Do Driver Aids Make Us Worse Drivers?

Edward Niedermeyer
by Edward Niedermeyer
We’re committed to finding, researching, and recommending the best products. We earn commissions from purchases you make using links in our articles. Learn more here

Former TVR owner Peter Wheeler used to explain the lack of airbags in his firm’s high-powered sportscars by arguing drivers would be safer if he installed a metal spike in the middle of each steering wheel. That was back in the late 1990s and early 2000s… since then, the rise of adaptive cruise control, “attention assist” systems, collision-sensing brake pre-loading and more have only made his critique all the more provocative. And, according to research cited in a Wired Magazine report, Wheeler’s philosophy seems to have a strong basis in science.

“The point the automakers are making, which is true, is that they go to extreme lengths to make these systems work and extremely reliable,” [Stanford University’s Clifford] Nass said. “The reliability on these systems is very high. If you have automatic cruise control, it’s not extremely often you have to jump into the fray.”

Therein lies the problem. We come to count on our cars to keep us out of trouble, even in situations where the technology isn’t designed to.

“Road hazards other than the car in front of you are so rare, especially on the highway where these adaptive cruise control systems would be in play, that they would, over time, encourage a complacency that undermines safety,” said Erik Blaser, a psychology professor at the University of Massachusetts, Boston, who studies vision and perception. “You stop paying attention to the driving.”

Though these “semiautonomous” systems are sold as safety equipment, researchers argue that they create a sense of reliance that actually makes drivers less safe (unlike “secret” safety systems like stability control and ABS, which operate consistently without the driver’s knowledge). And, somewhat counterintuitively, these researchers argue that the rise of semiautonomous driver aids actually increases the need for life-long driver eduation.

The report notes:

“The functionality of the technology is very good at this point, but how do you teach people how to use it appropriately?” MIT AgeLab and New England University Transportation Center researcher Bryan]Reimer said. “Reading the owner’s manual is not going to provide the information that you need.”

Instead, he suggests ongoing, lifetime driver training and an end to the American tradition of driver’s education only for new drivers. Auto dealerships should spend more time working with customers to fully explain the limits of automotive safety technology before letting them drive home. Looking further ahead of the curve, cars could one day actively detect drivers’ states — whether they’re tired or distracted, for instance — and allow the use of semiautonomous safety technologies when appropriate.

The limitations of active safety systems must be second nature to drivers, said Nass. Drivers must know what the technology can and can’t do so they don’t rely upon it in situations where it won’t work.

“It’s always a problem with partially autonomous systems,” he said. “You’ll always have the issue of remembering what it does and what it doesn’t do, and in real time we don’t want people pondering that.”

Edward Niedermeyer
Edward Niedermeyer

More by Edward Niedermeyer

Join the conversation
2 of 119 comments
  • SimonAlberta SimonAlberta on Jul 29, 2011

    I see I have posted too much already in this thread but one final comment if I seems clear to me that skill and knowledge must play SOME part in staying safe so training simply CANNOT be totally useless....BUT....I think it is absolutely clear that it is driver ATTITUDE that is the biggest key in safety. If we all drove within our own capabilities (we ALL over-estimate our abilities) and within road and traffic conditions then MOST crashes (they are NOT accidents) could be avoided. Sadly, many, many people don't do so, thus we continue to have carnage on the roads.

  • Brandloyalty Brandloyalty on Jul 29, 2011

    Locking the brakes also works better than ABS on most gravel road conditions. That's why some "rugged" vehicles come with hill descent features, and/or an ABS setting for gravel. Keeping your foot in it will overcome the Traction Control's use of ABS and throttle backoff in a couple of seconds. They're engineered this way to avoid brake damage, for one thing. The consequence is wheelspin, wanted or not. The delay before deactivation can be a nuisance, though. Of course, many vehicles have a deactivation switch of some sort. An experiment this winter proved that our suv could climb a steep hill in deep, heavy damp untracked snow best in 4-high/AWD mode, rather than 4-high/locked or 4-low/locked. TC and SC are active in 4-high/AWD. It couldn't make it up the hill in locked mode, coming to a halt with spinning tires and then sliding sidways. In normal driving mode (4-high/AWD), it seemed to think about it and clawed its way up. I was very surprised, but couldn't argue with how clear the difference was. Some suggested SC activation is proof of incompetence. It could activate as you try to escape an emergency caused by someone else.

  • Carsofchaos The bike lanes aren't even close to carrying "more than the car lanes replaced". You clearly don't drive in Midtown Manhattan on a daily like I do.
  • Carsofchaos The problem with congestion, dear friends, is not the cars per se. I drive into the city daily and the problem is this:Your average street in the area used to be 4 lanes. Now it is a bus lane, a bike lane (now you're down to two lanes), then you have delivery trucks double parking, along with the Uber and Lyft drivers also double parking. So your 4 lane avenue is now a 1.5 lane avenue. Do you now see the problem? Congestion pricing will fix none of these things....what it WILL do is fund persion plans.
  • FreedMike Many F150s I encounter are autonomously driven...and by that I mean they're driving themselves because the dips**ts at the wheel are paying attention to everything else but the road.
  • Tassos A "small car", TIM????????????This is the GLE. Have you even ever SEEN the huge thing at a dealer's??? NOT even the GLC,and Merc has TWO classes even SMALLER than the C (The A and the B, you guessed it? You must be a GENIUS!).THe E is a "MIDSIZED" crossover, NOT A SMALL ONE BY ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION, oh CLUELESS one.I AM SICK AND TIRED OF THE NONSENSE you post here every god damned day.And I BET you will never even CORRECT your NONSENSE, much less APOLOGIZE for your cluelessness and unprofessionalism.
  • Stuki Moi "How do you take a small crossover and make it better?Slap the AMG badge on it and give it the AMG treatment."No, you don't.In fact, that is specifically what you do NOT do.Huge, frail wheels, and postage stamp sidewalls, do nothing but make overly tall cuvs tramline and judder. And render them even less useful across the few surfaces where they could conceivably have an advantage over more properly dimensioned cars. And: Small cuvs have pitiful enough fuel range as it is, even with more sensible engines.Instead, to make a small CUV better, you 1)make it a lower slung wagon. And only then give it the AMG treatment. AMG'ing, makes sense for the E class. And these days with larger cars, even the C class. For the S class, it never made sense, aside from the sheer aural visceralness of the last NA V8. The E-class is the center of AMG. Even the C-class, rarely touches the M3.Or 2) You give it the Raptor/Baja treatment. Massive, hypersophisticated suspension travel allowing landing meaningful jumps. As well as driving up and down wide enough stairs if desired. That's a kind of driving for which a taller stance, and IFS/IRS, makes sense.Attempting to turn a CUV into some sort of a laptime wonder, makes about as much sense as putting an America's Cup rig atop a ten deck cruiseship.