An Initial Review of the Instructional and Operational Variability Among Automated Systems in Passenger Vehicles

Abstract

As automotive manufacturers are increasing the amount of technology and automation available in vehicles, drivers must increase their understanding of how to properly use these technologies before the full safety benefits can be realized. Unfortunately, recent work has suggested that even drivers with the most advanced vehicles often have little understanding of the available technology (McDonald et al., 2017). Yet, this poor understanding of advanced driver assistance systems cannot entirely be blamed on the driver; other factors, such as the availability and quality of instructional sources are also at play (e.g., Abraham et al., 2017). Facilitating access to safety-critical information and standardizing instructional and operational components are two potential routes to increase drivers’ knowledge. However, target areas must be identified. The current study reviewed the degree to which automated systems in passenger vehicles and related information varied among those moderately-priced and luxury models marketed and sold in the United States. Information regarding ten existing longitudinal (e.g., adaptive cruise control) and ten lateral control automated systems (i.e., those that provide sustained lateral control and lane centering) were gathered from OEM websites and operator manuals. Information was coded and synthesized, including the name of the system, the stated functionality, operation, and system constraints as well as the source of the information. Results of this exercise suggest a number of target areas for researchers, OEMs and policy makers to consider in attempts to increase accessibility, knowledge, and ultimately safe usage of these technologies. First, a high degree of variability was observed even among basic characteristics of these technologies such as the system name. This was particularly an issue among luxury automated longitudinal control systems where every system had a fairly different name. While the activation methods were largely consistent across both lateral and longitudinal systems, the deactivation methods varied a great deal both in the allowance of alternative methods and the type of method (if allowed). Moreover, all the systems provided some form of visual feedback to the driver, but this feedback still varied greatly, particularly among lateral systems, in the location of the feedback and the modality that supplemental feedback was presented. System limits for both automated lateral and longitudinal systems were also elucidated. The majority of OEMs reported five types of system limits: curves, stopped vehicles, weather, small obstacles (e.g., pedestrians, bicyclists), and hills. Similar to the lateral control systems, two OEMs also reported difficulty handling an occupied adjacent lane. These limits were elucidated primarily through the operator manual for each respective model. While some information concerning these limits was available on the website, generally information gathered at this location was restricted. This limited accessibility to information is likely leading to individuals not getting this information, resulting in the poor understanding of these systems observed among owners and even dealers of this technology (Abraham et al., 2017; McDonald et al., 2017). When these individuals do take the time to read the operator manual and do get this information, the variability across systems likely limits their understanding and building of a mental model that supports safe usage over time as they encounter other similar systems.