Sitting behind the wheel these days can feel more like being in an aircraft cockpit, such is the proliferation of warning systems, head-up displays and automated controls. Vehicle makers are increasingly fitting such systems in a bid to reduce accidents by improving driver awareness of other vehicles and pedestrians, and keeping their eyes on the road.
However, while the aim of adding sensors and ever more powerful on-board computers may be to improve road safety, critics fear that each new warning or information system provides an additional distraction for drivers whose attention to the road is already dangerously compromised by gadgets such as cellphones and satnav systems.
鈥淧eople are often distracted enough just grooming themselves at the wheel,鈥� Steven Shladover of the Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California, Berkeley, told a conference on intelligent vehicles in London this month.
Advertisement
Many also fear that increasing automation could give drivers a false sense of security, further reducing the attention they pay to the road. 鈥淭here鈥檚 certainly a lot of excitement about all the new systems that are coming out, but you have to remember that the same nut is still at the wheel,鈥� says Tim Gordon of the Transportation Research Institute at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor.
The worry starts with the increasing number of alarms that drivers must interpret and respond to. Many cars already boast parking and lane-changing aids that bleep to warn of potential collisions, and even pedestrian detectors that use twin cameras to scan the road in case anyone steps out. However, such detectors are easily confused by roadside clutter and often produce false alarms, adding needlessly to the pressure on the driver, says Hiroyuki Kobari of the Japan Automobile Research Institute in Tsukuba.
Despite this, manufacturers continue to develop and add new warning systems, and audible alarms are just the beginning. Visual warning displays on the dashboard are also competing for the driver鈥檚 attention. Japanese vehicle electronics firm Aisin Seiki, based in Kariya, has developed a system that shows drivers what is happening in the blind spot created by the car鈥檚 rear window pillars, to alert them if a car suddenly pulls out to overtake.
The system uses a rear-facing wide-angle camera to film vehicles as they approach. Software then calculates the vehicle鈥檚 speed and trajectory based on its position in each frame, and constructs a real-time image that it displays on a screen similar to those used by satellite navigation systems. But like other warning systems, it can be prone to false alarms. 鈥淭he system is slightly confused by shadows and rain,鈥� admits the company鈥檚 Tokihiko Atika.
Even systems designed to keep the driver鈥檚 gaze on the road rather than the dashboard could add to the problem. Head-up displays, in which information such as the vehicle鈥檚 speed is projected onto the windscreen, are already available on some cars. And a number of research groups around the world are investigating what other information might be displayed in this way. Yoshinari Kameda and Akihito Sato at the University of Tsukuba in Japan are developing a system that uses GPS to work out the distance to major towns and cities, as well as nearby services such as gas stations, and displays this in colourful virtual signposts on the windscreen.
The pair hope to extend this to include a head-up system they have developed called a virtual slope, which is designed to reduce accidents at intersections. It superimposes on the windscreen a virtual image of the road ahead, rising up at an angle from the real road to reveal oncoming vehicles that would otherwise be hidden (see Graphic). This bird鈥檚-eye view is captured by roadside cameras and transmitted wirelessly to the car. In this way a driver turning left at an intersection, for example, can see motorbikes or cars that might be missed lurking behind the vehicle immediately opposite them.
All the same, the researchers admit that car makers must take care to ensure windscreens do not become cluttered with information that simply makes life more difficult for drivers when trying to negotiate a tricky road layout or manoeuvre. 鈥淲e need to evaluate it, especially the colour and brightness of the images, as some people may find it annoying,鈥� says Sato. 鈥淒istraction is still a big problem.鈥�
Part of the problem with new warning systems is the piecemeal way they are being added to vehicles, with little or no compatibility between devices developed by different companies and universities. 鈥淎ll these new systems add up to an increasing flow of information to the driver,鈥� says Sebastian Enders of German vehicle electronics firm Robert Bosch. Enders believes the answer to this confusion lies in consolidating different audio and visual warnings that refer to the same thing into a single alarm, to reduce the number of alerts a driver has to cope with. For instance, if a car is straying out of its lane and is about to hit an adjacent car, there is no point in both the lane departure alarm and the collision warning going off together.
To investigate this idea, the Bosch team programmed a car simulator to judge when simultaneous alarms can be replaced by a single warning that requires the same driver response. Results so far have been positive: in a test with 36 drivers making multiple simulated journeys, there were 53 collisions when conventional clashing warning systems were used, but only 42 with combined warnings. Drivers also reported that the simplified warnings made the drive less stressful.
Enders is not the only one who thinks in-car warnings could use a makeover. Delphine Cody at University of California, Berkeley, thinks such systems should alert drivers to potential problems before they become critical 鈥� for example when the car first starts to stray to the right or left, rather than when it is about to leave its lane. This would allow drivers to respond more smoothly, and without becoming so stressed. The systems should also give more constructive advice on taking evasive action, Cody says. 鈥淲arnings tend to mean 鈥榙on鈥檛 do this鈥�, or 鈥榙on鈥檛 do that鈥�, when they could be offering help. It shouldn鈥檛 all be negative feedback.鈥�
鈥淲arnings tend to say 鈥榙on鈥檛 do this鈥� or 鈥榙on鈥檛 do that鈥�, when they could be offering help鈥�
However, Shladover questions whether cars should be giving any feedback at all. Fully automatic cars might be a good thing, he says, because then the car would be in total control, but the intermediate steps on the road to full automation are fraught with risks as the roles of driver and computer compete to varying and often confusing degrees. Even self-parking systems require the driver to control the speed of parking 鈥� it鈥檚 not a completely automated process.
This could give drivers a false sense of security, and lead them to overestimate their car鈥檚 ability to step in and save them from harm, Shladover says. For example, some luxury cars such as the Audi Q7 and Lexus 460 are fitted with adaptive cruise control, in which radar keeps the car at a constant distance from the one in front, and lane-keeping technology that uses cameras to automatically adjust the car鈥檚 position if it starts to veer to one side. But if both technologies are used at the same time, the driver can have very little to do.
This sets a worrying precedent, says Shladover. 鈥淭he driver then does not know his responsibilities and places unwarranted trust in the car. He might even take his hands off the wheel and read a newspaper,鈥� he says. 鈥淭here are big risks in partial control.鈥�
