ANCAP – It wasn’t us who stuffed up Lane Keep Assist (LKA) and Emergency Lane Keeping (ELK)

[whynot]

If one has driven a new(ish) car of late, one would have come across various Advanced Driver Assist Systems (ADAS).

ADAS fall into various categories.

The first category of ADAS contains those that randomly beep loudly at you whilst flashing a warning light on the dash. Designed to distract your eyes off the road whilst looking for the cause.

The second category of ADAS are those that randomly slam the brakes on. Designed to brake check the car behind whilst being able to give a lawful excuse in Court. “It wasn’t me your Honor, it was the car that braked checked.”

The third category of ADAS are those that decided that the centre (or edge) of the road is not actually where it is in reality … the centre (according to the electronics) is over there. Resulting in the electronics giving a massive tug on the steering wheel in some random direction.

These safety systems are being mandated by Australasian New Car Assessment Program (ANCAP) to achieve a five-star safety rating.

Well, a few days ago, the ANCAP Chief Executive Officer issued a statement acknowledging the issue, and directly laying the blame at the manufacturers. Further, ANCAP is funding – what best could be described as a walk of shame – research into vehicles that are providing an adverse driver experience.

“The pilot group of vehicle models we’ve assessed has been assembled from direct consumer feedback, where a specific list of models were identified as offering a fairly rudimentary response. Unfortunately the behaviour of these vehicles is having consumers question the benefits of these systems, and in some cases, turn them off.”

“What we don’t want to see is these systems being badged as ‘annoying’ and switched off,” Ms Hoorweg said.

“What we want to demonstrate are the differences in vehicle behaviour, and by sharing these results, encourage manufacturers to improve their systems. This will in turn improve the acceptance of these systems by their customers.”

Full statement from ANCAP is here

https://www.ancap.com.au/media-and-g...eleases/a62a71








Personally, I wonder if ANCAP has strayed out of their lane a little. Specifically, with how some ratings are not achievable if a driver assist system is not “default-on”. For example, ANCAP marked down the Ford Transit Custom because its driver monitoring system could be turned off and left off. One could argue that this is necessary to remind delivery drivers to look at the road and not their mobile phone. But the argument falls flat when the ADAS is beeping at the driver who is using their mirrors - like we were all had to do to pass our driving exam.

ANCAP is layering additional expense into every new car purchases. The minimum they can do is make sure the technology will be a genuine driver aid and not another distraction. Oh, and to give those of us who know how to drive the option to turn the ruddy thing off: permanently.

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by whynot

. Oh, and to give those of us who know how to drive the option to turn the ruddy thing off: permanently.

Old man in his i30N - the first thing he does every time he starts the car is turns off lane keep assist and AEB.

But it defaults to on - you can't default it to off.

So literally every time you start it, navigate to settings, turn them off then start driving.

If there's fuses for those systems I'm going to just pull them.

I think they use the camera in the windscreen, another less intrusive option might be putting a sticker over the camera lens on the windscreen.

I like ABS, TCS, SCS, parking sensors, cameras and blind spot monitoring but everything else can GAGF - don't jam on the brakes or try take the steering wheel off me.

The i30N shits me, if it thinks it can drive better than a human then why does it even have pedals and a steering wheel? If Hyundai is that confident its safety systems can drive it's cars better than its customers then take those away.

[simon varley]

these are calibrated by the engineers in ideal conditions in the lab, or on test tracks. While there is limited on-road checks performed before launch, I firmly believe it is wisest to treat these features as beta at best.

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by simon varley

these are calibrated by the engineers in ideal conditions in the lab, or on test tracks. While there is limited on-road checks performed before launch, I firmly believe it is wisest to treat these features as beta at best.

Yet no warning and defaulting to on every time you start the car, go figure

[prydey]

I know I'm the odd one or here but many of the complaints are ego driven. People who don't like being told what to do or to change. People who like to pretend they are in charge and to let a computer step in is an attack on their manhood (or womanhood?).

I read the type of language used in these articles and the harsh verbs used are very obvious that the writer is anti electronics to start with. These articles are never written by people who love tech.

I have a 21 Escape and a 19 Everest. The Everest doesn't have as much as the Escape but I find neither car intrusive to the point of distracting me from driving. The Escape has all the tech. It can basically self drive on good well marked roads.

No 'swerving' or 'tugging' or any of the other emotive words people like to use.

So it beeps to tell you things from time to time. Is that really such a big deal. I guess if you are one of the many people that don't take the time to familiarise yourself with your car before driving it, then you might it an issue but that falls more into user error to me.

