Terminology | Nelson Law, LLC

I Can See Clearly Now that SAE J3016 is Gone: Will Mobileye’s New Simplified Consumer AV Taxonomy Supplant SAE J3016?

Tabitha DeSeranno — Mon, 13 Mar 2023 18:08:20 +0000

The past year has proven to be quite tumultuous for the autonomous driving industry. Shortening runways and pivots to more commercially viable ADAS seem to have become the norm. Notwithstanding, leaders at Mobileye recently laid out a path for its pursuit of consumer-level autonomy, which they believe is attainable in the near future. This new approach, which was presented at CES 2023, centers around a different way of talking and thinking about consumer AVs, which unlike the engineer-driven SAE J3016, focuses on simplified consumer-facing automation taxonomy. By laying out a new consumer-oriented classification system, Mobileye hopes to bring more attention to the real benefits of autonomy in terms of safety, convenience and efficiency.

By way of quick background, SAE J3016 was drafted by engineers and for engineers in 2014. Today, the following rather complex descriptions of six levels of automation are widely accepted as the industry standard for AV development and regulation:

A plain reading of the above definitions evince that the current Level 0-5 taxonomy is somewhat vague and often misleading from an end-user perspective. For example, the SAE classification system generally suggests some sort of hierarchical ranking, with the higher levels being the most advanced and desirable, which really is not the case. Upon closer examination, the higher levels are not aimed at rating or grading the system’s qualitative level of automation, but rather they are actually only describing the level of shared driving responsibility between the human driver and the automated driving system. This misleading level system has unintentionally led to a “race” to the highest levels, which has resulted in a massive misallocation of capital and resources into “moonshot” full driverless technology rather than incremental advancement in achievable driver safety technology.

Another significant flaw of the Level 0-5 taxonomy is the severely, perhaps even dangerously, confusing Level 3 description. According to J3016, Level 3 is classified as an automated driving system, which means that the person in the driver’s seat is not actually driving and does not need to be paying attention at all times, a somewhat nebulous concept the SAE refers to as “Conditional Driving Automation.” At the same time, however, the driver somewhat counterintuitively needs to be ready to take over the driving task while purportedly relaxing whenever the system disengages. Thus, the paradox of the driver being unaware during system operation, while at the same time being fully aware if the system decides to hand off operation, is created.

Unanswered questions for Level 3 systems abound. For example, how much time should reasonably elapse between a “request” by the system for a driver to take over and the inattentive driver actually taking control of the vehicle? What about edge cases where the driver is asleep or otherwise incapacitated? What if an emergency situation arises and the inattentive driver needs to immediately take control of the vehicle? It seems to defy logic that you can tell a human they are not driving and do not need to pay attention while simultaneously relying upon them to take over in an unspecified period of time should the need arise. In fact, this contradictory expectation seems like a true recipe for autonomous disaster.

To combat the confusion surrounding SAE J3016, Mobileye has proposed simplified language that defines the levels of autonomy based on four easily understandable categories. As reflected in the below chart, this simplified differentiation concisely covers the entire automated driving spectrum:

(1) Eyes-on/Hands-on: this category covers situations where the human is responsible for the entire driving task and the automated system is monitoring and taking action in rare circumstances. In this category of autonomy, the system is supervising the driver and intervening only when necessary to avoid an accident, as distinguished from a system that continuously interferes with the human driver. Examples include basic ADAS, such as Autonomous Emergency Braking (AEB) and Lane Keep Assist (LKA). Under SAE taxonomy, this category would be classified as Level 1 or Level 2 systems.

(2) Eyes-on/Hands-off: this category encompasses more advanced ADAS where the driver’s hands can be off the steering wheel (Hands-off) while the system is driving but must still supervise the system at all times (Eyes-on) within a specified Operational Design Domain (ODD). This category of automation aims to achieve a synergetic reaction between the human and the system by optimizing what they each do best. For example, automated systems perform best in static or mundane driving conditions where human failures are more common due to fatigue, distraction, or boredom. Conversely, human drivers perform best in challenging environments that require them to concentrate more intently on their surroundings where automated system failures are more common due to complicated “edge case” scenarios. Thus, these respective failure modes actually compliment each other and by utilizing a reliable driver monitoring system (DMS), this synergetic relationship can be used to increase the overall safety of driving. Since this category is absent from SAE taxonomy, it is sometimes wrongly perceived by consumers as Level 3 or 4 rather than a true Level 2 system, i.e., Tesla’s FSD Beta.

