This week, a US Department of Transportation report detailed the crashes that superior driver-assistance methods have been concerned in over the previous yr or so. Tesla’s superior options, together with Autopilot and Full Self-Driving, accounted for 70 p.c of the almost 400 incidents—many greater than beforehand recognized. But the report could elevate extra questions on this security tech than it solutions, researchers say, due to blind spots within the information.
The report examined methods that promise to take a number of the tedious or harmful bits out of driving by robotically altering lanes, staying inside lane strains, braking earlier than collisions, slowing down earlier than huge curves within the highway, and, in some instances, working on highways with out driver intervention. The methods embody Autopilot, Ford’s BlueCruise, General Motors’ Super Cruise, and Nissan’s ProPilot Assist. While it does present that these methods aren’t excellent, there’s nonetheless a lot to study how a brand new breed of security options truly work on the highway.
That’s largely as a result of automakers have wildly other ways of submitting their crash information to the federal authorities. Some, like Tesla, BMW, and GM, can pull detailed information from their vehicles wirelessly after a crash has occurred. That permits them to shortly adjust to the federal government’s 24-hour reporting requirement. But others, like Toyota and Honda, don’t have these capabilities. Chris Martin, a spokesperson for American Honda, mentioned in a press release that the carmaker’s stories to the DOT are based mostly on “unverified customer statements” about whether or not their superior driver-assistance methods have been on when the crash occurred. The carmaker can later pull “black box” information from its automobiles, however solely with buyer permission or at regulation enforcement request, and solely with specialised wired tools.
Of the 426 crash stories detailed within the authorities report’s information, simply 60 p.c got here by way of vehicles’ telematics methods. The different 40 p.c have been by way of buyer stories and claims—typically trickled up by way of diffuse dealership networks—media stories, and regulation enforcement. As a outcome, the report doesn’t enable anybody to make “apples-to-apples” comparisons between security options, says Bryan Reimer, who research automation and car security at MIT’s AgeLab.
Even the info the federal government does accumulate isn’t positioned in full context. The authorities, for instance, doesn’t know the way typically a automotive utilizing a complicated help function crashes per miles it drives. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which launched the report, warned that some incidents might seem greater than as soon as within the information set. And automakers with excessive market share and good reporting methods in place—particularly Tesla—are possible overrepresented in crash stories just because they’ve extra vehicles on the highway.
It’s necessary that the NHTSA report doesn’t disincentivize automakers from offering extra complete information, says Jennifer Homendy, chair of the federal watchdog National Transportation Safety Board. “The last thing we want is to penalize manufacturers that collect robust safety data,” she mentioned in a press release. “What we do want is data that tells us what safety improvements need to be made.”
Without that transparency, it may be laborious for drivers to make sense of, examine, and even use the options that include their automotive—and for regulators to maintain monitor of who’s doing what. “As we gather more data, NHTSA will be able to better identify any emerging risks or trends and learn more about how these technologies are performing in the real world,” Steven Cliff, the company’s administrator, mentioned in a press release.