Now obviously manufacturers all calibrate their systems differently and some are better than others. I've only driven ford.

[prydey]

What I also find slightly ironic is the people that buy these cars and then proceed to complain about how it drives. Did they not drive it before buying it??

[PG2]

Originally Posted by prydey

What I also find slightly ironic is the people that buy these cars and then proceed to complain about how it drives. Did they not drive it before buying it??

What happens is that most salespeople have a set way that they take their customers on a test drive. This route is designed to show off the positives of the motor vehicle and not the negatives.

Other salespeople who let the customer take the vehicle wherever they want will still set up the car so that these 'annoying' aids are turned off. You will find most of the time the salesperson will not tell the customer that they are turned off. So off the customer goes and does not find these aids intrusive while test driving.

Customers do not take much notice as they are excited by all of the other features that their current car does not have and the new car feel and smell.

I am not saying this works for every customer, and there will be plenty on AFF that will say that it would not work for them, however, as has been said many times, us car enthusiasts who are on car forums regularly are the minority.

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by prydey

What I also find slightly ironic is the people that buy these cars and then proceed to complain about how it drives. Did they not drive it before buying it??

You don't have a choice, they all have these systems pretty much.

[Citroënbender]

Great post PG2 - you’re gently damning us all.

[FTE217]

Originally Posted by Citroënbender

Great post PG2 - you’re gently damning us all.

well he's right right LOL but for prydey, sorry mate

[Itsme]

Originally Posted by prydey

I know I'm the odd one or here but many of the complaints are ego driven. People who don't like being told what to do or to change. People who like to pretend they are in charge and to let a computer step in is an attack on their manhood (or womanhood?).

I read the type of language used in these articles and the harsh verbs used are very obvious that the writer is anti electronics to start with. These articles are never written by people who love tech.

I have a 21 Escape and a 19 Everest. The Everest doesn't have as much as the Escape but I find neither car intrusive to the point of distracting me from driving. The Escape has all the tech. It can basically self drive on good well marked roads.

No 'swerving' or 'tugging' or any of the other emotive words people like to use.

So it beeps to tell you things from time to time. Is that really such a big deal. I guess if you are one of the many people that don't take the time to familiarise yourself with your car before driving it, then you might it an issue but that falls more into user error to me.

Now obviously manufacturers all calibrate their systems differently and some are better than others. I've only driven ford.

To be honest some of these safety devices should aid you, not control the vehicle, after all the person should be in control of the vehicle when driven, not by some computer device.
See how your vehicle handles around road work changes.
Don't get me wrong I embrace technology to a degree, don't like some of the features where driver is fighting for control of the vehicle.

[whynot]

Originally Posted by prydey

I read the type of language used in these articles and the harsh verbs used are very obvious that the writer is anti electronics to start with. These articles are never written by people who love tech.

Some extracts from various car testing articles. These complains are not limited to people who are anti-electronics. These are professional drivers who are evaluating vehicles for a living.

What is more annoying is that drivers have been complaining about poor implementation of these features for years (see the date on some of the articles below).

My Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV from 2014 would randomly slam on the brakes in peak hour traffic when there was no cars in front of it. (Eventually figured out there was a spot on Gympie Rd where the Outlander appears to be picking out the traffic lights sitting on a curve in the road).

I have had new Hyundai rental literally yank the steering wheel out of my hand on a poorly marked road for absolutely no reason. That car was an absolute nightmare to drive as it was always randomly tugging on the wheel, both left and right.

I have had a rental Toyota Corolla beep loudly, put a message on the dash and then orally warn me me for speed in a 60 zone, when in fact the car was on a 110 kph divided road.

And the list goes on and on.

Some extracts ..

-----------------------------
https://www.carsales.com.au/editoria...esting-142422/

But the quality of their calibration varies widely, from subtly supportive to egregiously intrusive. One of the worst examples tested by carsales was the GWM Tank 300, but there are numerous examples of intrusive and annoying systems in new vehicles, often at the more affordable end of the market.

They can react with violent steering inputs and sometimes to non-existent threats.

Some are so poorly executed ANCAP believes they can be counter-productive, instead encouraging the driver to switch them off, a process that in many cases has to be repeated each time the vehicle is started.

