Standardized Names of Safety Features Needed
Smart cruise control. Intelligent cruise control. Adaptive cruise control. Radar speed control. As The Bard wrote so long ago, “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” Sadly that tale did not end well for the protagonists.
In today’s world of increasingly sophisticated active safety systems, engineers and consumers alike are being bombarded by more and more brand-specific labels for essentially the same technology. Unfortunately, imprecise branding driven more by marketers than technologists threatens to put us all at risk.
Branding is complex, especially when the chosen names hint at the underlying functionality. When that happens, it creates expectations with the consumer. If those expectations aren’t met, the intended outcome can backfire. Active safety systems that fail to meet a customer’s expectations could lead to injury or death.
Human-machine interface and user experience design is tricky even when there is no real risk involved. That is why primary control interfaces in vehicles eventually became relatively standardized, beginning with the foot-pedal arrangement. Drivers have a certain expectation of what the controls do; following the standard helps to ensure they are met.
But as transmission shift interfaces migrated from mechanical to electronic switch-gear, behavioral inconsistency has become a problem. The 2016, death of actor Anton Yelchin was caused by his vehicle being in neutral rather than park and accidentally running over him.
The increasing number of instrument cluster warning lamps initially led to designers creating distinct icons. Ultimately, these became standardized and today we find essentially the same iconography used for brake alerts, traction control, lights and other indicators.
In 2017, as nearly every incumbent 20th-century automaker tries to re-position itself as a 21st-century tech company, dubious branding is putting people at risk.
As more automakers roll out technologies, inconsistent technology names are going to lead to consumer confusion and expectations that won’t or can’t be met. One of the main drivers for increased deployment of active safety systems and vehicle automation is to reduce the number of people killed and injured every year. Despite the proliferation of Advanced Driver-Assistance Systems, we have actually seen fatalities and crashes increase.
For example, having executives calling a system ‘autonomous’ when it still requires you to keep hands on the steering wheel is misleading. Educational efforts like the National Safety Council’s “My Car Does What?” and Bosch’s “Automated Mobility Academy” will help. However, it’s time to reign in the marketers, lose the hype and start using standard descriptive language to let people really know what their vehicles can and cannot do.
Abuelsamid, Sam. (2017). "Time for standard naming of safety features". Retrieved from http://articles.sae.org/15647/.
StartFragment
EndFragment