(3) Eyes-off/Hands-off: this category describes truly autonomous systems that completely control the driving function within a specified ODD without any human driver supervision. The system can handle all driving responsibilities within the ODD and this is clear from the consumer perspective. Once the vehicle reaches the end of its ODD, the system initiates a takeover command and the driving responsibility is transitioned to the human driver. In the event the transition does not occur, the system initiates a minimal risk maneuver (MRM), so that the vehicle can come to a safe stop in a designated location. Pursuant to SAE taxonomy, this category would be classified as either Level 3 or Level 4 depending on the ODD and takeover sequence. Of note, an Eyes-off/Hands-off system still requires the vehicle to have a human in the driver’s seat for non-safety-related situations.

(4) No Driver: this category is reserved for AVs, such as Robotaxis, that do not require the presence of a human driver. When no driver is present, a teleoperator is utilized for resolution of non-safety related situations.

The above simplified approach proposed by Mobileye clearly outlines the parameters of the shared driving experience, thereby alleviating the ambiguities from the end-user perspective inherent to the SAE taxonomy. In short, the human driver is either (1) being supervised by the system, (2) supervising the system, or (3) not a part of the driving experience in prescribed ODDs.

Employing this simplified framework, Mobileye also keenly outlined an evolutionary path to commercially viable full Eyes-off/Hands-off technology through the incremental development of what it refers to as “autonomous blades.” Mobileye’s path to full autonomy starts with an Eyes-on/Hands-off autonomous blade in a defined ODD that gathers data to evaluate performance. Once the system is validated, it can be safely and easily transitioned to an Eyes-off/Hands-off autonomous blade within the same prescribed ODD. As redundant sensor set technology advances, this process can be repeated incrementally to an ever-expanding stack of ODDs, starting with highways and off ramps and then gradually increasing to arterial roads, then to complex urban and rural environments, and finally to autonomy everywhere.

Companies like Mobileye claim to already have the technological backbone needed to enable Eyes-on/Hands-off driving in the initial highway ODD, such that the transition to an Eyes-off/Hands-off blade would simply require the collection of data to verify acceptable end-to-end failure rates. Once accomplished, the Eyes-on/Hands-off blade would again be used with improved sensor sets to expand the ODD to the next stage, i.e., arterial roads, and the entire process would simply wash, rinse and repeat until full autonomy is reached. Utilizing this model, the redundancies to the perception system are the only advancements needed to make incremental leaps from Eyes-on to Eyes-off blades.

In theory, Mobileye’s path to autonomy sounds very compelling and attainable. In reality, however, the success of this formula will likely hinge on OEMs’ appetite for the ongoing significant financial investment needed to validate each autonomous blade as it transitions from Eyes-on to Eyes-off. To date, only Tesla has been able to convince, or as critics say trick, its customers into funding the validation stage of its Eyes-on FSD system while it collects data and attempts to transition to an Eyes-off system. Regardless of the eventual outcome, Mobileye certainly seems to have moved the needle towards achieving commercial viability by stripping away the esoteric shell surrounding AV technology.

The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Firm, its clients, or any of its or their respective affiliates. This blog post is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.

The California Legislature gets into the fight against “Autono-Trust”

Tabitha DeSeranno — Fri, 09 Sep 2022 19:24:00 +0000

In our recent three-part series on the marketing of automated and autonomous driving systems, we discussed the mounting pressure OEM’s are facing on multiple fronts as regulators and politicians are increasingly scrutinizing not just the safety and actual functional capabilities of autonomous driving systems, but also how they are being represented to the public.

On the heels of a complaint filed by the California DMV against Tesla alleging false advertising of its Full Self Driving and Autopilot technologies, the California legislature turned up the heat even further last week by quickly passing a new bill that would codify into state law certain prohibitions on false advertising of autonomous functions in automobiles.

The bill, which now only requires a signature from Governor Gavin Newsom, is not “just” a ban on false advertising related to advanced vehicle technology. It also sets new standards for how an OEM can market the capabilities and limits of partial-automation technology when a new car is delivered and when software is updated. Governor Newsom will have until the end of September to formally sign or veto the new legislation. If Governor Newsom ends up signing the bill, this new law could be a harbinger of things to come as other regulators and politicians could quickly jump into the fray and follow suit.