In addition, ANCAP is also understood to be encouraging car-makers to minimise the audible warnings some new vehicles now issue for a variety of alleged driving threats and transgressions. Like overly intrusive LSS, they are regarded as a distraction from safe driving.

https://www.whichcar.com.au/news/eur...ne-keep-assist

Euro NCAP ‘upset’ carmakers did the bare minimum with lane-keep assist

The secretary general of Euro NCAP – sister organisation to ANCAP – has said many lane-keep assist systems are not "properly evaluated in the real world"

“When we started to develop these tests [for lane-keep assist] our understanding was that vehicle manufacturers would not bring these systems in if they would upset their customers”, Euro NCAP secretary general Michiel van Ratingen told Wheels at an Australasian New Car Assessment Program (ANCAP) media event this week.

Yet with lane support systems – such as lane-departure warning, emergency lane-keep assist and lane-trace assist – now necessary for a five-star safety rating, Euro NCAP and ANCAP are updating their protocols to include real-world testing.

Van Ratingen was asked about a few recent five-star models – including the Chery Omoda 5, Isuzu D-Max and MG 4 – that have aggressive emergency lane-keep inputs designed to ace the program's lab tests with little attention paid to real-world functionality.

He conceded that lane-keep assist functions are often turned off by drivers and – in some instances – can be dangerous.

https://www.news.com.au/technology/m...8c3e8bd7a88539

Frustrated drivers are turning off modern safety systems designed to prevent crashes.

Features intended to ward off distraction and make sure drivers remain safely in their lane have proven so annoying to some drivers that the features are frequently disabled by customers.

This trend has prompted Australia’s safety body to address the very technology it once championed for five-star safety ratings.

Many new cars are adopting the DMS feature but the latest Mitsubishi Triton was the first ute to feature an in-built DMS, earning a five star rating from ANCAP under the latest 2023-2025 testing criteria in April 2024.

However, Mitsubishi’s system has been widely criticised for its sensitivity.

https://www.drive.com.au/caradvice/o...e-now-at-risk/

Opinion: Why it’s time for safety authorities to pump the brakes on advanced tech – lives are now at risk.

In the push to introduce advanced crash-avoidance systems, safety authorities have allowed clumsy, ineffective, and borderline dangerous technology to slip through the net in new cars on sale today. And it could cost lives.

Thousands of Australian motorists are at risk of running off the road or into the path of oncoming traffic – or having a nose-to-tail crash – caused by glitches in technology meant to prevent such deadly scenarios.

Drive has lost count of the number of times a new car we were testing has slammed on the brakes due to something that was not a hazard – or so-called advanced technology has caused the car to car zig-zag down the road after being tricked by erroneous lane-markings. Sometimes, the tech on modern cars will literally jump at shadows.

Driving aids which were designed to trace lane markings and prevent nose-to-tail crashes are now starting to become a hazard.

It's not only emerging brands struggling to keep on the straight and narrow – or stay within their lane. Some of the biggest names in the automotive business have plenty of room for improvement too.

Drive assess more than 400 cars a year – last week we tested more than 60 vehicles alone – so we understand why a car is suddenly misbehaving, and we know a driver’s quick responses will overrule whatever mistakes the car is making.

It’s time for crash safety authorities to pump the brakes on the rollout of further safety upgrades until we – that is, car companies and motorists – can master the advanced technology we have in new cars today.

Lane-keeping aids and autonomous emergency braking systems are, in many cases, flawed.

In our extensive experience they are lucky to work half the time. The other half of the time they are either delivering scary false positives or failing to recognise real danger.

And yet Australasian and European NCAP authorities have encouraged the rollout of such systems and, indeed, given this radical technology the tick of approval – for better or for worse.

Flaws such as jerkiness and false positives – as well as general accuracy in a range of real-world scenarios – are not measured at all.

Some lane-keeping assistance systems are so crude with their integration, they send cars car zig-zagging down the road having been tricked by faint, worn, or out-of-date lane markings. Or, as I have experienced first-hand, some lane-keeping systems jump at shadows.

Some autonomous emergency braking and radar cruise-control systems are so primitive, they apply the brakes aggressively when they detect a guardrail on the side of the road, as opposed to real danger.

These false positives will serve to have the opposite effect in the long term. Motorists will eventually figure out how to disable these features unless they are properly integrated.

So it’s time for Australasian NCAP and its European affiliate Euro NCAP to pump the brakes. And to give the car industry – and, most importantly, car buyers – time to catch up with the latest technology.

--------------------------------

So, it is not just me ...

[Edit: added delimiters for the external quotes]

[Citroënbender]

If I was buying a new car, the tech I’d want is to determine when I was having a bad day; the seat side bolsters would slightly warm up and close over, like a big hug.

