Cicchino Jessica B
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Arlington, Virginia.
Traffic Inj Prev. 2025;26(6):631-641. doi: 10.1080/15389588.2024.2448511. Epub 2025 Feb 21.
Although partial driving automation systems are usually discussed as convenience features, consumers sometimes consider them to be safety features. The goal of this study was to assess if partial driving automation reduces rear-end and lane departure crashes beyond safety systems like automatic emergency braking (AEB) and lane departure prevention (LDP).
Analyses examined crash rates of model year 2017-2019 Nissan Rogues and model year 2013-2017 BMW vehicles. Negative binomial regression was used to assess the association of Nissan's partial driving automation system, ProPILOT Assist, and BMW's system, Driving Assistant Plus, with police-reported rear-end and lane departure crash rates on the limited-access roads where they are designed to be used per vehicle mile traveled. Crash rates were also examined on roads with speed limits of ≤ 35 mph, where the systems were expected to have limited functionality and not be used much.
Equipment with BMW's Driving Assistant Plus was not associated with significantly lower crash rates than equipment with LDP alone. Rear-end crash rates were 26% lower on limited-access roads and 43% lower on roads with speed limits ≤ 35 mph for Nissan Rogues with ProPILOT Assist than for those with AEB alone. Similarly, lane departure crash rates were 25% lower for Nissan Rogues with ProPILOT Assist compared with those with LDP alone on limited-access roads, but were 31% lower on roads with speed limits ≤ 35 mph and 43% lower on limited-access roads in the dark. This brings into question if the lower crash rates associated with ProPILOT Assist can be attributed to use of the system, given that it would be activated infrequently on residential roads and that vehicles with it generally had better headlights than those unequipped.
There is no convincing evidence that partial driving automation is a safety system that is preventing crashes in the real world. Research incorporating system use will be key to understanding safety effects. Considering that drivers have been documented misusing these systems, designing partial driving automation with robust safeguards to deter misuse will be crucial to minimizing the possibility that the systems will inadvertently increase crash risk.
尽管部分驾驶自动化系统通常被视为便利功能，但消费者有时会将其视为安全功能。本研究的目的是评估部分驾驶自动化是否能减少追尾和车道偏离碰撞，其效果是否优于自动紧急制动（AEB）和车道偏离预防（LDP）等安全系统。
分析了2017 - 2019款日产奇骏以及2013 - 2017款宝马汽车的碰撞率。采用负二项回归来评估日产的部分驾驶自动化系统ProPILOT Assist和宝马的驾驶辅助增强版系统与警方报告的在其设计使用的高速公路上每行驶一英里的追尾和车道偏离碰撞率之间的关联。还在限速≤35英里/小时的道路上检查了碰撞率，预计这些系统在这类道路上功能有限且使用不多。
配备宝马驾驶辅助增强版系统的车辆，其碰撞率与仅配备车道偏离预防系统的车辆相比，没有显著降低。配备ProPILOT Assist的日产奇骏在高速公路上的追尾碰撞率比仅配备自动紧急制动系统的车辆低26%；在限速≤35英里/小时的道路上低43%。同样，配备ProPILOT Assist的日产奇骏在高速公路上的车道偏离碰撞率比仅配备车道偏离预防系统的车辆低25%；在限速≤35英里/小时的道路上低31%，在夜间高速公路上低43%。鉴于ProPILOT Assist在居民区道路上很少被激活，且配备该系统的车辆通常比未配备的车辆有更好的前照灯，这就引发了一个问题，即与ProPILOT Assist相关的较低碰撞率是否可归因于该系统的使用。
没有令人信服的证据表明部分驾驶自动化是一种能在现实世界中预防碰撞的安全系统。纳入系统使用情况的研究对于理解安全效果至关重要。鉴于已有记录表明驾驶员会滥用这些系统，设计带有强大防护措施以阻止滥用的部分驾驶自动化系统对于将系统无意中增加碰撞风险的可能性降至最低至关重要。
