Team-BHP > Road Safety
Register New Topics New Posts Top Thanked Team-BHP FAQ


Reply
  Search this Thread
2,300 views
Old 21st January 2022, 08:21   #1
Senior - BHPian
 
ron178's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: India
Posts: 1,359
Thanked: 6,796 Times
IIHS to issue safeguard ratings for partially automated driving systems

The USA's Insurance Institute for Highway Safety will start issuing safeguard ratings for partially automated driving systems, that is, ratings that credit systems which promote a minimum level of driver engagement.

The ratings will be based on driver steering and eye monitoring, alert systems, and precautionary controlled abortion of the automation system if driver disengagement is detected.

IIHS Press Release

Explanatory video:


Quote:
Originally Posted by IIHS

IIHS creates safeguard ratings for partial automation



January 20, 2022

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety is developing a new ratings program that evaluates the safeguards that vehicles with partial automation employ to help drivers stay focused on the road.
The safeguards will be rated good, acceptable, marginal or poor. To earn a good rating, systems will need to ensure that the driver’s eyes are directed at the road and their hands are either on the wheel or ready to grab it at all times. Escalating alerts and appropriate emergency procedures when the driver does not meet those conditions will also be required.

IIHS expects to issue the first set of ratings in 2022. The precise timing is uncertain because ongoing supply chain woes in the auto industry have made it more difficult to obtain vehicles for testing.

“Partial automation systems may make long drives seem like less of a burden, but there is no evidence that they make driving safer,” says IIHS President David Harkey. “In fact, the opposite may be the case if systems lack adequate safeguards.”

The need for driver monitoring and attention reminders has become apparent to many safety advocates. Consumer Reports has announced it will begin awarding points for partially automated driving systems, but only if they have adequate driver monitoring systems, and will factor in IIHS safeguard ratings once they are available.

Despite misleading messaging from some manufacturers, for now, at least, self-driving cars are not available to consumers. What many vehicles on the market do have is partial automation. The human driver must still handle many routine driving tasks that the systems aren’t designed to do. The driver also has to monitor how well the automation is performing its tasks and always be ready to take over if anything goes wrong. While most partial automation systems have some safeguards in place to help ensure drivers are focused and ready, none of them meets all the pending IIHS criteria.

Today’s partial automation systems — which are marketed under various names, such as Autopilot, Pilot Assist and Super Cruise — use cameras, radar or other sensors to “see” the road. The ones currently on the market combine adaptive cruise control (ACC) and lane centering with various other driver assistance features. ACC maintains a driver-selected speed but will automatically slow to keep a set following distance from a slower moving vehicle ahead and then accelerate when the way is clear. Lane centering continuously adjusts the steering to help the driver keep the vehicle centered in the travel lane. Automated lane changing is also becoming more common.

So far, even the most advanced systems require active supervision by the driver. However, some manufacturers have oversold the capabilities of their systems, prompting drivers to treat the systems as if they can drive the car on their own. In egregious cases, drivers have been documented watching videos or playing games on their cellphones or even taking naps while speeding down the expressway.

One of the most heavily publicized fatal crashes to result involved a Tesla Model X in Mountain View, California, in 2018. The National Transportation Safety Board found that the driver was most likely distracted by a cellphone video game when the vehicle’s “Autopilot” system accelerated into a highway crash attenuator.

Deliberate misuse is not the only issue, says IIHS Research Scientist Alexandra Mueller, who is spearheading the new ratings program.

“The way many of these systems operate gives people the impression that they’re capable of doing more than they really are,” Mueller says. “But even when drivers understand the limitations of partial automation, their minds can still wander. As humans, it’s harder for us to remain vigilant when we’re watching and waiting for a problem to occur than it is when we’re doing all the driving ourselves.”

No technology can determine whether someone’s mind is focused on driving. However, technology can monitor a person’s gaze, head posture or hand position to ensure they are consistent with someone who is actively engaged in driving.

The new IIHS ratings aim to encourage safeguards that can help reduce intentional and unintentional misuse. They do not address other functional aspects of the systems that could also potentially contribute to crashes, such as how well their cameras or radar sensors identify obstacles.

To earn a good rating, systems should use multiple types of alerts to quickly remind the driver to look at the road and return their hands to the wheel when they’ve looked elsewhere or left the steering unattended for too long. Evidence shows that the more types of alerts a driver receives, the more likely they will notice them and respond. These alerts must begin and escalate quickly. Alerts might include chimes, vibrations, pulsing the brakes or tugging on the driver’s seat belt. The important thing is that the alerts are delivered through more channels and with greater urgency as time passes.

If the driver fails to respond, the system should slow the vehicle to a crawl or stop, as well as notify a manufacturer concierge who can call emergency services if necessary. Once this escalation occurs, the driver should be locked out of the system for the remainder of the drive, until the engine is switched off and started again.

The criteria also include certain requirements for automated lane changes, ACC and lane centering. All automated lane changes should be initiated or confirmed by the driver, for instance. When traffic ahead causes ACC to bring the vehicle to a complete stop, it should not automatically resume if the driver is not looking at the road or the vehicle has been stopped for too long. And the lane centering feature should encourage the driver to share in the steering rather than switching off automatically whenever the driver adjusts the wheel, which effectively discourages them from participating in the driving.

