Why experts say advanced driver assistance systems are creating new safety risks

Driver-assistance technologies are becoming increasingly common in new vehicles, but transport specialists say a growing road-safety challenge involves how motorists understand and use them. Many current systems can assist with steering, acceleration, or braking, but they still require the driver to remain attentive and responsible for operating the vehicle.

A new international survey found that misuse or misunderstanding of driver-assistance systems and distracting in-vehicle features rank among the leading mobility-safety concerns identified by transport professionals.

The findings come as regulators in the United States, Europe, and China increase their scrutiny of automated and assisted-driving technologies. Safety research indicates that features such as automatic emergency braking can reduce certain crashes, while partial automation requires effective driver monitoring and informed, attentive users.

Human behavior has become the biggest safety concern

A global survey conducted by Economist Enterprise, a division of The Economist Group, found that transport professionals view human interaction with driver-assistance technology as a leading road-safety concern.

The Brembo-funded study surveyed more than 1,000 transport specialists working in policy, infrastructure, manufacturing, and technology across 10 major vehicle-producing countries. In one question, 30% identified human misunderstanding or misuse of driver-assistance systems as the leading cause of mobility-safety issues. In a separate question about user-vehicle interaction, 24% identified increasingly distracting in-vehicle features as the most serious risk.

The findings indicate that surveyed professionals are more concerned about the human-machine relationship than conventional mechanical failure. Only 3% identified mechanical failure as the leading cause of mobility-safety incidents.

Ignacio Alvarez, Brembo’s research and development chief, said these systems must be clearly explained to users, including what they can and cannot do. Economist Enterprise research leader Pratima Singh similarly identified the interaction between people and increasingly automated systems as the central emerging risk.

Growing concern over driver overconfidence

Partial driving-automation systems can assist with steering, acceleration, and braking under certain conditions. However, these Level 2 systems still require drivers to monitor the road and remain responsible for the vehicle at all times.

Research has found that some drivers engage in non-driving activities while using partial automation. Consumer surveys have also identified confusion about what vehicles currently available to the public can do, including a mistaken belief among some respondents that they can purchase a vehicle that allows them to disengage completely from driving.

Such misunderstandings can encourage overreliance and delayed driver responses when a system encounters a situation it cannot handle. Marketing and product terminology may also contribute to unrealistic expectations.

In the Economist Enterprise survey, about two-thirds of transport professionals said advertising overstated the capabilities of driver-assistance systems. Clearer terminology, instructions, and marketing could help drivers better understand that these technologies assist rather than replace them.

Research highlights limits of partial automation

The Economist Enterprise survey is consistent with concerns raised by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, which evaluated safeguards in 14 partial driving-automation systems from 9 automakers. The assessment examined driver monitoring, attention reminders, escalation procedures, emergency responses, and other measures intended to discourage misuse.

The IIHS said there was little evidence that partial automation makes driving safer and warned that the technology can create new risks when safeguards fail to keep drivers focused on the road. The Lexus Teammate system available on the Lexus LS was the only tested system to receive an acceptable overall rating.

The GMC Sierra’s General Motors Super Cruise system and the Nissan Ariya’s ProPILOT Assist with Navi-link system received marginal ratings. The other tested systems received poor ratings, including the versions of Tesla Autopilot and Full Self-Driving assessed by IIHS.

The ratings evaluated safeguards intended to promote responsible use, not how effectively the systems steered, braked, or accelerated. IIHS also noted that some manufacturers had already issued software updates or planned improvements following the evaluation.

ADAS still offers significant safety benefits

Despite concerns about misuse, safety research shows that well-designed driver-assistance technologies can prevent or reduce the severity of certain crashes. Features such as forward-collision warning, automatic emergency braking, blind-spot intervention, and lane-departure prevention address specific crash situations rather than replacing the driver.

Automatic emergency braking has demonstrated significant benefits in rear-end crashes and can also detect pedestrians when vehicles are equipped with pedestrian-specific systems. In 2024, NHTSA finalized a rule requiring automatic emergency braking, including pedestrian detection, on new passenger cars and light trucks.

Broader modeling by the National Safety Council projects that expanded use of several ADAS technologies could prevent hundreds of thousands of deaths and millions of injuries between 2021 and 2050. The projected benefit depends on how widely the technologies are installed, how effectively they perform, and whether drivers use them appropriately.

Active-safety features and partial driving automation should not be treated as interchangeable. Crash-avoidance systems may intervene during a specific emergency, while Level 2 partial automation continuously assists with vehicle control and requires the driver to remain attentive and ready to respond.

Regulators respond with closer oversight

Governments and international standards bodies are increasing their scrutiny of assisted and automated driving technologies as the systems become more capable.

In the United States, NHTSA requires manufacturers to report certain crashes involving Level 2 driver-assistance systems and more highly automated vehicles. The agency has also investigated specific assisted-driving systems and expanded its vehicle-testing program to include additional driver-assistance technologies.

China has considered tighter oversight and clearer marketing rules for advanced driver-assistance systems following safety concerns, including a fatal 2025 crash involving a Xiaomi SU7 that had been using an assisted-driving mode shortly before the collision.

In Europe, the Swedish Transport Administration recommended opposing an EU-wide rollout of Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (Supervised) system unless its ability to exceed posted speed limits was removed.

In June 2026, the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe’s World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations adopted the first global regulatory framework for fully driverless vehicles. Separately, the Economist Enterprise survey found that 88% of more than 5,000 respondents supported stronger road-safety measures.

Automakers balance innovation with responsibility

Vehicle manufacturers continue to expand the availability of driver-assistance and active-safety features across their model ranges. Technologies such as automatic emergency braking, blind-spot warning, adaptive cruise control, and lane-keeping assistance are now available across multiple price segments.

As these systems become more widely available, automakers face the dual challenge of improving their performance and ensuring customers understand how to use them. Stronger driver-monitoring systems, clear operating instructions, consistent terminology, and accurate marketing can help reduce misuse.

The Economist Enterprise survey found that about two-thirds of transport professionals believed advertising overstated the capabilities of driver-assistance systems. The findings reinforce calls for manufacturers to explain where the systems work, where they may fail, and what responsibilities remain with the driver.

Regulators and safety organizations are also increasing performance requirements and evaluating safeguards against driver inattention. Continued progress will depend on both better technology and clearer communication that driver-assistance systems support human drivers rather than replace them.

TL;DR

• A new international survey identified misuse or misunderstanding of driver-assistance systems as a leading emerging mobility-safety concern among transport professionals.
• In one survey question, 30% of transport specialists identified human misunderstanding or misuse of driver-assistance systems as the leading cause of mobility-safety issues. In a separate question, 24% identified distracting in-vehicle features as the most serious user-vehicle interaction risk.
• IIHS evaluated safeguards in 14 partial driving-automation systems and gave only 1 an acceptable overall rating. The remaining systems received marginal or poor ratings.
• Regulators and standards bodies in the United States, Europe, and China, along with the UNECE World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations, are increasing oversight of assisted and automated driving technologies.
• Crash-avoidance features such as automatic emergency braking can prevent or reduce the severity of certain collisions, but Level 2 partial automation still requires an attentive and responsible driver.

If you liked this, you might also like:

• This Lexus became one of the best used car bargains you can buy
• Mazda shows how not chasing Tesla too fast could save an automaker billions
• Why tariff pressure could push affordable cars like the Nissan Sentra out of America

This article was made with AI assistance and human editing.