<\/p>\n
Many operators of semi-automated motor vehicles drive as if their autos are fully automated, despite the crash risks of doing so, according to a study released Tuesday by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS).<\/p>\n
The study, based on a survey of 600 users of Cadillac\u2019s Super Cruise system, Nissan\/Infiniti\u2019s ProPilot system, and Tesla\u2019s Autopilot system, found the drivers were more likely to perform non-driving activities, like eating or texting, while using the driver assistance systems.<\/p>\n
On top of that, more than half the Super Cruise drivers (52%), two out of five Autopilot drivers (42%), and 12% of ProPilot drivers told surveyors they were comfortable treating their vehicles as full self-driving autos.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe big-picture message here is that the early adopters of these systems still have a poor understanding of the technology\u2019s limits,\u201d IIHS President David Harkey said in a statement.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt\u2019s possible that system design and marketing are adding to these misconceptions,\u201d he added.<\/p>\n
The IIHS isn\u2019t alone in finding gaps in consumer understanding of the capabilities of driver-assistance technology. Studies by J.D. Power, a consumer research, data, and analytics firm based in Troy, Mich., have yielded similar results.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe found 56% of consumers classifying driver-assisted technology available today as fully-automated self-driving,\u201d said JDP\u2019s Senior Manager of Auto Benchmarking and Mobility Development, Lisa Boor.<\/p>\n
\u201cThat\u2019s concerning because we know that those systems today are meant to assist the driver,\u201d she told TechNewsWorld. \u201cThe driver still has overall responsibility for the vehicle.\u201d<\/p>\n
<\/center><\/p>\n
The IIHS explained that current partial automation systems assist drivers through adaptive cruise control \u2014 which can regulate speed to maintain a safe distance behind a vehicle \u2014 and lane centering, which keeps a vehicle centered in its travel lane.<\/p>\n
It noted that the existing systems are not designed to replace human drivers or make it safe for them to perform other tasks that take their focus from the road. Track tests and real-world crashes have provided ample evidence that the systems struggle to recognize and react to common driving situations and road features, it added.<\/p>\n
Marketing may be a factor contributing to consumer misunderstanding about the capabilities of computer-assisted driving systems.<\/p>\n
\u201cTesla, because of the way they\u2019ve marketed Autopilot over the years and Elon Musk has talked about Autopilot, has created the impression that these types of systems are far more capable than they really are,\u201d said Sam Abuelsamid, principal analyst for e-mobility at Guidehouse Insights, a market intelligence company in Detroit.<\/p>\n
\u201cBecause Musk is put forward by a lot of people in the media as a genius, people are inclined to believe him, even though a lot of what he says is nonsense,\u201d he told TechNewsWorld.<\/p>\n
Gartner Vice President and Analyst for Automotive and Smart Mobility Mike Ramsey agreed that marketing has played a role in consumer expectations about driver assistance systems. \u201cTesla names its system Autopilot, which implies the vehicle will fly itself,\u201d he told TechNewsWorld.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt\u2019s implied that the vehicle is driving itself,\u201d he added. \u201cIt\u2019s not really driving itself. It\u2019s essentially cruise control with extra functionality.\u201d<\/p>\n
The way these systems are designed, they don\u2019t put firm boundaries on driver behavior, so drivers don\u2019t know what they can and cannot do, observed IIHS research scientist and report author Alexandra Mueller.<\/p>\n
\u201cThat adds to the confusion,\u201d she told TechNewsWorld. \u201cThese systems seem highly capable \u2014 and they are \u2014 but their capabilities aren\u2019t a replacement for a driver. That message seems to get lost.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cThese systems are not self-driving,\u201d she said. \u201cThey frequently encounter conditions that require driver intervention.\u201d<\/p>\n
<\/center><\/p>\n
Mueller maintained the idea that drivers always have to be ready to intervene and be prepared to supervise these systems isn\u2019t something that humans are very good at doing. \u201cWe\u2019re not very good at maintaining the alertness to supervise and monitor what these technologies are doing constantly,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe more capable these systems are, the more difficult it is to supervise them because the driver isn\u2019t physically involved in the operation of the vehicle anymore,\u201d she continued.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt\u2019s natural that people would want to do other things to stay alert, but doing anything but driving means the driver is no longer involved in driving the vehicle.\u201d<\/p>\n
If there\u2019s one thing humans are not good at, it\u2019s supervising automation, Abuelsamid contended. \u201cAnytime something is working most of the time, humans will get complacent,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt\u2019s hard to remain mentally engaged in a task you\u2019re not physically engaged in,\u201d he continued. \u201cBy allowing the driver to go hands-free, you\u2019re reducing some of the traditional driver workloads, but you\u2019re creating new cognitive workloads for the brain.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cNo one has figured out how to address that,\u201d he maintained. \u201cIt may be that anything less than full automation may not be a good idea.\u201d<\/p>\n
Driver-assisting systems can be an invitation for distracted driving. \u201cIf you tell consumers they can take their hands off the steering wheel and their foot off the pedals and the vehicle will operate itself, you\u2019re inviting them to not pay attention,\u201d Ramsey observed.<\/p>\n
On the other hand, he pointed out that even without these systems, distracted drivers are everywhere. \u201cPeople are already driving distracted by their phones, so these technologies have become necessary to prevent accidents,\u201d he said. \u201cThe systems are accommodating distractions that are already there.\u201d<\/p>\n
Boor maintained that the auto industry needs a better way to communicate with consumers about the capabilities of driver-assistance systems. \u201cWe can\u2019t continue to rely on the dealer or the owner\u2019s manual,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n
\u201cNo one part of the automotive industry can do this alone,\u201d she continued. \u201cThe automakers play a critical part in that, but as a whole, consumers aren\u2019t differentiating between these levels of automation.\u201d<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n