Slashdot Mirror
Most Drivers Don't Understand Limitations of Car Safety Systems, AAA Finds (usatoday.com)
A new study by AAA found that most drivers don't understand the limitations of advanced safety technology installed on their new vehicles. "The study indicates that drivers overestimate the capabilities of features such as blind-spot monitoring systems, automatic emergency braking and adaptive cruise control," reports USA Today. "The findings raise questions about whether Americans are ready to adapt to partially self-driving vehicles, which typically require drivers to remain alert and ready to take over the steering wheel if the car can't handle the conditions it encounters." Here are the problem spots flagged by AAA:
- Blind-spot monitoring: Nearly 80 percent of drivers don't understand the limitations or thought that the system had greater capability to detect fast-approaching vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians. Relying too much on blind-spot monitoring, about 25 percent don't look for oncoming vehicles when they change lanes.
- Forward-collision warning and automatic emergency braking: Many drivers confuse the two. One is a warning system, while the other takes action. More than 40 percent of drivers don't know these limitations.
- Adaptive cruise control: About 29 percent of drivers who use this system, which accelerates and brakes on its own, are sometimes comfortable "engaging in other activities" while the system is activated, according to the study. The researchers did note that these safety features can prevent about 40 percent of crashes and 30 percent of crash deaths.
- Forward-collision warning and automatic emergency braking: Many drivers confuse the two. One is a warning system, while the other takes action. More than 40 percent of drivers don't know these limitations.
- Adaptive cruise control: About 29 percent of drivers who use this system, which accelerates and brakes on its own, are sometimes comfortable "engaging in other activities" while the system is activated, according to the study. The researchers did note that these safety features can prevent about 40 percent of crashes and 30 percent of crash deaths.
Try taking a train in the US. It's seriously fucked up.
The assistive technologies increase the average response times of the drivers according to German research. The response time can be as long 6 to 8 seconds, with 90% drivers taking 12 to 15 seconds to check mirrors and become fully aware of the traffic. The out of sync brains need to re-synchronize with the speed of traffic, probably. Maybe an automatically administered UN-forbidden stimulant with some repeating electric shocks could help? Everything for safety is the word on the street, after all.
Disclaimer: Opinions follow
1. Technology is magic - Joe consumer doesn't seem to understand just how far apart technologies are. "Hey Alexa order more toilet paper" is just as magical to them as self driving cars.
2. The tech industry - to hear them tell it we've entered the AI age, machine learning, buzzword buzzword buzzword. But most of what is being called AI is really just really clever data analysis
3. The media - the media makes my previous points worse by playing up the buzzwords and "technology is magic" ideas
4. Personal responsibility - Joe consumer overestimates the capabilities of technology and places too much trust in them on the assumption the manufacturer is looking out for the consumers best interest. See also: Skepticism
5. Skepticism - Joe consumer doesn't think skeptically. Most of these systems are considered to be assistive. Look at the words used "warning" "avoidance" "alert" even "assist". These words are used to shift responsibility from the manufacturer to the owner/operator. And the owner's manual... The owners manual is mostly a place for disclaimers and more warnings. See also: Personal Responsibility
6. RTFM - this is the combination of my previous thoughts. It is your responsibility to understand the capabilities and limitations of the technology and the stakes. It is perhaps less problematic to not understand how Siri and your iPhone work than it is to understand how the assistive systems on a massive, high speed projectile guided by distracted and minimially trained humans work.
I both work in this industry and own a vehicle made by someone we don't compete with.
People think it's like a Movie or TV show they watched.
Where is the repository to submit an issue? As someone that deals with CANape and ADAS systems all day long, where can I get the .a2l file for my car? Without me cracking it open to see, what embedded chipset(s) are you using? What ADAS level are these? What ASIL level is your entire stack? Can I see a basic block diagram (Simulink) of the system?
If anyone at Subaru is reading. The 2019 Outback with EyeSight adaptive cruise control doesn't detect a stopped vehicle as a 'vehicle' ahead of it.
Also, stop treating the 'keep your lane' feature like a bang bang controller. Estimate a dead center path and keep it centered on that. You'd also probably subconsciously train the drivers to keep it in the middle of the road instead of bouncing from side to side.
Most of these complaints would probably be addressed by giving product demos. At some point I'm going to string up a tarp and see exactly how braking acts. I've pushed it to my "Holy shit stop" limit already.
Also, the icons are confusing as shit. I know some UX team spent years on those, give me a better way to know you see the car in front of me than some blinking light. Half the people on the road would drive with an oil light on, and do.
They also need to standardize on some name. Every company has a cutesy marketing term for what their product does.
Some of these numbers seem about like what I've observed of drivers who probably don't have these technologies. Within the past week I've had at least 4 drivers I can remember, including a bus driver and a truck driver, switch lanes while I was beside them. I doubt I drove more than about 80 miles total during that time - all in city traffic. I don't think the vehicles I remember were new enough to have blind spot monitoring or that I was really in a blind spot. Also, I drive about the same speed as the other traffic, so I was not approaching fast or anything that could have caused the issue. None of them looked.
Also, I've seen people going down the interstate reading newspapers, reading books, shaving, etc. most of my life. They were likely using plain old-fashioned non-adaptive cruise control. I don't know that 29% feeling comfortable doing other things while using their adaptive cruise control is a significant increase over regular cruise control without seeing the control group data.
AAA is all about changing people's behaviors. Even if these technologies show no increase in problems, they would still publish this story because they see a potential for improvement if people change. And they would always leave out the control group because they want to shock people.
In general, if a technology requires driver education to be effective, forget it in this country. The only question that matters is whether the statistics indicate there is a reduction in accidents with the technology. If there is, use the technology. The fact that some get killed who might not have without it is irrelevant. Only the average matters when looking for societal progress.