as headlight effectiveness and front crash prevention systems.
Also read: Apple Pulls Plug on Decade-Long Dream of Building an EV
With its unique position funded by the insurance industry, the IIHS plays a key role in making vehicles safer, preventing crashes from occurring and minimizing injuries and property damage. Its rigorous vehicle testing holds automakers to high standards and impacts vehicle designs across the industry.
IIHS has been issuing vehicle ratings since the 1990s, with its famous “Top Safety Pick” award reserved for models with top endurance and crash avoidance capabilities. The organization’s new partial automation ratings are an addition aimed at improving the safety and proper use of convenience features that handle some driving tasks.
These initial findings showing subpar performance from most automakers highlight the need for continued oversight and improvement as these systems proliferate in new vehicles.
While meant as an aid for drivers, the IIHS cautions that partial automation introduces risks without adequate safeguards and monitoring. The institute’s evidence-based approach and focus on occupant protection make it a respected and influential voice in pushing for advancements in automotive safety.