[aussiblue]

For CB

[Sprintey]

Originally Posted by whynot

If one has driven a new(ish) car of late, one would have come across various Advanced Driver Assist Systems (ADAS).

ADAS fall into various categories.

The first category of ADAS contains those that randomly beep loudly at you whilst flashing a warning light on the dash. Designed to distract your eyes off the road whilst looking for the cause.

The second category of ADAS are those that randomly slam the brakes on. Designed to brake check the car behind whilst being able to give a lawful excuse in Court. “It wasn’t me your Honor, it was the car that braked checked.”

The third category of ADAS are those that decided that the centre (or edge) of the road is not actually where it is in reality … the centre (according to the electronics) is over there. Resulting in the electronics giving a massive tug on the steering wheel in some random direction.

These safety systems are being mandated by Australasian New Car Assessment Program (ANCAP) to achieve a five-star safety rating.

Well, a few days ago, the ANCAP Chief Executive Officer issued a statement acknowledging the issue, and directly laying the blame at the manufacturers. Further, ANCAP is funding – what best could be described as a walk of shame – research into vehicles that are providing an adverse driver experience.

This is high farce, wonderful writing there whynot!

Prefer the acronym 'driver AIDS' - Assists Increasing Drivers' Scaredness

[Citroënbender]

One of my cars was actually bought because I noticed the majority of drivers in them, were smiling as they went. As it’s now 35 years old, it occasionally has challenged that notion but overall the effect lingers.

Are the newer “driver aids” spoken of, in some instances actually contributing to pilot fatigue with a need for increased vigilance above a previously normal level?

[Sprintey]

Originally Posted by whynot

Some extracts from various car testing articles. These complains are not limited to people who are anti-electronics. These are professional drivers who are evaluating vehicles for a living.

What is more annoying is that drivers have been complaining about poor implementation of these features for years (see the date on some of the articles below).

My Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV from 2014 would randomly slam on the brakes in peak hour traffic when there was no cars in front of it. (Eventually figured out there was a spot on Gympie Rd where the Outlander appears to be picking out the traffic lights sitting on a curve in the road).

I have had new Hyundai rental literally yank the steering wheel out of my hand on a poorly marked road for absolutely no reason. That car was an absolute nightmare to drive as it was always randomly tugging on the wheel, both left and right.

I have had a rental Toyota Corolla beep loudly, put a message on the dash and then orally warn me me for speed in a 60 zone, when in fact the car was on a 110 kph divided road.

And the list goes on and on.

And this is the thing. So we're in the market for an upgrade and test driving cars both new and used, and the implementation of these systems has led me to conclude many of these cars are not fit for purpose and thus unpurchasable. It's not predictably knowing when the car will brake heavily, or rapidly change direction that causes this. Having to switch the most dangerous systems off each time must also do one's head in. All the previous safety systems were a great benefit.

[Sprintey]

From that Drive article, one comment was from a man who purportedly worked in aviation safety, his opinion is telling:

"A few months back I wrote in the comments section exactly on this issue and was attacked by another Drive reader who seemed to place a lot of faith in the fact that car manufacturers seem to know what they are doing by installing them.

I was dismayed by just how dangerous the systems are so much so that I would prefer to be in full control rather than rely on an autonomous & clearly inadequate "safety" systems and have gone as far as deactivated these two systems from my Volkswagen Multivan due to several close call incidents that were unexpectedly triggered due to unexplained causes.

Report of the flawed systems back to Volkswagen were ignored, and reporting the failure of the safety system to the Dept of Infrastructure ROVER system at the time was painful;

In my line of work as an aircraft airworthiness engineer if we had received reports of incidents and accidents as result of flawed safety systems we'd take the reports so seriously that the country's aviation safety regulator, the aircraft operators, the aircraft manufacturers and the regulator where the aircraft is certified in would all be involved in sorting out the mess. Case in point was the MCAS failure on the Boeing 737 MAX.

The question the sellers of cars here and the Dept of Infrastructure should be asking themselves - would you let your family travel in a car with these flawed systems?

Until they are proven to be safe and reliable - they should be deactivated."

from Alan.

[minheim]

Originally Posted by prydey

...I have a 21 Escape and a 19 Everest. The Everest doesn't have as much as the Escape but I find neither car intrusive to the point of distracting me from driving. The Escape has all the tech. It can basically self drive on good well marked roads.

No 'swerving' or 'tugging' or any of the other emotive words people like to use.