Although the bill targets misleading advertising on self-driving technology in general, it appears that Tesla clearly is the automaker in the crosshairs of this legislation. California Senate Transportation Committee Chair Lena Gonzalez, who sponsored the bill, said “‘No one else is doing this, just Tesla. . . . GM, Ford, BMW, Mercedes, they’re all doing the right thing’ by making clear the limits of automated technology.” In fact, Gonzalez reported that she worked closely with the American Automobile Association and several unidentified OEMs during the drafting of the bill’s language, which also is supported by consumer groups. Gonzalez said she and other lawmakers stepped up to craft the bill after the state DMV was slow to enforce its rules that prohibit advertising cars as “self-driving” if they’re not truly autonomous.

If the bill does become law, the potential impact of the new legislation is currently unclear. Although strict enforcement of the new law could require Tesla to change the names of its Autopilot and Full Self Driving Technologies, most industry observers do not believe such draconian sanctions will be enforced, since the responsibility for enforcing the new law will remain under the jurisdiction of the California DMV. Despite its complaints about Tesla’s advertising, representatives of the California DMV have thus far not shown an appetite for coming down this hard on Tesla.

Time will tell if this new legislation substantively impacts Tesla’s and other OEM’s ongoing marketing initiatives. As we have noted previously, another recent effort to ban the use of “Autopilot” and “FSD” in Germany was rejected after Tesla appealed an initial adverse ruling. But now that they are facing scrutiny from California, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and many other public officials, it will be interesting to see if Tesla (and other OEM’s) will make any changes in the way they represent their technologies to the public.

It’s Common Sense! Why Automotive Industry Groups are Pressing for Common ADAS Terminology

Tabitha DeSeranno — Fri, 19 Aug 2022 18:32:00 +0000

This is part two of a three-part series on the marketing of automated and autonomous driving systems to the public, and the impact of that marketing on public perception and understanding. Check out part one on “autono-trust.”

Many industries have an industry-specific language. For example, lawyers are renowned for their “legalese” (although we try to avoid it here). And while industry-speak is often derided, terminology that is common and understood among individuals within an industry group is important to facilitate communication and understanding. As summarized by the National Business Research Institute, “every business organization has its own language: Doctors, lawyers, plumbers and others all have specific terminology unique to their profession. For example, doctors have patients, lawyers have clients, and plumbers have customers. They use these and other not-so-common terms that are specific to their industry to create understanding and a sense of community within their individual organizational structures.”

It follows, then, that the absence of common terminology within an industry can lead to confusion and misunderstanding—which is why a consortium of automotive industry groups are advocating to “Clear the Confusion” by recommending a common naming system for Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) as between manufacturers.

The “Clear the Confusion” effort began in 2019 when the National Safety Council, AAA, Consumer Reports, and J.D. Power joined forces to develop a list of standard terms for ADAS, following an AAA research report that concluded:

Advanced Driver Assistance Systems have become increasingly prevalent on new vehicles. In fact, at least one ADAS feature is available on 92.7% of new vehicles available in the U.S. as of May 2018. Not only are these advanced driver assistance systems within financial reach of many new car consumers (about $1,950 for the average ADAS bundle), they also have the potential to avoid or mitigate the severity of a crash. However, the terminology used to describe them varies widely and often seems to prioritize marketing over clarity. The lack of standardized names for automotive systems adds confusion for motorists when researching and using advanced safety systems.

* * *

To date, automakers have devised their own branded technology names which, for example, has resulted in twenty unique names for adaptive cruise control and nineteen different names for lane keeping assistance. . . . Further complicating the issue, regulatory bodies and automotive standards organizations such as NHTSA and SAE have used multiple unique names such as collision imminent braking and forward collision mitigation systems to describe automatic emergency braking.

The coalition’s 2019 proposal included common names for five categories of ADAS technologies: collision warning, collision intervention, driving control assistance, parking assistance, and other driver assistance systems. The complete list can be found here.

In 2020, SAE joined the coalition, and the Department of Transportation officially endorsed the proposal for standardized naming. In a press release, then-Secretary of Transportation Chao noted, “the recommended ADAS terminology is based on ADAS system functionality. Currently, there is variance among manufacturers and standard language will ensure drivers are aware that these systems are designed to ‘assist,’ not replace an engaged driver.”

