General GM says that research and development efforts will lead to a world with zero crashes. Next generation technologies to make roads safer for drivers and pedestrians are being developed by automakers.
With American roadway deaths now over 40,000 per year, these promises sound like salvation.
If the human behind the wheel makes a mistake, advanced driver-assistance systems can be used to intervene. Automatic emergency braking, lane keep assist, and adaptive cruise control are some of the features. With billions of dollars invested, automakers, federal regulators, and safety advocates alike are bullish about ADAS's potential to achieve " collision-free mobility"
New features are not the panacea that their boosters suggest.
New features are not the panacea that their boosters suggest. Safety enhancements like lane keep assist may not be much more than conveniences. The technologies that could save the most lives aren't reliable. It is likely to have only a small impact on traffic deaths.
Carmakers and policymakers alike are focused on overhyped innovations as the United States faces a crisis of traffic deaths. Poor street designs and ill- conceived cars have made crashes more numerous and severe. If we expect car tech to bail us out, we will make our road safety crisis worse.
The idea of using computer power to handle aspects of driving traditionally managed by a human will be familiar to anyone who has used cruise control.
The last two decades have seen the development of many features that integrate technology into the act of driving, thanks to powerful sensors and cameras in new vehicles. Automatic emergency braking and pedestrian detection are only intended to be used to prevent a collision. Lane keep assist and adaptive cruise control can help ease the burden of driving by ensuring that the vehicle keeps pace with surrounding traffic and stays within its allotted road space, according to the research firm.
If the driver is ready to take control, the system can fully operate the car on a highway. These systems aren't smart enough to manage a car on their own.
These systems can't manage a vehicle on their own.
Carmakers use driver monitoring systems to keep an eye on the tilt of a person's face or their grip on the steering wheel. Driver monitoring systems will issue a warning if the driver wanders off the road.
ADAS is sometimes referred to as "partial automation," a term meant to signify that the systems do not enable a car to become autonomously.
There isn't much evidence to support Musk's claim that his system could save half a million lives. It is too soon to draw many conclusions from the data collected by the US Department of transportation.
The head of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety is not impressed with what he has seen so far. He said there was no evidence that partial automation systems made driving safer. It's possible that the opposite may be the case if the systems lack adequate safeguards.
ADAS has the potential to reduce crashes. Mark Rosekind, then the head of the NHTSA, extolled "technologies that promise a revolution in safety 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609- 888-609-" In a letter to Pete Buttigieg, the president of Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety said that the universal adoption of these technologies would save tens of thousands of lives.
It's a work in progress.
ADAS is still a work in progress. The average system turned itself off every eight minutes, noting instances of trouble with the systems keeping the vehicles in their lane and coming too close to other vehicles. When 75 percent of pedestrians are struck at night, the feature to detect pedestrians is useless. In dark, wet, or foggy conditions, the European Transport Safety Council noted ADAS's weaknesses. The important driver monitoring systems can be cheated and do not work as well as they should.
Billions of dollars being invested in its development, along with insights gleaned from reams of data collected from cars on the road, will likely improve ADAS performance. Even if the technology works as intended, it may not have much of an effect on the US roadway death toll.
There is a need for a human to take over a vehicle. What happens if road skills are not used enough and the driver wanders? A study of truck drivers found that automated driving technology led to slower reaction times, and a report from the US Department of transportation inspector general raised concerns that automation could be degrading the skills of commercial pilots.
Those focused on ADAS's technical capabilities are more likely to overlook its potential to encourage riskier driving. State seat belt laws were examined in an economics article written in 1975. The mandated use of seat belts caused drivers to take more risks behind the wheel, leading to injuries and deaths that would have been avoided if the belts themselves had been used. He argued that the new feature was a waste of time.
Drivers will become less careful when applied to ADAS.
