Introduction
Advancements in vehicle technology have brought us the age of Driver-Assist Systems (DAS). However, questions arise as to whether these systems are as effective as they promise, or if they pose potential dangers due to lack of oversight from both auto manufacturers and drivers. This evaluation brings into the spotlight a study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) which assesses the efficacy of 14 different monitoring/safeguard systems. The study’s conclusion is somewhat concerning.
IIHS’s Assessment of Driver-Assist Systems
The primary focus of IIHS’s report is the effectiveness of how well automakers are monitoring drivers using advanced driver-assist systems. With 11 out of 14 systems evaluated receiving a poor rating, and the best rating achieved being only “acceptable”, the results reveal a significant room for improvement across the industry. None of the systems evaluated earned a prestigious ‘good’ rating.
Criteria for a Good Rating
What constitutes a ‘good’ rating, according to IIHS, includes monitoring of the driver’s eyes and hand positions, alongside a rapid response to any identified inattention. Ideally, there should be two alerts within ten seconds if inattention is detected. If the inattention persists beyond 20 seconds, a third alert or an emergency action like slowing the car and initiating a safe exit should be implemented.
Other System Requirements
Specific details of how the monitoring systems should function include human initiation of lane changes. The system should not disengage if a driver makes manual adjustments, promoting active driving. Adaptive cruise control must not resume after a long stop in heavy traffic, where the situation could be erratic. Additionally, the monitoring system should not allow the driver assists to activate if the seat belts are not fastened or if the automatic emergency braking is disabled.
Detailed Results of the Study
The IIHS study evaluated systems from top automakers like Ford, GM, Tesla, Mercedes-Benz, BMW, Genesis, Lexus, Nissan, and Volvo. Lexus emerged as the front-runner with an “acceptable” rating, while GM and Nissan barely managed to secure a “marginal” rating. The disappointing performance is recognized as an industry-wide issue, with all systems falling short in one or more areas.
Optimistic Outlook amidst Criticism
Despite the criticism, the IIHS maintains an optimistic outlook, claiming that most of the observed issues can be fixed through software enhancements. IIHS President David Harkey highlighted a silver lining in the study results by stating that every category had at least one system performing well, suggesting that the potential resolution may not be far-fetched or complicated. Realistically, the upgrades may not require more than simple software updates.