Despite the DOT’s endorsement, the federal government has not provided regulatory guidance much less mandates to OEMs to further standardization efforts toward the ultimate goal of greater awareness and understanding. This also leaves consumers without clear guidance in purchasing decisions and in operating ADAS-equipped vehicles. Just last year, in its 2021 ADAS Guide (available in its complete form only upon purchase), AutoVision News observed that “one common theme that emerged while preparing this guide is how drastically different the names are between automakers for systems with similar functionality, reinforcing the need for more standardized terminology to prevent customer confusion.”

The need for standardized terminology will only become more acute as ADAS technologies become increasingly available. This is apparent in the updated proposal released by the Clearing the Confusion coalition (now joined by Partners for Automated Vehicle Education (PAVE)) a few weeks ago. The updated list of common terms includes an entirely new category for “driver monitoring” and four new technologies.

In releasing the updated list, the coalition explained that “the standardized terms were created to provide clarity to consumers by naming and describing the functions of ADAS in a consistent, easy to understand manner. They are not meant to replace an automaker’s proprietary system or package name or those used for marketing purposes.” Nonetheless, the coalition asked “automakers to adopt the standardized terminology to help reduce consumer confusion about the intent and functionality of these systems.”

We view standardized terminology as essential to ensuring that the continued roll out of ADAS technologies is safe and successful for all involved. As SAE commented when it joined the coalition’s efforts: “with advanced safety technologies being added to new vehicles every year . . . it’s important that consumers understand the technologies they are using and common descriptions can help. . . . Educating drivers on key terms such as ‘Lane Keeping Assistance’ and ‘Automatic Emergency Braking’ helps drivers have consistent expectations and awareness of the functionality of their vehicle’s Advanced Driver Assistance Systems.”

Stay tuned for part three of our three-part series.

Five Stars for ADAS?

Tabitha DeSeranno — Fri, 24 Jun 2022 17:49:00 +0000

On March 2, 2022, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) released a Request for Comment (RFC) seeking public input on its proposed changes to the New Car Assessment Program (NCAP). Among other things, the proposed changes would add four more Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) technologies to NCAP, and strengthen testing procedures and performance criteria for the ADAS technologies already included in the program. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg described these changes as “important” to “help save lives on our roadways by ensuring that consumers have the information they need about the latest safety technologies when they buy a new vehicle.”

NHTSA established NCAP in 1978 in response to Title II of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act of 1972, which authorized “a comprehensive study and investigation of the methods for determining” crashworthiness and other characteristics of passenger vehicles. Generally, the purpose of NCAP is to provide information to consumers about the crashworthiness of new vehicles to assist in purchasing decisions, as well as to encourage car manufacturers to focus on safety improvements and compete with each other, improving the overall safety of new vehicles. NCAP is probably best known for its crash test dummies (going back to 1979) and its five-star rating system (going back to 1994).

ADAS features were first introduced to the NCAP in 2008 with forward collision warning, lane departure warning, and electronic stability control. Automatic emergency braking technology, crash imminent braking, and dynamic braking support were later added in 2018.

In the 2022 RFC, NHTSA acknowledges that ADAS features are continuing to develop and will need to be regulated, while also being mindful of potential development barriers. The four new features NHTSA has proposed adding to NCAP are blind spot detection, blind spot intervention, lane keeping support, and pedestrian automatic emergency braking.

Blind Spot Warning: Blind spot warnings alert drivers of other vehicles approaching in an adjacent lane in the driver’s blind spot. Blind spot warning was initially proposed to be added to the NCAP program in 2015, along with blind spot intervention, but they did not make the cut. Now, “NHTSA believes there is merit to including blind spot technologies in NCAP,” since the combined features have a very high consumer acceptance rate and are trusted by most consumers to potentially aid in crash avoidance.

Blind Spot Intervention: Blind spot intervention actively intervenes to avoid a collision with another vehicle when the blind spot warning is ignored by the driver. NHTSA is not aware of any “effectiveness studies” for blind spot intervention, but the agency now believes that the intervening feature is more effective in crash prevention than just warnings.
Lane Keeping Support: Like blind spot intervention, lane keeping support actively intervenes with the driver. A lane keeping support system will guide a vehicle that is drifting into another lane by steering the vehicle back into the lane when the driver has not turned on the turn signal. Most owners of vehicles that include lane keep support have reported back high satisfaction and trust with the technology. While NHTSA did not propose the potential addition of lane keep support in the NCAP program in 2015 like it did with blind spot warning and blind spot intervention, it was suggested by many who commented on the notice in 2015.
Pedestrian Automatic Emergency Braking: Similar to automatic emergency braking (AEB), pedestrian automatic emergency braking (PAEB) will warn a driver and actively apply brakes when a pedestrian is picked up by one of the vehicle sensors or cameras to avoid a collision. This technology “may use a combination of cameras, radar, lidar and/or thermal imaging sensors.”

