Pilot. Autopilot. ProPILOT. Pilot Assist. Co-Pilot 360. Highway Pilot.
These are merely a handful of the name brands that automakers use to market driver-assist features available on new vehicles. The onslaught of new terminology is confusing drivers and causing misunderstandings over the nuanced differences in the capabilities and limitations of these systems.
"Somewhere in there, you'd think a pilot is involved," said Greg Brannon, director of automotive engineering and industry relations at AAA. "But indeed no, human driving is still involved."
AAA issued new research Friday that finds 40 percent of Americans expect systems like Autopilot and ProPILOT to have the ability to drive themselves. The organization suggests that safety organizations, policymakers and car companies need to standardize their vocabulary to clarify how these technologies work in the minds of consumers.
"We've known for some time, through our own research and testing, that this was a problem," Brannon said. "Even our own engineers would dive into the owner's manuals and literature on vehicles we're trying to test, and having trouble discerning what's on a vehicle."
His organization's engineering team examined 34 vehicle brands sold in the United States to identify the number of unique names that manufacturers use to market advanced driver-assist systems. Among its findings: automakers use 40 different terms to describe automated emergency braking, 20 different terms to describe adaptive cruise control and 19 separate terms for lane-keeping assist features.
More education needed
Building on previous research, the latest AAA study arrives at a time when automakers and others are recognizing the need for broad consumer-education efforts regarding autonomous driving and driver-assist systems.
A coalition of automakers, safety advocates, insurers, thinktanks, academics and others launched Partners for Automated Vehicle Education (PAVE) earlier this month at CES, an organization dedicated to detailing the potential benefits of these new technologies for consumers and policymakers while demystifying their underpinnings.
If anything, the AAA report underscores both the urgency of the task ahead — these driver-assist systems are already on the road — and reminds the industry it can go a long way in filling the current educational vacuum by agreeing to standards on its own language.
Simple definitions
The organization proposes definitions that can be used to describe ADAS features that are "simple, specific and based on system functionality," according to the study.
Careful to delineate between drivers who intentionally misuse driver-assist systems in ways that stretch the systems beyond their performance envelopes and motorists who misunderstand of system capabilities, Brannon said the latter is a growing safety hazard.
"It's going to take a village to solve this one," he said. "We at least need to start for a common base for what to call these systems. We're not saying automakers shouldn't use names they've marketed, but these features need to be described with commonality. The first step to consumer education and understanding is a common language."
