Yesterday, we reported on a Cybertruck that held up quite well in a stupid wreck it seems to have caused itself. Well, not really itself: the inattention of the person who was supposed to be driving was the major factor. The real issue seemed to have been how humans interact with these sorts of advanced driver assist systems, known as ADAS systems. A new study published in Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives about ADAS systems gives some interesting perspectives, and reinforces some findings that we’ve been aware of for a while, but are worth remembering.
One thing this study introduced me to that I hadn’t really considered before was the classification of ADAS systems into safety-enhancing and comfort-enhancing, but that’s a good way to think about these systems and how they’re intended to interact with us. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the study found that comfort-enhancing systems like cruise control and even adaptive cruise control do not seem to bring safety improvements.
The results were really quite interesting; here’s a summation from the abstract (The exclamation points after all the initialisms is how the copy appears in the study, which makes everything feel weird, just so you know):
The data analysis showed that LKA! (LKA!) (−19.1%) and DMS! (DMS!) (−14%) had the strongest crash rate reduction effects, followed by AEB! (AEB!) (−10.7%). However, systems like ACC! (ACC!) and CC! (CC!) were associated with increased crash rates (+8%, +12%). Categorizing systems by either functional class or interaction type revealed central tendencies favoring safety of longitudinal control and intervening systems, while comfort-enhancing systems showed detrimental effects.
LKA is lane keeping assist, DMS is driver monitoring systems – the thing that makes sure you’re paying attention – and AEB is automatic emergency braking. ACC and CC are adaptive cruise control and regular cruise, which actually were found to be associated with more crashes!
I think the explanation for why that seems to be the case has to do with the same issues we’ve seen with Level 2 semi-automated systems like Tesla’s FSD or GM’s SuperCruise: the vigilance problem. If a system does most of the work, it’s hard for people to remain focused and vigilant on what the system is doing. Couple that with, as the study states (emphasis mine):
“However, it is not a requirement that ACC! detects stationary or slow-moving objects (International Organization for Standardization, 2018), and users might place too much trust in the systems’ capabilities, tempting them to engage in distractions, which could both be detrimental to safety (Moeckli et al., 2015, De Winter et al., 2014, Hoedemaeker and Brookhuis, 1998).”
The problem, as always, is with us. We’re humans, we get distracted easily, and comfort-enhancing systems tend to just make us even more distracted, because of course they do. That’s sort of their point, perversely, even if we pretend like it’s not. We couch these systems as being advantageous for safety, when what they really do is allow our focus to wander away from the task of driving.
The study also is good for thinking about these systems taxonomically. The paper breaks down these systems into two main classes, Functional and User Interaction:
User interaction
refers to a categorization of the way that systems interact with the driver and/or vehicle. Informing systems passively provide information; warning systems are also passive, in the sense that they cannot exert control over the vehicle, but these systems convey their information by actively drawing attention when pertinent. Intervening systems are like warning systems in that they act in case of emergency, but these systems do exert control over the vehicle. Finally, comfort-enhancing systems also control the vehicle, albeit at the driver’s request, that is, when there is no immediate need to intervene to ensure safety.
Another interesting thing this study does is to introduce some new categorization ideas, based around the concepts of control and urgency:
Informing systems are just like passive nav systems and things like that: information without related actions. Warning systems like automatic collision detection have lots of urgency, but don’t necessarily take control. An intervening system is something like automatic emergency braking: lots of urgency, lots of control. And finally, cruise control and adaptive cruise do a lot of controlling, but minimal urgency.
This quadrant system allows them to have charts like these:
The paper isn’t all that long, and I suggest giving it at least a quick read; I think we’re at a point where the technology for automated and assisted driving systems is getting quite advanced, and is rapidly passing our own overall thought about what sort of systems actually make sense, and how these systems should be implemented.
Comfort-enhancing systems are, of course, good and desirable, but we need to really consider the safety losses that they can bring, at least in their current states. We also need to be realistic about who we, as humans are, and not turn away from our failings because they will come back to bite us in the ass. If we can feel like we’re getting away with doing something like driving while paying less attention, we will happily do that, and not think about safety at all. We’re kind of idiots that way.
The more of these studies we can see, the better as far as I’m concerned. This is a drum we need to keep hammering upon, because carmakers will always just give us what sells unless forced to change by outside forces. It would be nice if, for once, we could actually try to do the smart thing from the get-go.
I’m a professional and military pilot. As cars get more complex over the years, I’ve been noticing a lot of similarities to technologies, systems, and topics that we discuss in the aviation community. Automation in aircraft, like many of these new automotive technologies, is designed to reduce workload, not entirely replace human interaction. It still requires monitoring.
Other subjects overlap as well, like touch screens being a horrible choice for both aircraft and vehicles, as they require a lot more time looking at the control for feedback rather than feeling a knob turn or button press (god bless Mazda for running their own studies on this and keeping physical buttons in their cars).
What’s even scarier is that driving is so much more dangerous than flying for so many reasons. At altitude, when nothing is going wrong and you are being separated from other aircraft by ATC, there are far fewer variables. And when things do happen, you have time to figure it out and altitude to descend unless it’s really catastrophic. Compare that to being on a road where an animal could run out of the trees, an object could be in the road, an erratic driver could cross into your lane, or your tire could blow, and your only options are turn left or right or attempt to stop.
There is so much overlap as we start talking about automation, and aviation has already covered and thoroughly researched it’s effects. I wish the DOT would pull from some of these lessons that have already been learned in a highly trained professional field, before allowing these technologies to make their way out to public roads.