Systems should also be designed to prevent drivers from using partial automation features when their seat belt is unfastened or when automatic emergency braking or lane departure prevention is disabled.

“Nobody knows when we’ll have true self-driving cars, if ever. As automakers add partial automation to more and more vehicles, it’s imperative that they include effective safeguards that help drivers keep their heads in the game,” says Harkey.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IIHS
Requirements for a good partial automation safeguard rating
  • Monitors both the driver’s gaze and hand position
  • Uses multiple types of rapidly escalating alerts to get driver’s attention
  • Fail-safe procedure slows vehicle, notifies manufacturer and keeps automation off limits for remainder of drive
  • Automated lane changes must be initiated or confirmed by the driver
  • Adaptive cruise control does not automatically resume after a lengthy stop or if the driver is not looking at the road
  • Lane centering does not discourage steering by driver
  • Automation features cannot be used with seat belt unfastened
  • Automation features cannot be used with automatic emergency braking or lane departure prevention/warning disabled

Last edited by ron178 : 21st January 2022 at 08:25.
ron178 is offline   (2) Thanks
Old 31st March 2022, 09:37   #2
Senior - BHPian
 
ron178's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: India
Posts: 1,359
Thanked: 6,796 Times
Re: IIHS to issue safeguard ratings for partially automated driving systems

IIHS publishes first ever seatbelt reminder ratings, requires signal to be more annoying than regulations: Press Release

Quote:
Among the 26 vehicles tested, only two Subaru models, the Ascent and Forester, earn a good rating.

Five others, the Hyundai Palisade, Hyundai Tucson, Nissan Murano, Nissan Pathfinder and Nissan Rogue, earn acceptable ratings.

Seven more are rated marginal: the Jeep Compass, Jeep Renegade, Jeep Wrangler, Mazda CX-5, Mazda CX-9, Toyota RAV4 and Toyota Highlander.

Twelve others receive a poor rating: the Audi Q3, Buick Encore, Chevrolet Equinox, Chevrolet Traverse, Ford Escape, Ford Explorer, Honda CR-V, Honda HR-V, Honda Pilot, Mitsubishi Eclipse Cross, Volkswagen Atlas and Volvo XC40.

All 26 SUVs meet the IIHS standard for the pitch, or audio frequency, of the audible alert, but various other issues bring down scores.
Quote:
Some simple software adjustments could probably lift all of the marginal and some of the poor performers to an acceptable rating.

“Most of these problems don’t require new hardware,” O’Malley says. “Even among the vehicles that earn poor ratings, it’s possible that simply lengthening the duration of the audible alert could do the trick.”
P. S. For the person who was asking why the Swift's seatbelt reminders were considered absent in its Global NCAP results though it has reminders that meet government standards, here's another example.

Last edited by ron178 : 31st March 2022 at 09:42.
ron178 is offline  
Old 12th March 2024, 18:50   #3
Senior - BHPian
 
ron178's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: India
Posts: 1,359
Thanked: 6,796 Times
Re: IIHS to issue safeguard ratings for partially automated driving systems

The first IIHS highway ADAS safeguard ratings are out.
Tesla and Genesis have come out bottom, Lexus has managed the second-highest 'Acceptable'.

IIHS press release - First partial driving automation safeguard ratings show industry has work to do

Quote:
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety is introducing a new ratings program to encourage automakers to incorporate more robust safeguards into their partial driving automation systems. Out of the first 14 systems tested, only one earns an acceptable rating. Two are rated marginal, and 11 are rated poor.

“We evaluated partial automation systems from BMW, Ford, General Motors, Genesis, Lexus, Mercedes-Benz, Nissan, Tesla and Volvo,” IIHS President David Harkey said. “Most of them don’t include adequate measures to prevent misuse and keep drivers from losing focus on what’s happening on the road.”
Quote:
“Some drivers may feel that partial automation makes long drives easier, but there is little evidence it makes driving safer,” Harkey said. “As many high-profile crashes have illustrated, it can introduce new risks when systems lack the appropriate safeguards.”

Vehicles with partial automation are not self-driving — though automakers sometimes use names that imply their systems are. The human driver must still handle many routine driving tasks, monitor how well the automation is performing and remain ready to take over if anything goes wrong. While most partial automation systems have some safeguards in place to help ensure drivers are focused and ready, these initial tests show that they’re not robust enough.

“The shortcomings vary from system to system,” said IIHS Senior Research Scientist Alexandra Mueller, who led the development of the new program. “Many vehicles don’t adequately monitor whether the driver is looking at the road or prepared to take control. Many lack attention reminders that come soon enough and are forceful enough to rouse a driver whose mind is wandering. Many can be used despite occupants being unbelted or when other vital safety features are switched off.”
ron178 is offline   (1) Thanks
Reply

Most Viewed


Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Team-BHP.com
Proudly powered by E2E Networks