Most Vehicle Automation Isn’t Making Drivers Safer, Report Says

Drivers may think that partial automation systems like lane-centering and adaptive cruise control make their vehicles safer. But a new report from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) says automakers need to improve safeguards that ensure a driver doesn’t rely on these systems too much.

“Some drivers may feel that partial automation makes long drives easier, but there is little evidence it makes driving safer,” IIHS President David Harkey said in a news release. “As many high-profile crashes have illustrated, it can introduce new risks when systems lack the appropriate safeguards.”

Winners and losers in automation testing

IIHS analysts tested partial automation systems in 14 vehicles to assess whether the systems included proper safeguards to ensure driver attention. Systems could earn a rating of good, acceptable, marginal, or poor.

“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.”

Only the Teammate system, tested on a Lexus LS, earned an overall acceptable rating. The system scored “good” for attention reminders, lane-change alerts, cooperative steering, and safety features, “marginal” for driver monitoring, and “acceptable” for emergency procedures and adaptive cruise control (ACC) resume.

General Motors Super Cruise, tested on a GMC Sierra, and Nissan ProPILOT Assist with Navilink, tested on a Nissan Ariya, both received scores of marginal. All other tested systems scored poorly, with Tesla’s Autopilot Version 2023.7.10 and Full Self-Driving (Beta) Version 2023.7.10, both tested on Model 3s, scoring poorly for five out of seven rating factors.

New safeguard ratings

IIHS conducted the tests to introduce its new partial automation ratings program. The ratings consider:

• Driver monitoring: The system should monitor a motorist’s gaze and hand position.

• Attention reminders: Multiple types of rapidly escalating alerts should be in place to get a driver’s attention.

• Emergency procedures: In an emergency, the system should quickly slow down or stop the vehicle, notify the vehicle manufacturer or other emergency service, and shut down the automation for the remainder of the drive.

• Automated lane change: Vehicles shouldn’t be able to initiate or make a lane change without confirmation from a driver.

• Adaptive cruise control: ACC auto-resume should time out if a vehicle has been motionless for two minutes or longer, and the driver should have to take action to re-engage the ACC.

• Cooperative steering: Lane centering should remain active whenever a driver steers.

• Safety features: Automation systems should turn off if a driver is unbelted or the autonomous emergency braking (AEB) is turned off.

To earn ratings of acceptable or good, a partial automation system should monitor whether a driver is looking at the road and whether they’re ready to take control back from the system.

“Many [partial automation systems] lack attention reminders that come soon enough and are forceful enough to rouse a driver whose mind is wandering,” said IIHS Senior Research Scientist Alexandra Mueller, who led the development of the new ratings program. “Many can be used despite occupants being unbelted or when other vital safety features are switched off.”

What’s next: Improvement already underway

Some vehicle manufacturers are already taking steps to improve automation system safeguards, the IIHS said. And, Harker said, the performance of the test group as a whole is reason for optimism.

“No single system did well across the board, but in each category at least one system performed well,” he said. “That means the fixes are readily available and, in some cases, may be accomplished with nothing more than a simple software update.”