Smart and Sustainable Electric Mobility
Filed under: Government/Legal,Green,Safety,Electric
Continue reading UK study: Hybrids and EVs are much more likely to hit a pedestrian
UK study: Hybrids and EVs are much more likely to hit a pedestrian originally appeared on Autoblog on Thu, 23 May 2024 13:13:00 EDT. Please see our terms for use of feeds.
Permalink | Email this | Comments
Common driver-assist technologies like adaptive cruise control and lane-keep assist are meant to keep vehicle occupants safe, but a new study finds that they also make distracted driving more likely — especially with drivers who are more familiar with the technology.
The AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety reports that drivers who use both safety technologies were more likely to be distracted — by their mobile phones, adjusting the car stereo or other controls, or simply taking their eyes off the road — when they were accustomed to the advanced driver-assistance systems than those who were using them for the first time. The study authors say the disparity could reflect “a lack of trust in the automated systems.”
The Virginia Tech Transportation Institute combed through data from two previous studies. In one, researchers observed 30 people driving their own personal vehicles for the equivalent of one year's worth of data. In the other, they gave 120 participants a study vehicle and observed each of them driving for a month. All the vehicles featured adaptive cruise control and lane-keeping assistance systems. They were also equipped with video cameras and sensors to collect data about the driver and other information.
Drivers in the former group with their own cars were 50% more likely to engage in secondary tasks and 80% more likely to engage in visual or manual distractions when using the semi-autonomous systems, researchers found. They also took more frequent and longer glances at non-driving-related tasks and kept their eyes on the road less.
Participants in the other group were less likely to be distracted while adaptive cruise control and lane-keep assist systems were engaged than they were during manual driving. But these drivers, who received leased vehicles and some training on how to use the systems, were slightly more likely to speed when both systems were active than the drivers who used their own vehicles.
The researchers theorize that people may become over-reliant on automation features the more familiar they become with them. They also note that the group of drivers who operated their own vehicles did not receive the same training on the safety systems, despite ostensibly receiving some information about them before or after purchasing their vehicles.
The study adds new wrinkles to what we know about distracted driving, which accounted for 3,166 fatalities in 2017, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and the emergence of semi-automated driving systems. Earlier this year, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety issued a study in which it found that, while usage of phones while behind the wheel dropped, more people were using them for texting or other messaging while driving.
A new IIHS study found that a scary amount of people are confused about the driver assistance systems found in cars today. Furthermore, the study found that folks were especially confused about Tesla's Autopilot.
One portion of the study involved the IIHS surveying participants about certain unsafe behaviors behind the wheel, given only the name of the driver assistance system. People weren't given the name of the brand for this section, and were instead told to answer the questions about Autopilot (Tesla), Traffic Jam Assist (Audi and Acura), Super Cruise (Cadillac), Driving Assistant Plus (BMW) and ProPilot Assist (Nissan). The results show that folks misunderstand Tesla's Autopilot far worse than any other driver assistance system on the market. A chart of the results is pasted below.
A huge 48 percent of respondents thought it OK to take your hands off the wheel while using Autopilot. Additionally, 6 percent thought it safe to take a nap with Autopilot active. This level of distracted driving is something we've seen time and time again on public roads. Interestingly, only 27 percent of people surveyed think it's alright to take your hands off the wheel using Cadillac's Super Cruise, and that's a hands-free system.
We should be concerned about the numbers for the other driver assistance systems, too. Drivers are confused about the capabilities of current systems, and what a manufacturer calls it appears to be contributing to the confusion.
The IIHS study went further to learn about how people are interpreting instrument cluster data as it pertains to these systems. This portion of the study used a 2017 Mercedes-Benz E-Class. It found a couple different bits of information eluded most of the study's participants. Most people "struggled to understand what was happening when the system didn't detect a vehicle ahead because it was initially beyond the range of detection." Also, many were unable to identify when lane centering was inactive. The IIHS suggested that audible alerts and more obvious visual signals could help improve the understanding of these systems.
Results from another IIHS study were also released today, and this one has to do with where people are using these systems. This study monitored people driving a Range Rover Evoque and Volvo S90 to see where and how often they use adaptive cruise control or the Level 2 Pilot Assist system in the Volvo. These systems are meant to be used on the highway, and are often detailed as such in a vehicle's owner's manual. The study found only a small percentage of driving off the highway was done using these systems, just 7 percent for the Evoque and 11 percent for the S90. Those numbers both rose considerably in highway use, with the Evoque's systems being used 40 percent of the time and the S90's for 28 percent of the time. You can check out the study here for more details if you're interested.
Over in Europe and in Canada, some automakers offer fancy LED headlights that can selectively dim sections of the light to prevent glare while maintaining long-distance illumination elsewhere. And according to testing by AAA, these lights don't just sound good on paper, they offer greater illumination and potential for reduced glare over U.S.-spec lights.
In testing, the organization found that the adaptive lights provided 12.5 percent more high-beam illumination than the U.S. versions. In low-beam mode, U.S. lights were better by just 1.9 percent. But the big advantage is running high-beams even with nearby cars, and AAA says that comparing U.S. low beams with the adaptive headlights running in normal high-beam mode, the adaptive lights can illuminate 86 percent more area ahead of the car. Perceived glare from all lights were in the low range, and when going over hills, the adaptive lights usually caused less glare than U.S.-spec lights, though occasionally the adaptive lights were slow to adjust over hills.
So why don't we have these lights available? The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) code doesn't allow for low-beams and high-beams to be active simultaneously, which is required for adaptive lights to work. In addition, the government uses static tests for lights with brightness limits for low- and high-beams. Because adaptive lights only dim select areas, the overall brightness will be too high.
Considering the benefits of adaptive lights, it's no surprise that AAA feels that the government needs to change the regulations to allow them. AAA isn't the only group pushing for European-style lighting standards, either, as Toyota, VW and BMW petitioned the government for revisions, and NHTSA is developing regulations that allow the lights. AAA supports NHTSA's move to permit adaptive headlights. It also has its own suggested changes such as more dynamic testing, including road tests. Additionally, AAA proposes upping the high-beam output limit from 150,000 candela to the European 430,000 candela, provided that the lights can start adjusting at the 400-meter mark Europe tests the lights at rather than the U.S. 220-meter mark. The organization notes that the higher light power is a contributing factor to the European lights' better illumination.