I have a 2018 Titanium Escape and I also find the tech fine in my ford. the adaptive cruise control works really well and lane keeping is not intrusive. I expect a 21 Escape would be an even better well developed car. That said I would hate to have one of those cars that beeps anytime I look in a side mirror or at the dash.

[Big_Daz]

Its not the tech I dont like, its how crap some manufacturers program it to work... New Triton is an example of bad... The driver monitoring thing was so bad and intrusive (when it didnt need to be) that they have released an update to the system to be put in then at dealer level.

2 out of my 3 current cars have it and its not all that bad in the 2 newer ones. Certainly not bad enough to annoy me. Have to admit though, when I get into my Redline and drive it, I dont miss them. Its got very basic driver aid's. The lane keeping and crash warning are both turned off by a button on the steering wheel and, thankfully, stay off even when the cars turned off. The blind spot monitors in the mirrors I like to have, not for checking my blind spot (i always do the shoulder check) but to let me know I have vehicles in that spot if im on a highway or major road.

[BENT_8]

I had a Staria van as an evaluation vehicle back in 2022 when my then employer was looking to renew his fleet.
Co.ing back through chain of ponds the bloody thing got confused following the winding centre line and out of the blue tried to steer me into oncoming traffic.
Told the boss to send it back and we bought Hiace instead.

[FTE217]

had a relative new rental in Melb last week, heading out of the airport on the freeway a KIA Seltos, b loody thing nearly pulled me over the other lane that damn assist surpised the crap out of me.
Couldn't de activate it.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by Itsme

To be honest some of these safety devices should aid you, not control the vehicle, after all the person should be in control of the vehicle when driven, not by some computer device.
.

Should being the key word.

However humans continue to prove they can't. They keep bumping in to things (other humans) and killing other humans.

What will never get measured is the number of times something like lane keeper actually saved someone from crossing a centre line. If it saves a life its worth it.

The tech is very young. It will improve.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by prydey

What I also find slightly ironic is the people that buy these cars and then proceed to complain about how it drives. Did they not drive it before buying it??

On our test drive, the sales assistant switched off all the electronic assist devices
and once we made a deposit, delivery was a few day later when she went through
all the menus and assisted us setting up.


I don’t have a problem with any of it.

[prydey]

My original post was likely a bit harsh but the point is, you don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by jpd80

On our test drive, the sales assistant switched off all the electronic assist devices
and once we made a deposit, delivery was a few day later when she went through
all the menus and assisted us setting up.


I don’t have a problem with any of it.

Salesman for our Escape is the best salesperson I've ever met. A true ambassador for the brand (ford) and well versed in all the latest tech and experienced enough to comfortably demonstrate it.

We were welcome to drive anywhere we liked by ourselves on the test drive with all systems working.

Later when picking up the new vehicle they allow at least an hour. Very thorough.

Plus I'm a person who reads the owners manual cover to cover.

I accept rentals can be a different proposition.

[Itsme]

Originally Posted by prydey

Should being the key word.

However humans continue to prove they can't. They keep bumping in to things (other humans) and killing other humans.

What will never get measured is the number of times something like lane keeper actually saved someone from crossing a centre line. If it saves a life its worth it.

The tech is very young. It will improve.

I will trust a human driver over an autonomous vehicle any day, been proven with aircraft, they can crash, same for cars.

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by Citroënbender

One of my cars was actually bought because I noticed the majority of drivers in them, were smiling as they went. As it’s now 35 years old, it occasionally has challenged that notion but overall the effect lingers.

Are the newer “driver aids” spoken of, in some instances actually contributing to pilot fatigue with a need for increased vigilance above a previously normal level?

I wouldn't know because they're always turned off

[whynot]

Originally Posted by prydey

but the point is, you don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water.

I agree with you insofar as the technology can assist with reducing accidents. I also agree that for some vehicles, the driver aids are supportive and not intrusive.

My gripe is with the way ANCAP and Euro NCAP have thrown their weight around and forced this technology down everyone's throat. And then cried "it wasn't our fault".

My specific sticking point being that if doesn't reset back to "on" at the next engine start, it scores zero.

The good folk at ANCAP are not stupid. The engineers on the shop floor would have known that their specifications was resulting in aggressive and intrusive intervention in some makes. Why common sense did not prevail is beyond me.

[FoxtrotGolfXray 5.0]

Originally Posted by Itsme

I will trust a human driver over an autonomous vehicle any day, been proven with aircraft, they can crash, same for cars.

I think you'll find that it's been proven in the aircraft industry that humans have been the cause of far more accidents than automated systems.

That's not to say that automated systems aren't infallible, tho.