Zephyrnet Logo

Generative Data Intelligence

Automotive

Consumers desire automated safety over self-driving tech

Republished By Plato
Republished By Plato

Date:

Views: 45

Semi-autonomous driving features are
still missing that crucial trust factor, whereas automated safety
features are gaining traction and acceptance

Car buyers understand and want advanced driver assistance
systems (ADAS) features that provide safer driving – and they
expect them to be standard in new luxury and mainstream vehicles.
But the same feelings do not apply when ADAS is applied to
autonomous driving systems.

According to a spring 2023 S&P Global Mobility consumer
survey, trust and familiarity remain barriers to car shoppers
adopting autonomous driving technology. Put simply, as the amount
of vehicle automation increases, consumer desire decreases.

Each of the five most-desired ADAS features improves safety.
Blind spot warning ranks as the most desired feature, wanted by 83%
of consumers. More than 80% of those surveyed want forward
collision warning and rear mirror cameras. Other top-five desired
features include automatic emergency braking (AEB) for
cyclists and pedestrians, as well as night
vision.

“Exposure is helping to drive much of the desirability for these
features,” said Yanina Mills, senior technical research analyst at
S&P Global Mobility.

However, while autonomous driving features add convenience by
reducing the tedium of driving, they fall well short of ADAS safety
features when it comes to buyer desirability. “Safety versus
convenience operate in two different ballparks of interest,”
according to Brock Walquist, senior technical research analyst at
S&P Global Mobility.

Drivers are no strangers to ADAS. The S&P Global Mobility
survey found that fully half of the vehicle owners surveyed have
experienced these systems. Approximately 35% own vehicles with
forward collision warning, and 30% have vehicles with blind spot
detection.

By contrast, consumer experience with self-driving is
essentially non-existent, further inhibiting its desirability.
Whereas many automated safety features poll in the 80th percentile
range, only 61% of the 7,732 global respondents expressed interest
in self-driving, making it the least desirable ADAS feature listed
in the survey.

Almost every manufacturer offers Level 2 systems that assume some
measure of driving tasks – while being supervised by the driver.
Level 2+ systems, such as General Motor’s Super Cruise and Ford’s
Blue Cruise, add hands-off automated highway driving. Drivers still
need to pay attention while the computer is in control, monitored
by a camera-based system.

But increased capability doesn’t increase buyer desire.
Consumers still prefer automated driving features where the driver
maintains more control. Only 69% of consumers desire Level 2
autonomy. Even fewer (65%) buyers desire Level 2+ hands-off
automated highway driving.

Relative exposure again plays a role. Walquist says “There is a
gap in experience and exposure to those systems. We’re just now
starting to see (hands-off systems) move outside of the premium
models, but that’s a process.”

For now, buyers struggle to find a strong reason for autonomous
driving features. As Mills notes, “Consumers aren’t able to find a
use case that’s relatable to them.”

Among those polled, 53% of consumers felt that an autonomous car
would drive more efficiently than a normal car, 48% felt that it
would be safer, and 27% would use it to relieve tedious driving
conditions. If OEMs want to convince more buyers that autonomous
driving systems are worthwhile, they need to better communicate
their benefits, Mills said.

But consumer sentiment is different across regions. Consumers in
Mainland China, for example, have consistently shown the highest
desirability scores for self-driving technology; they’re also the
most likely to both ride and purchase a self-driving vehicle
compared to other surveyed markets. Consumers in the US, UK, and
Germany show the lowest scores in these areas, demonstrating
distinctly different behavior between established automotive
markets and the rising economic power of the second most-populated
country in the world.


FOR THE FULL REPORT, SUBSCRIBE HERE

Then there’s the matter of trust. According to Walquist, “The whole
idea of a system that takes control from the driver continues to
not sit well with consumers.” Just 47% of consumers said they would
ride in a car with self-driving abilities and that they would
consider purchasing one. Optimism about self-driving cars remains
cautious at best – and consideration is high up the purchase funnel
before the papers get signed.

Speaking of purchase price, buyers may really want safe cars,
but they will resist paying extra for safety features.

Consumer desire for safety runs deep. About 81 percent of buyers
are willing to pay more for vehicles with higher safety ratings.
92% state that safety ratings are “somewhat” or “very important”
when buying a vehicle.

