A recent report has raised concerns about the safety and effectiveness of automated driving features in vehicles. Conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), the study examined 14 automated systems from various automakers, revealing significant shortcomings in their performance.
“Some drivers may feel that partial automation makes long drives easier, but there is little evidence it makes driving safer,” David Harkey, president of the IIHS said. “As many high-profile crashes have illustrated, it can introduce new risks when systems lack appropriate safeguards.”
Among the key findings, 11 of the systems evaluated received “poor” ratings, including Tesla’s Autopilot feature, while none attained the agency’s highest possible rating of “good.” Only one system developed by Lexus was deemed “acceptable” by the IIHS.
“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.”
One of the concerns highlighted in the report was the systems’ inability to effectively handle inattentive drivers. The study found that none of the automated systems adequately monitored for distracted drivers, with some even exacerbating the problem by making lane changes without driver input, further disengaging those behind the wheel.
The IIHS also pointed out other safety lapses, such as features working despite drivers not wearing seat belts and vehicles maintaining high speeds even when drivers were not paying attention for extended periods of over half a minute.
Some automakers disputed the findings in response to the report, insisting these features are safer than what has been claimed. Citing its own data, Ford said that its cars with automated features are 10 times less likely to swerve out of their lane.
However, the IIHS emphasized the importance of its rankings in informing consumers about potential hazards associated with automated driving features, especially considering the current lack of regulation by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
“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 IIHS hopes that its testing will help educate the public about the safety limitations of each automaker’s version of this technology, aiming to promote greater awareness and informed decision-making among consumers.
