[ad_1]
Subscribe for daily news updates from CleanTechnica via email. Or follow us on Google News!
I have faced resistance for endorsing the security of enhanced vehicle assist systems (EVAS) for quite some time. The simplest way to articulate this standpoint is to prevent accidents or avoid actions that could lead to accidents for oneself or others. But is there any factual support for this safety assertion?
According to the National Safety Council, citing data from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety’s Highway Loss Data Institute, here are some astonishing figures related to the use of EVAS.
Forward Collision Alert with Automated Braking
- 50% decrease in front-to-rear collisions.
- 56% reduction in front-to-rear collisions causing injuries
- 14% fewer claims for damage to other vehicles
- 24% fewer claims for injuries to individuals in other vehicles
- 41% less large truck front-to-rear collisions
Automated Emergency Braking with Pedestrian Detection
- 27% fewer pedestrian accidents
- 30% decrease in pedestrian injury accidents
Lane Drift Alert
- 11% reduction in single-vehicle sideswipe and head-on collisions
- 21% decrease in injury accidents of the same nature
Blind Spot Detection
- 14% fewer lane-change collisions
- 23% decrease in lane-change collisions causing injuries
- 7% fewer claims for damage to other vehicles
- 8% reduction in claims for injuries to individuals in other vehicles
Rear Automated Braking
- 78% less rearward collisions (when paired with rearview camera and parking sensors)
- 29% fewer claims for damage to other vehicles
- 9% decrease in claims for damage to insured vehicle
I must say, those statistics excite me! The advancement of all EVAS systems is set to continue. Many manufacturers now include some EVAS features as standard and others as add-ons. So, why isn’t everyone thrilled about these figures? Firstly, many concerns arise from personal experiences. Most car makers encounter some technical issues in their EVAS, leading consumers to doubt certain features and at times the entire system, branding it as insecure and subsequently causing them to disengage from using the systems. Meanwhile, the elephant in the room is Tesla and its commitment to a self-driving system marketed as FSD (Full Self Driving).
Innovative vehicle assist systems + autonomous features
Although Tesla has not yet achieved beyond a level 2 autonomous system, it continues to introduce enhancements on its journey towards a promised self-driving system. Some features are common in all EVAS, while others are more sophisticated. Many argue that Tesla’s approach will not lead to self-driving because every enhanced driving assistance feature must operate flawlessly or 99.99(?) percent of the time.
Tesla keeps incorporating advanced driving tools that occasionally falter. Some jump to the conclusion that it’s unsafe. So, how do we reconcile the safety statistics presented by the NSC? Indeed, Tesla’s and other systems fall short of achieving total self-driving while maintaining a level of safety. I have been using Tesla’s FSD system for a considerable time. Despite Musk’s repeated claims about upcoming versions being revolutionary or an autonomous fleet being mere months away, Tesla still categorizes its system as a level 2 EVAS.
Two significant aspects stand out in all versions before Tesla’s Version 12, launched in Q1 of 2024. Firstly, all previous coded versions were abandoned as a self-driving solution in favor of a neural network approach. One striking statistic about early versions was that, as unstable as they were, they did not lead to a rise in accidents. This is the remarkable part, as an early adopter, I anticipated utter chaos once it was unleashed to the public. To my surprise, there were minimal accidents. I did not see the NCS specifically highlighting any particular manufacturer in its data set. My takeaway is an appreciation for human testing, defensive driving habits, and a comprehensive set of enhanced driver-assist tools.
My approach to evaluating EVAS
From the outset, I meticulously tested every new version sent by Tesla FSD beta. Some initial versions were so horrendous that my testing routine often comprised a single journey before I eagerly awaited the next release. Version 12 is where the real excitement began. While it’s far from self-driving perfection, it’s an absolute delight to test and an outstanding EVAS.
Is there another potential for a collision? Additionally, could it have led to a crash for me or others?
Throughout testing phases, testers have encountered failures as well as remarkable maneuvers. Let me share a thrilling example observed with version 12.36. I came across a unique scenario while exiting from a heavily congested interstate onto a four-lane road with heavy traffic. There were about eight individuals on the roadside dealing with a medical emergency. Adjacent to the exit ramp, three vehicles were parked in the right lane of the road. The first two cars had their doors open, presumably for someone to exit. The third vehicle, a truck, was positioned behind the first two cars, partially obstructing the right turn lane by at least fifty percent, necessitating a challenging maneuver to make the turn. When the traffic light changed to green, the vehicle in front executed a flawless maneuver to the left to avoid the parked truck and then smoothly turned onto the only available lane. Version 12.36 Full Self-Driving (FSD) system accomplished the same maneuver effortlessly. However, the vehicle behind me hesitated, potentially leading to an accident. According to the Journal of Transportation, ten percent of accidents stem from rubbernecking. In this instance, multiple individuals contributed to maneuvers that could have resulted in an accident.
While investigating the number of accidents caused by onlookers, I stumbled upon data indicating that two million accidents resulted from the failure to use turn signals. This fact is highlighted to emphasize human arrogance in disregarding our role in traffic incidents. It also underscores the benefits of Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS).
Here’s another thought. Should we consider prohibiting the use of texting devices when they lead to accidents? The National Safety Council reveals that 1.6 million accidents occur annually due to texting while driving. Although comparing exact risk ratios can be challenging, the underlying message is clear.
Some advocate for banning any system that results in a single fatality.
Others advocate for changing names like Full Self-Driving due to alleged misleading advertising. Some even call for the removal of terms like Autopilot. Interestingly, modern cruise control, known by various names such as speedostat or tempomat, was first developed in 1948 by Ralph Teetor, a blind inventor and mechanical engineer. The 1958 Chrysler Imperial was the first car to feature Teetor’s “speedostat” system, referred to as “auto-pilot,” using a speed control dial on the dashboard.
Engage in vigorous debate
As of the latest update, Tesla’s FSD has not achieved true self-driving capabilities, and Tesla does not claim otherwise. The product continues to be rolled out for testing, raising ongoing safety concerns for many. Some individuals express frustration over the product’s name and the perceived failure to deliver full self-driving capabilities, leading them to believe it is, or will be, less safe. Conversely, I remain enthusiastic about any technological advancements that enhance road safety. According to the NSC, ADAS has consistently proven to contribute to increased safety, and Tesla’s inclusion of self-driving beta features has not compromised overall safety thus far.
Rear-end collisions rank among the most terrifying and fatal accidents. While no ADAS system has completely mastered this issue, the NSC reports a fifty percent reduction in accidents for vehicles equipped with automatic braking systems. Some remain unimpressed by this statistic until perfection is reached, arguing that inconsistencies make the vehicle less safe. Nonetheless, the NSC report contradicts this notion. Thanks to ADAS, our journey on the roads has become safer. Any grievances should be directed to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Highway Loss Data Institute.
By Mark Hovis. Mark Hovis, a retired engineer, who divested his engineering firm, Metrology Engineering Applications Solutions in 2002, becoming passionate about renewable energy. His journey began with simple passive solar collectors, leading to the installation of solar thermal water systems, a complete home solar array, and a geothermal heat pump, among other initiatives. Mark manages a dozen single-home properties, providing 14-50 240V plugs at no cost. Three units now feature 3 kW solar arrays to offset energy consumption and raise awareness. Living in a semi-rural environment, he aims to transition society to clean energy through advocacy and practical initiatives.
[ad_2]