That said, consumers clearly do not want to pay extra for ADAS
safety features. More than 50% of buyers expect these features to
be standard.

“Consumers have an expectation that safety equipment should just
be a part of every vehicle produced and sold,” said Jeremy Carlson,
lead analyst for autonomy at S&P Global Mobility. “They’ll ask
themselves, ‘If it’s a critical safety technology, why are you
asking me to pay for it on top of my vehicle purchase?'”

The weak-to-nonexistent link between ADAS and vehicle safety
ratings also plays a part in resistance to paying extra. “Most
rating organizations might recommend AEB. They might recommend
lane-keep assist. But they are not part of the scoring protocols,”
Walquist said.

Euro NCAP and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS)
are leading the way to incorporate ADAS into their safety ratings,
but most other organizations lag far behind. That said, NHTSA
announced on May 31 its intention to mandate AEB that detects
vehicles and pedestrians for new US-market vehicles.

Buyers also want to know what they’re getting. The complexity of
many autonomous systems makes that hard.

Understanding the capability of different autonomous systems is
bewildering, because no two systems are exactly alike. From
available speed range, to urban vs highway capability, to automated
lane changes, each OEM implements their system in a slightly
different way.

“It all contributes to a difficulty for consumers to stop and
say, ‘I know what I’m getting, I know where it will operate, and
therefore, I know what kind of utility I’m getting by investing in
this technology,'” Carlson said.

As usual within the industry, Tesla proves to be the exception
to the rule. Walquist notes that “Tesla was out front with offering
Autopilot. It was a big part of their value proposition. As a
result, they pulled in a lot of the early adopters who were
interested in that technology.”

But most other buyers need more convincing, according to Mills. “There is a lack of exposure to the mainstream consumer. They don’t
exactly know how it is going to work. There is confusion. They are
asking, ‘Is it self-driving, or is it just going to help me a bit
and I still have to focus?'”

Moving to a Level 3 automated-driving system – and beyond –
poses huge technical and ideological hurdles. Such systems remove
the need for constant driver vigilance, shifting responsibility
(and legal liability) from the driver to the manufacturer. Initial
applications will be limited to certain roads at certain speeds.
Early Level 3 systems just won’t be all that useful to a
consumer.

Some OEMs are skipping this step altogether because of the murky
legal area in which it resides. But other OEMs measure engineering
success in ways beyond consumer usefulness. Carlson notes, “For a
company like Mercedes that is launching Level 3 on flagships like
the S-Class and EQS, there is a level of technology leadership that
brings value to the brand.”

S&P Global Mobility found that consumers trust German
manufacturers the most when it comes to developing automated
driving systems. Approximately 75% of consumers are confident that
German premium automakers (Audi, BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Porsche) can
develop a safe and effective self-driving vehicle.

But manufacturers don’t all have the same goal when it comes to
autonomous capability. Walquist says, “There are two levels of
conversation that are taking place in every automaker. ‘Do we want
to be a leader in terms of automation, or do we want to be a leader
in functionality and safety?'”

Several reasons contribute to this split – especially the
concern about allowing the operator to disengage from the act of
driving. Both the United States and China have focused on enabling
Level 2 and 2+ systems to operate in a wider variety of situations,
while still requiring that the driver pays attention.

The ill-defined societal zone of liability and legislation for
Level 3 means many manufacturers are taking a view that, “When
technology and legislation are aligned, then we’ll make that step
(to Level 3.) But for now, let’s extend current technology to
different environments,” Walquist said.

The evolving nature of automated driving poses challenges – both
to OEMs who want to sell these systems, and to consumers who are
weighing their purchase. Automakers will need to better define the
benefits of autonomy to improve its desirability to consumers.


FOR THE FULL REPORT, SUBSCRIBE HERE


SELF-DRIVING CARS WON’T HAPPEN WITHOUT SMARTER ADAS


AUTO SAFETY SYSTEMS – CALIBRATION CHALLENGES AND
OPPORTUNITIES


AUTO FEATURES AND TECH BENCHMARKING


FOR MORE ON AUTONOMY FORECASTS


FOR MORE ON S&P GLOBAL MOBILITY CONSUMER INSIGHTS

This article was published by S&P Global Mobility and not by S&P Global Ratings, which is a separately managed division of S&P Global.

spot_img

Latest Intelligence

spot_img

Copyright @ 2024 Plato Technologies Inc.