As self-driving cars continue to encounter roadblocks and cyclists, automakers are doubling down on semi-autonomous systems, confident that customers will appreciate a range of novelties and conveniences that provide them with steering, acceleration and braking capabilities.
The industry insists these systems are safe; some executives even say they are safer than human driving. But a top consumer safety group believes there is little evidence to support the claims.
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), a 65-year-old independent organization that tests and evaluates new vehicles, has released its first ranking system for semi-autonomous systems. In total, it tested 14 different systems. 11 of them were rated poor, 2 were marginal and only 1 was passed.
11 were rated as poor, 2 as marginal and only 1 as passing
Before we rank, it’s important to define what we’re talking about when we say “partial automation.” These are not self-driving cars;Driving still needs to pay attention to road conditions and surveillance system. They need to be prepared to take control of the vehicle if something goes wrong.
Furthermore, these are not advanced driver assistance systems (also known as ADAS), which the IIHS defines as safety features such as automatic emergency braking, blind spot detection, and lane departure prevention. “Partial automation is a convenience feature, and while others may confuse it with ADAS, we will continue to differentiate by mentioning it separately,” IIHS spokesman Joe Young said in an email.
Partially automated systems use sensors and cameras to relieve the driver of some of the responsibility of operating the vehicle. They include features such as adaptive cruise control, lane keep assist and automatic lane changing. Some even allow drivers to take their hands off the steering wheel under certain conditions.
The problem is that drivers tend to become overly reliant on these systems, even after short-term use. When it comes time to take back control of the vehicle, their reaction times are slower than is considered safe.
“These results are concerning given how quickly vehicles equipped with these partially automated systems are taking to the road,” IIHS President David Harkey said in a statement.
The IIHS tested partially automated systems on 14 vehicles, including popular models such as Tesla’s Full Self-Driving, General Motors’ Super Cruise and Ford’s BlueCruise. Only one was deemed acceptable: Lexus’ Teammate with Advanced Drive. Two were rated Marginal: General Motors’ Super Cruise and Nissan’s ProPilot Assist. The rest, including BlueCruise and Tesla’s FSD, were rated poor. (Full rankings here.)
There are many reasons for this, but generally speaking, systems rated poor are easily tricked and do a poor job of monitoring driver attention. Some work even if the driver is not wearing a seat belt.
The IIHS used a variety of methods to trick these semi-autonomous systems, including placing a piece of cheesecloth over the driver’s head to obscure the face of the in-car cameras and sensors, and installing ankle weights on the steering wheel to simulate what the driver would be doing. Keep your hands on the steering wheel.
The team put the vehicle through a number of trials, most of which were a series of tests on a closed track. Some performance categories are weighted more heavily than others. IIHS noted that some vehicles in its fleet received software updates during testing that included improvements to some of its automated systems. (For example, the group tested Tesla’s Autopilot before it was updated following a recent voluntary recall.)
There is a silver lining, the IIHS said: No vehicle performed well across the board, but all performed well in at least one category.
“This means fixes are easily available and, in some cases, can be accomplished with a simple software update,” Harkey said.
