Kelly Funkhouser, Consumer Reports (CR) Vehicle Technology associate director, lays out how the nonprofit views and tests advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) in a recent article by The Brake Report magazine. 

“We are fully supportive of the rulemaking that is going to require AEB [automatic emergency braking] in all new cars by September 1, 2029,” Funkhouser says in the article. “We know they have a proven safety record. Vehicles with AEB have a 50% reduction in rear-end crashes on the road, according to data from the IIHS [Insurance Institute for Highway Safety], as compared to vehicles that don’t have it. 

There is still room for improvement, though. These systems are still somewhat immature. They’ve only been around for a couple of decades compared to a lot of other automotive technologies. But that doesn’t mean they’re still not good overall.” 

Funkhouser notes the technology is “saving lives, reducing crashes, and reducing injuries.” 

The National Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA) new Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard, FMVSS 127, will require AEB and pedestrian AEB to come standard by September 2029 on all passenger cars and light trucks weighing up to 10,000 pounds. The standard will require AEB to engage at up to 90 mph when a collision with a lead vehicle is imminent, and up to 45 mph when a pedestrian is detected.

The Alliance for Automotive Innovation (Auto Innovators) asked NHTSA to reconsider portions of its new AEB mandate via a letter to Congress. 

In its June 24 letter, Auto Innovators President and CEO John Bozzella said the speed requirements are “practically impossible with available technology” and would result in more rear-end collisions. The rule would also cost OEMs $200-$4,200 in hardware plus software changes that won’t improve driver or pedestrian safety and will increase the cost of vehicles for consumers, according to the petition to NHTSA.

“NHTSA’s own data shows only one tested vehicle met the stopping distance requirements in the final rule,” Bozzella wrote. “Instead, we recommended NHTSA adopt a standard already in place in Europe that detects a potential forward collision, provides a driver warning, and automatically engages the braking system to avoid a collision — or mitigate its severity — through the use of existing crashworthiness systems designed to better protect road users.”

NHTSA believes its rule will significantly reduce rear-end and pedestrian crashes, saving at least 360 lives and preventing at least 24,000 injuries every year. NHTSA also says AEB and pedestrian AEB will significantly reduce crash-related property damage and associated costs.

Funkhouser says the CR staff understands the need to balance performance against cost.

“There is a trade-off with having more sensors and cost,” she told The Brake Report. “There is a cost which comes into play when you have more sensors.” 

Yet, Funkhouser said she believes any system is positive for safety. 

“I think — even with a small number of sensors, even without a variety of sensors [the concept of sensor fusion], even if it’s just a camera or radar — just having the capability of detecting a vehicle, pedestrian, et cetera and then having the vehicle intervene in some way is better than nothing,” Funkhouser said, in the article.  

Funkhouser said CR has seen “excellent” results from camera-based and radar/lidar-based systems. She said Subaru and Tesla, which use camera-based systems, have performed well in testing.

However, the article notes that testing results could be skewed by the conditions CR tests in, which include sunlight and an attempt to keep vehicles in their lanes. It says adverse weather could provide different results in real-world situations. 

“We’re not trying to trick the systems that way, in terms of the different types of sensors, we haven’t seen significant differences, although we know there are possibly some technical limitations between camera and radar sensors,” Funkhouser says in the article. 

Funkhouser said the speeds of testing will be increased in the future. Tests have previously been completed at 12 and 25 miles per hour. 

Pedestrian safety could benefit significantly from AEB, Funkhouser said. She said pedestrian crashes are typically lower-speed situations. This allows the systems more time to react. 

“There are some tricky scenarios, the ones that we call the ‘reveal scenario,’” Funkhouser says in the article. “So maybe you’re driving along and there’s a bunch of parked cars off to the side of the road and the pedestrian may come out from between those cars. It’s not a crosswalk, you’re not expecting, you aren’t seeing and your car probably isn’t seeing it either.” 

Options like infrared or thermal imaging could possibly see more than a human eye would, she added. 

IMAGES

Photo courtesy of gremlin/iStock