Sign up for our weekly email to stay on top of the latest news and insights!
Recent research by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) and the Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI) reveals that partial automation systems offer minimal evidence of crash prevention. Data from crash records and insurance claims indicate that these systems do not provide significant safety benefits compared to traditional crash avoidance features like Automatic Emergency Braking (AEB).
Key Highlights:
- IIHS President David Harkey compares partial automation to convenience features rather than safety technologies.
- Studies of BMW and Nissan vehicles show no additional safety benefits from partial automation beyond crash avoidance features.
- Despite their growing presence, partial automation systems can create a false sense of security for drivers.
- Crash avoidance features like AEB and blind spot warnings show consistent reductions in insurance claims.
- Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC) and lane centering, components of partial automation, are associated with positive driving behaviors but lack substantial evidence in crash prevention.
- HLDI data indicates minor changes in claim rates for vehicles equipped with partial automation systems.
- IIHS and HLDI research highlight the need for clear differentiation between convenience features and safety technologies in the automotive industry.
Research involving BMW and Nissan vehicles revealed that while crash avoidance features like AEB led to reductions in insurance claims, partial automation systems did not provide significant additional benefits. For instance, forward collision warning and AEB reduced collision claim rates by 7% and property damage liability by 13% for BMWs and Minis, but Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC) and partial automation systems showed no additional significant reductions.
Moreover, studies suggest that partial automation systems might induce driver complacency, leading to reduced attentiveness and increased risk. Jessica Cicchino, senior vice president for research at IIHS, found that while partial automation systems, like Nissan’s ProPILOT Assist, showed some reduction in crash rates, the benefits were not consistent across different road conditions. This inconsistency suggests that factors other than the automation systems, such as better headlights, might be contributing to the observed benefits.
The IIHS and HLDI emphasize that partial automation systems should not be mistaken for comprehensive safety features. Current data suggests that while these systems can aid in driving convenience, they do not significantly enhance vehicle safety. David Harkey underscores the necessity for safeguards to prevent driver distraction and ensure road safety, advocating for a clear distinction between convenience and safety technologies in the automotive sector.
Jessica Cicchino concludes, “With no clear evidence that partial automation is preventing crashes, users and regulators alike should not confuse it for a safety feature. At a minimum, safeguards like those IIHS promotes through its rating program are essential to reduce the risks that drivers will zone out or engage in other distracting activities while partial automation is switched on.”
In light of these findings, it is crucial for both consumers and regulators to recognize the limitations of partial automation systems and focus on proven safety features to enhance road safety.
Subscribe Today!
Sign up for our weekly eNewsletter and get a free copy of our quarterly digital magazine.
