IIHS recently conducted a study that assessed the safety of Tesla Autopilot and Full Self-Driving alongside the nine other automated driving technologies that the major automakers provided. All were extremely rated "poor" for safety. The results, on Tuesday, content the claims by Tesla and its CEO Nick Musk and its features, whose safety functions are stronger than theirs.
The IIHS reported that assisted-driving systems including Tesla's Autopilot system did not exhibit any evident crash data reduction or other safety advantages. Tesla claims that vehicles that had autopilot turned on were far much safer than before, with the study pointing out the poor capability of these technologies in averting crashes.
James Harkey, President of IIHS, believes that the US-based investigation has shown that rear-end collisions and pedestrians vulnerability have reduced but there is a lack of facts to support the same claims when it comes to hands-free driving systems.
The ADAS system example study also shows that there are problems with the governmental regulation ensuring ADAS. While other safety features comply with the formal standards, ADAS, on the contrary, hides behind its absence of consistency with specific federal regulations, so the manufacturers may apply different safety standards to their cars.
From the overall test assessment of integrated vehicular systems conducted by IIHS, only the Lexus Teammate Advanced Drive was marked as acceptable. Lexus who is the maker of Toyota was demonstrated as focusing its efforts on the success of vehicle testing stages and a willingness noted in its participation in outside body programs.
Nevertheless, there is also the case of other companies, for example, GM and Nissan who were rated moderately regarding their semi-autonomous driving systems. GM released the latest versions of its Super Cruise and Nissan Garmin’s ProPILOT with Navi-link, offered in some electric vehicles, but failed to follow IIHS-established safety regulations.
To reply automakers argue that the improvements in safety features and suggesting measures to improve drivers' assistance systems are their plans. For instance, BMW cited the example of the implementation of a more complicated driver assistance system for some of the models, while Genesis, in its turn, announced its plans of integrating the in-cabin cameras for drivers’ attention level monitoring.
The IIHS study thus emphasizes the necessity of strong safety evaluation for auto electron systems and the vital compliance of necessary regulatory framework to achieve uniformity and effectiveness across the automotive industry. While the study proves to be up-to-date, it might also demand our continued monitoring, and ever progression of the safety standards as technology gets advancement and improves.