New technology can seem like a miracle. The first descriptions and demonstrations surprise us with what seem to be ready solutions to problems formerly thought to be intractable. However, the real world has a way of deflating those early expectations once new technologies make it into production. The danger is that initial and usually unrealistic enthusiasm can blind us to the true value of radically new technologies simply because they can never live up to miracle expectations. Advanced safety systems are a good example.
Development of powerful electronic controls and sensors have brought us a range of new safety systems intended to reduce, if not eliminate, heavy-duty truck collisions. Generically known as collision avoidance systems (CAS), these range from intelligent cruise and simple alerts if a driver is closing too quickly on a slower moving vehicle all the way to automatic emergency braking (AEB) that can identify even stationary objects and apply full braking force without any driver action. Blind spot warning devices and more advanced active lane keeping systems also fall into the CAS category.
Initial reaction to pre-production demonstrations of the various CAS fell into two camps. Fleet executives and their safety managers saw an amazing solution to rear-end and lane-changing collisions. Drivers at best saw one more nagging unnecessary intrusion into their cabs and at worst feared losing control of their trucks to automation they didn’t trust.
In either case, the response was emotional, based on early versions of a rapidly developing area of advanced technology and the enthusiasm of those working to evolve that technology to real-world safety systems. And once the first production versions became available, both sides quickly found anecdotal evidence to support their initial responses pro or con.
What we lacked was broad real- world data to show exactly how valuable CAS might be in everyday use and normal fleet operations.
Well, now we have that evidence thanks to the first major objective field study of heavy truck CAS. Conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the year-long research project followed 169 drivers and 150 Class 8 tractors from seven fleets as they covered over 3 million miles. The tractors were equipped with either Meritor or Bendix CAS systems and specifically designed data collection devices. At the end of the study, over 110,000 hours of “naturalistic driving data” had been recorded from some 6,000 instances when onboard CAS was triggered. In other words, it replaced anecdotal stories with statistically meaningful findings.
I urge you to search out the entire NHTSA report, which is entitled “Field Study of Heavy-Vehicle Avoidance Systems: Final Report,” for the full details, but in short the data showed that CAS works. There wasn’t a single collision associated with those 6,000 incidents. Fears that drivers would somehow change behaviors and rely on the systems to save their bacon proved unfounded. And false alerts or interventions were low.
Now even NHTSA admits that its study wasn’t perfect. Fleet sizes and operations varied widely, and drivers weren’t asked for their input. Also, the two systems tested represented 2013 technology, which has been significantly improved over the last three years.
Even with these shortcomings, though, the report’s conclusion is that CAS shows potential for significant safety benefits for commercial vehicles. And that’s not speculation or new-tech hype. It’s expectation based on evidence.
