Only one of the 14 driving automation systems tested by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) has achieved an acceptable rating. Tesla‘s autopilot and full self-driving technology were among those rated “poor” by the institute in a new study.
What Happened: After its tests, IIHS rated one of the driving automation systems as acceptable, two as marginal, and 11 as poor. The institute stated that most of these systems lack measures aimed at preventing misuse and retaining drivers’ attention.
The only driving automation system to receive an acceptable rating from the safety research arm of the insurance industry was the Teammate system on the Lexus LS hybrid sedan, surpassing offerings from BMW, Ford, General Motors, Genesis, Mercedes-Benz, Nissan, Tesla, and Volvo. These scores were awarded following multiple trials.
While the Super Cruise system on a GMC Sierra and the ProPILOT Assist with Navi-link system on a Nissan Ariya received marginal ratings from the institute, alternative systems available on the same vehicles were rated poor, the institute said.
Others rated poorly include systems on Ford Mustang Mach-E, Genesis G90, Mercedes-Benz C-Class sedan, Tesla Model 3, and Volvo S90. Both autopilot and full self-driving systems on a Tesla Model 3 were rated poor by the study.
IIHS clarified that the ratings applied only to select vehicles tested with these systems. The performance might differ in other vehicles even if the name of the driving automation system remains the same.
"Some drivers may feel that partial automation makes long drives easier, but there is little evidence it makes driving safer," IIHS President David Harkey said. Additionally, none of these systems make the vehicle completely autonomous, despite their suggestive names, such as Tesla’s full self-driving software, the study noted.
Tesla critic and GLJ Research CEO Gordon Johnson took to X to question the naming choice of Tesla’s driving automation software after the study’s publication. “Hey Elon Musk?… how can your self-named ‘Full Self Driving’ software, which is still level 2 ADAS, thus not full-self-driving, be 10x safer than a human if IIHS ranks it as poor, vs. GM Super Cruise’s marginal ranking, & Lexus’ Advanced Drive acceptable rank? Is IIHS wrong?” Johnson asked the Tesla CEO.
However, the institute clarified that the software tested on the Model 3 was from prior to the update issued in December to fix autosteer issues.
Why The Poor Ratings? “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," said IIHS Senior Research Scientist Alexandra Mueller.
Although most systems were rated poorly by the study, automakers are rapidly issuing improvements via software updates, which could lead to improvements in the future, the study noted.
Additionally, all the tested systems performed well in separate categories of assessment, indicating that fixes are possible and might only require a software update to meet safety requirements.
Check out more of Benzinga's Future Of Mobility coverage by following this link.
Photo via Shutterstock
© 2024 Benzinga.com. Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved.
Comments
Trade confidently with insights and alerts from analyst ratings, free reports and breaking news that affects the stocks you care about.