The Peltzman effect explains why safety technologies in fields like healthcare and sports cause people to engage in riskier behaviors. The Peltzman effect predicts that drivers will become less careful because they will trust the technology to protect them. ADAS is not a fail-safe due to physics. Mercedes claims that its system can prevent pedestrian accidents at up to 30mph and reduce the severity of crashes at up to 45mph, but it doesn't make any promises above those thresholds. According to a recent study, automatic emergency braking systems prevented 85 percent of test crashes at 30 mph but only 30 percent at 40 mph.
The use of adaptive cruise control increased the share of drivers who broke the speed limit by 18 percent, and San Jose State researchers concluded that ADAS-equipped cars were more likely to crash into pedestrians. The findings are in line with the predicted shift towards unsafe driving by those outside the vehicle. According to a recent IIHS study, more than half of Cadillac Super Cruise users seem to think ADAS is better than it really is.
There is a reason why these innovations could cause more deaths on the road. On its website, the company acknowledges that ADAS is not just about safety, but also about providing convenience. Features like adaptive cruise control and lane change assistance are meant to make driving more pleasant rather than to reduce crashes.
When an activity becomes more pleasurable, how do people respond? More of it is done by them.
When an activity becomes more pleasurable, how do people respond? More of it is done by them.
The comforts of software-assisted driving will compel car owners to take more trips and travel further, which may contribute to the excitement of the technology. One study has found that people who use autopilot drive more miles than people who don't. There are more chances to crash for every mile driven.
ADAS's effect on road deaths becomes murky when these countervailing forces are considered. The systems may prevent certain crashes that would have otherwise happened while at the same time leading to a degradation of driver skills, riskier behavior, and a surge in total miles driven.
The effect on roadway deaths can be debated, but those expecting a virtual elimination of crashes are likely to be disappointed.
The good news is that if public officials are serious about reducing road deaths, there are plenty of compelling approaches, such as designing streets for slower speeds, building dedicated bike lanes and sidewalks, and ramping up transit service, that have nothing to do with technology. Being inside a motor vehicle is riskier than riding in a bus or train. Keeping reckless drivers off the road would be a step in the right direction.
Regulators and R&D teams could focus on other ways to reduce road deaths instead of putting so many eggs in the ADAS basket. There are some 11,000 deaths in the United States every year and speeding is a factor. Congress and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration have shown no sign of following Europe in requiring intelligent speed assist in passenger vehicles. Only Volvo has installed the feature.
The design decisions of automakers have worsened America's road safety crisis. Car companies are trying to duplicate the experience of a phone by replacing dashboard knobs with touch screens. It is inherently dangerous for drivers to look away from the road when a large object is hurtling down a road at 50mph because of the lack of tactile feedback. NHTSA hasn't done anything beyond issuing voluntary guidance about the maximum amount of time it should take to complete a task on an insturment system, despite research showing a growing number of crashes.
It is possible for automakers to confront ways in which their design decisions have made America's road safety crisis worse.
The American car market has become dominated by SUVs and trucks, which now represent over 80% of sales. A taller, heavier vehicle is more likely to cause injury or death in a crash. The New Car Assessment Program, or NCAP, has been put into place in Europe, Japan, and Australia to address the risk of pedestrian crashes. The US has not.
The update to the American version of NCAP was announced earlier this year. The agency only evaluated the pedestrian detection technology. The agency credits itself with a novel approach to tying technological change to reducing driver behaviors that contribute to crashes. There was no mention of the dangers of SUVs and trucks.
NHTSA's focus on ADAS instead of SUV and truck bloat likely came as a relief to automakers who make fat profits from the sales of expensive vehicles. Rather than discuss how their past choices have contributed to America's burgeoning roadway death toll, they would prefer to paint a utopian picture of universally safe driving.
The NBC affiliate in the Washington, DC, region produced a segment about SUV "blind zones" that can make a child invisible to the driver. The Alliance for automotive innovation tried to shift the focus away from dangerous SUV design and towards the promise of innovation New technologies that can save lives are being developed by automakers as vehicles continue to get safer.
That answer is a response to something else.
Lucas Peilert is a researcher.
All Rights Reserved © 2024
