Driverless
cars
keep
running
into
roadblocks
—
and
bicyclists
—
so
automakers
are
doubling
down
on
partially
automated
systems,
betting
that
customers
will
appreciate
the
novelty
and
convenience
of
a
bunch
of
features
that
steer,
accelerate,
and
brake
for
them.
The
industry
insists
these
systems
are
safe;
some
executives
even
go
so
far
as
to
call
them
safer
than
human
driving.
But
a
top
consumer
safety
organization
argues
there
is
little
evidence
to
support
these
claims.
The
Insurance
Institute
for
Highway
Safety
(IIHS),
a
65-year-old
independent
group
that
tests
and
evaluates
new
cars,
released
its
first
ranking
system
for
partially
automated
systems.
Overall,
it
tested
14
different
systems.
Eleven
were
rated
poor,
two
were
marginal,
and
only
one
passed.
Eleven
were
rated
poor,
two
were
marginal,
and
only
one
passed
Before
we
get
to
the
ranking,
its
important
to
define
what
we’re
talking
about
when
we
say
“partially
automated.”
These
are
not
self-driving
cars;
drivers
are
still
expected
to
watch
the
road
and
monitor
the
system.
And
they
need
to
stand
ready
to
take
control
of
the
vehicle
when
something
goes
wrong.
Moreover,
these
are
not
advanced
driver
assist
systems,
also
known
as
ADAS,
which
IIHS
defines
as
safety
features
like
automatic
emergency
braking,
blindspot
detection,
and
lane
departure
prevention.
“Partial
automation
is
a
convenience
feature,”
IIHS
spokesperson
Joe
Young
said
in
an
email,
“and
while
others
may
lump
it
in
with
ADAS,
we’re
continuing
to
draw
a
distinction
by
referring
to
it
separately.”
Partial
automated
systems
use
sensors
and
cameras
to
relieve
drivers
of
some
of
the
responsibility
of
operating
the
vehicle.
They
include
features
like
adaptive
cruise
control,
lane-keep
assistance,
and
automated
lane
changing.
Some
even
allow
drivers
to
remove
their
hands
from
the
steering
wheel
under
certain
conditions.
The
problem
is
drivers
tend
to
develop
an
overreliance
on
these
systems
even
after
a
short
period
of
use.
And
when
it’s
time
to
take
back
control
of
the
vehicle,
their
reaction
times
are
slower
than
what’s
considered
safe.
“These
results
are
worrying,
considering
how
quickly
vehicles
with
these
partial
automation
systems
are
hitting
our
roadways,”
IIHS
president
David
Harkey
said
in
a
statement.
IIHS
tested
partial
automated
systems
in
14
vehicles,
including
popular
ones
like
Tesla’s
Full
Self-Driving,
GM’s
Super
Cruise,
and
Ford’s
BlueCruise.
Only
one
was
found
to
be
acceptable:
Lexus’
Teammate
with
Advanced
Drive.
Two
were
rated
marginal:
GM’s
Super
Cruise
and
Nissan’s
ProPilot
Assist.
And
the
rest,
including
BlueCruise
and
Tesla’s
FSD,
were
rated
poor.
(The
full
ranking
is
here.)
The
reasons
were
myriad,
but
overall
the
systems
that
were
rated
poor
were
found
to
be
easily
tricked
and
bad
at
monitoring
driver
attention.
Some
would
work
even
when
the
driver
wasn’t
wearing
a
seatbelt.
IIHS
utilized
a
number
of
methods
to
trick
these
partial
automated
systems,
including
draping
a
cheesecloth
over
the
driver’s
head
to
obscure
their
face
from
in-car
cameras
and
sensors,
and
attaching
ankle
weights
to
the
steering
wheel
to
simulate
the
driver’s
hands
on
the
wheel.
The
group
put
the
vehicles
through
a
battery
of
tests
through
multiple
trials,
most
of
which
took
place
on
a
closed
course.
Some
performance
categories
were
weighted
more
heavily
than
others.
And
IIHS
notes
that
some
of
the
vehicles
in
its
fleet
received
software
updates
during
the
course
of
testing
that
included
improvements
to
the
partial
automated
system.
(For
example,
the
group
tested
Tesla’s
Autopilot
before
it
was
updated
after
a
recent
voluntary
recall.)
IIHS
says
there
is
a
silver
lining:
no
single
vehicle
performed
well
across
the
board,
but
all
did
well
in
at
least
one
category.
“That
means
the
fixes
are
readily
available
and,
in
some
cases,
may
be
accomplished
with
nothing
more
than
a
simple
software
update,”
Harkey
said.
(Originally posted by Andrew J. Hawkins)
Comments