NHTSA has found that each of these technologies meets NCAP’s already-established criteria: “(1) the technology addresses a safety need; (2) system designs exist that can mitigate the safety problem; (3) the technology provides the potential for safety benefits; and (4) a performance-based objective test procedure exists that can assess system performance.”

If you have purchased a new car, you no doubt have seen NCAP’s star rating for crashworthiness included on marketing collateral or on the car’s window sticker (although you may not know that the window sticker is formally known as a Monroney label or that it is federally mandated). In its proposed changes, NHTSA suggests introducing a new rating system specific to ADAS technologies, separate and apart from the well-known five-star system.

Currently, ratings for ADAS features are communicated via the NHTSA website, where a check mark designates whether an ADAS technology is recommended by NHTSA and meets NCAP’s performance specifications. In the RFC, the Administration suggests a more formal rating system—using the well-known stars, or points, or medals (bronze, silver, gold)—noting:

as more emerging ADAS technologies are available in the market, the Agency believes that a rating mechanism for these systems would be more beneficial for consumers because it could better distinguish the technologies, including different levels of system performance and the technologies’ life-saving potential, rather than simply listing how many technologies a given vehicle is equipped with that meet NCAP’s system performance requirements.

NHTSA acknowledges that a separate rating system for ADAS systems may be confusing for car buyers, and actually may have the counter-productive effect of discouraging the purchase of cars equipped with safety-enhancing ADAS features.

Wherever NHTSA lands on the changes to NCAP, we view the proposals as a positive step in the direction of better, clearer, and more uniform standards for emerging mobility technology—all in the name of safety. For more thoughts and reactions, you can browse the more than 4,000 comments submitted in response to NHTSA’s RFC here.

Law of Motion Terminology and Acronym Cheat Sheet

Tabitha DeSeranno — Mon, 02 May 2022 18:57:00 +0000

As with many niche areas, mobility has its own “industry speak,” with unique jargon and a multitude of acronyms. Even we sometimes need a cheat sheet to keep everything straight. This is our evolving list.

Government/Regulatory/Industry

AAA: American Automobile Association

Well known “motor club” association that also advocates for safety and other policy goals, including through its Foundation for Traffic Safety.

AUVSI: Association for Uncrewed Vehicle Systems International

International association “dedicated to the advancement of uncrewed systems and robotics.”

IIHS/HLDI: Insurance Institute of Highway Safety/Highway Loss Data Institute

IIHS: Independent, nonprofit scientific and educational organization dedicated to reducing the losses from motor vehicle crashes.

HLDI: A non-profit research organization that publishes scientific studies of insurance data representing the human and economic losses resulting from the ownership and operation of different types of vehicles; publishing insurance loss results by vehicle make and model.

NHTSA: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Agency of the DOT charged with promoting transportation safety.

NTSB: National Transportation Safety Board

Independent federal agency responsible for determining the probable cause of transportation accidents and promoting transportation safety.

PAVE: Partners for Automated Vehicle Education

Public education interest group.

SAE: Society of Automotive Engineers

Standard setting organization.

Autonomous and Automated Terminology

AV: Autonomous Vehicle
AVAS: Acoustic Vehicle Alerting Systems
ADS: Automated Driving System
ADAS: Advanced Driver Assistance System
ACC: Adaptive Cruise Control
AEB: Autonomous/Automatic Emergency Braking
BSW: Blind Sport Warning
CIB: Crash Imminent Braking (part of AEB)
DBS: Dynamic Brake Support (part of AEB)
DDT: Dynamic Driving Task
DSSAD: Data Storage for Automated Driving
EDR: Event Data Recorder
Check out Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3 of our EDR Blog Series to learn more.
EV: Electric Vehicle
FCW: Forward Collision Warning
LDW: Lane Departure Warning
ODD: Operating Design Domain
When and under what conditions a vehicle can safely operate.
OEDR: Object and Event Detection and Response
What a vehicle can detect and respond to.
PWS: Pedestrian Warning Systems
RCTA: Rear Cross-Traffic Assist
SDV: Software Defined Vehicles
TSR: Traffic-Sign Recognition
VPD: Vehicle Performance Data
V2I: Vehicle-to-Infrastructure
V2X: Vehicle-to-Everything
V2V: Vehicle-to-Vehicle
V2P: Vehicle-to-Pedestrian
V2C: Vehicle-to-Cloud