What is that car in the top pic? That red one being driven by a robot, that looks like a Bugeye Sprite? Is that a toy car, or a fictional one, or is it actually a Sprite? I want it! 🙂
One of the reasons I got rid of my Giulia was just missing the simplicity of a car without all the gadgetry. All I wanted was four wheels, an engine, and acres of glass to look out of, which is exactly what I purchased. I also have a sneaking suspicion (read this as vague gut feeling) that going into the future, we might start seeing cars with less tech being built in, at least of the passive variety. First of all, it’s expensive and we’re about at the limits of affordability for most people. Second, it’s just not necessary. For example, who needs nav built into the infotainment when all you need is good integration with the nav on your phone? Plus, the nav on your phone will typically be more up to date, particularly as cars age and phone networks get sundowned over time like we saw with 3G a couple years ago. Fiat is already doing this with the new base spec Grande Panda. Drivers also tend to get annoyed with these features as they currently stand. I regularly have customers ask if features can be programmed out.
I did a 5 or 6 hour round trip in a new Versa last year and found the settings for the adaptive cruise control aggravating. It would slow me down to a vehicle in my lane’s speed way, WAY before it should. I don’t tailgate, but this was excessive even for me with my habit of giving others plenty of space.
On the way back in the dark I turned off cruise control as I found myself less vigilant than normal. If I’m watching my speed, I’m also better at keeping an eye out for suicidal deer, it seems.
Thinking about the “comfort” feature of car technology being more dangerous. It’s true by default.
As someone who has driven many cars built in each decade over the past 70 years, the more comfort features the more it makes it easier to drive MORE and in LONGER STRETCHES. You can just tolerate it more. That would therefore incur more danger.
For example: (I’ve driven examples of all these with and without)
– No radio/stereo
– Unbearable seats
– No air conditioning
– No power steering/power brakes
– No auto transmission
– No cruise control
– No adaptive cruise control
– No navigation Etc.
Do I love these features? YES.
Do they make it more comfortable for me to zone out and drive BIG miles, or when I’m not 100%? YES.
Because of that I can TOLERATE more big drives and less focus. Therefore, it is more inherently likely that I could get into an accident with them.
If we all drove uncomfortable cars, we’d be way SAFER, but what’s the fun of that?
Hehe
We’ve had like four free months of FSD for the Model Y in the last year and I can wholeheartedly tell you that system is dumb as hell. Trusting your life on that tech is just Darwinism at its finest. I’m glad I wasn’t fooled into paying for it, and I have almost all safety nannies turned off on that car as it is. It lulls you into a false sense of security and then when you SHOULD be paying attention, you aren’t.
Toyota LKA in my new Prius is overly aggressive compared to past incarnations. Fortunately, it can be turned off.
I had the LKA on a GR Corolla try to push me towards the cyclist I was specifically trying to give extra space. And that’s when I immediately turned it off, never to be used again.
This study is from the series “experts say water is wet”. My personal peeve is how anecdotally now everyone seems to be looking at their phone while their vehicle is moving, and not I’m even including people filming themselves in the back seat at 65mph. I really want back the world before 2006.
Back then people were distracted by vanity mirrors for morning touchups and skin mags in the driver’s seat for morning … touchdowns.
Not much difference other than the fact you can now see the results (of the filming) on Youtube?
These are great as secondary systems, but you need to stay vigilant. These things can be turned off accidentally. Too many people rely solely on this tech and makes them poor drivers. It also leads drivers to be more distracted and also over confident.
These systems have saved me a couple of times, I should have been more attentive, but fortunate to have them
Last year, wife’s uncle bought his recently licensed daughter some new egg- shaped Korean car. You know, the one you see everyone driving that’s the modern generic version of “car”. His wife was so happy that it came with all of these nanny aides to keep her safe. Hard to argue that. On their way out of my driveway after sharing a dinner, dad stood behind the new egg- shaped car and helped the daughter back down next to my stone retaining wall. When asked why he was doing that, he said she hadn’t figured out how to use the corresponding system. My suggestion? Turn around to look out the back or look at the mirrors, maybe. People are relying on these systems in lieu of simply learning how to drive.
Okay okay I had to create an account just because of this comment section.
What the fuck am I reading?
I just read multiple, separate comments about Lane Keep Assist “not working” because it “just drifts from lane to lane.”
Ostensibly, these commenters turned it on and…let it drive????
That’s not what it’s for! YOU (I.e., the driver) keep your car in the center of your lane. IF you are distracted, fatigued, etc., and IF you drift out of your lane, Lane Keep Assist will nudge you back. You don’t use it to do your normal straight driving for you.
A study shows LKA is associated with a 19.1 percent reduction in crashes, but oh, oh, oh—let me disprove that with an anecdote about completely misunderstanding the system and driving recklessly.
This is some Tesla FSD ass behavior.
My spouse backed into a parked car leaving the house one day. The reason? “It never beeped at me!” Yeah, we depend on this technology way too much.
Yikes. That’s embarrassing.
One of the first things I did when buying my current car (my first with backwards-facing radar) was to try out what it can and can’t detect. Found out it can’t detect wire fences while still on the dealer lot (no fences were harmed). So yeah, been wary of the tech literally from day one so I never forget to double-check.
They *should* teach kids that kind of thing in drivers’ ed these days. Find out what your e-nannies can and cannot do.
Something I find funny about my GX is that it will beep incessantly to remind me to put on a seat belt, and stay in lane, but beeps very softly when front collision seems eminent or not beep at all for blind spot monitoring.
Like, I have full control over the first two things – I don’t need the beepers blaring at me.
But the other two? I have no control over what a person is doing in my blind spot, or what the person in front of me is doing. In both instances, a normal or louder beep would be appreciated.
A beep every time a car was in my blindspots would quickly drive me insane.
Oh course it shouldn’t beep every time a car is there. Only if you had your blinker on. Pretty common implementation – how even my last Jeep handled it.
I never ever use cruise control for this reason.