SAE Levels of Automation

Data Laws

CCPA: California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018

CPA: Colorado Privacy Act of 2021

Connecticut Data Privacy Act: Connecticut Act Concerning Personal Data Privacy and Online Monitoring of 2022

CRPA: California Privacy Rights Act of 2020

GDPR: General Data Protection Regulation (EU)

UCPA: Utah Consumer Privacy Act of 2022

VCDPA: Virginia Consumer Data Protection Act of 2021

ADAS DEFINITIONS*

*These definitions are taken from a joint publication by AAA, Consumer Reports, National Safety Council, J.D. Power, and SAE International

Collision Warning and Intervention

Blind Spot Warning: Detects vehicles in the blind spot while driving and notifies the driver to their presence. Some systems provide an additional warning if the driver activates the turn signal.

Forward Collision Warning: Detects a potential collision with a vehicle ahead and alerts the driver. Some systems also provide alerts for pedestrians or other objects.

Lane Departure Warning: Monitors vehicle’s position within the driving lane and alerts driver as the vehicle approaches or crosses lane markers.

Parking Collision Warning: Detects objects close to the vehicle during parking maneuvers and notifies the driver.

Rear Cross Traffic Warning: Detects vehicles approaching from the side at the rear of the vehicle while in reverse gear and alerts the driver. Some systems also warn for pedestrians or other objects.

Automatic Emergency Braking: Detects potential collisions with a vehicle ahead, provides forward collision warning, and automatically brakes to avoid a collision or lessen the severity of impact. Some systems also detect pedestrians or other objects.

Automatic Emergency Steering: Detects potential collisions with a vehicle ahead and automatically steers to avoid or lessen the severity of impact. Some systems also detect pedestrians or other objects.

Reverse Automatic Emergency Braking: Detects potential collisions while in reverse gear and automatically brakes to avoid or lessen the severity of impact. Some systems also detect pedestrians or other objects.

Driving Control and Parking Assistance

Adaptive Cruise Control: Cruise control that also assists with acceleration and/or braking to maintain a driver-selected gap to the vehicle in front. Some systems can come to a stop and continue while others cannot.

Lane Keeping Assistance: Provides steering support to assist the driver in preventing the vehicle from departing the lane. Some systems also assist to keep the vehicle centered within the lane.

Active Driving Assistance: Provides steering and brake/acceleration support to the driver at the same time. The driver must constantly supervise this support feature and maintain responsibility for driving.

Backup Camera: Displays the area behind the vehicle when in reverse gear.

Surround View Camera: Displays the immediate surroundings of some or all sides of the vehicle while stopped or during low-speed maneuvers.

Active Parking Assistance: Assists with steering and potentially other functions during parking maneuvers. Driver may be required to accelerate, brake, and/or select gear position. Some systems are capable of parallel and/or perpendicular parking. The driver must constantly supervise this support feature and maintain responsibility for parking.

Remote Parking Assistance: Without the driver being physically present inside the vehicle, provides steering, braking, accelerating and/or gear selection while moving a vehicle into or out of a parking space. The driver must constantly supervise this support feature and maintain responsibility for parking.

Trailer Assistance: Assists the driver with visual guidance while backing towards a trailer or during backing maneuvers with a trailer attached. Some systems may provide additional images while driving or backing with a trailer. Some systems may provide steering assistance during backing maneuvers.

Other Driver Assistance Systems

Automatic High Beams: Switches between high and low beam headlamps automatically based on lighting and traffic.

Driver Monitoring: Observes driver actions to estimate if they are not engaged in the task of driving. Some systems may monitor eye movement and/or head position.

Heads-Up Display: Projects information relevant to driving into the driver’s forward line of sight.

Night Vision: Improves forward visibility at night by projecting enhanced images on instrument cluster or head-up display.

(last updated September 27, 2022)