Intelligent Speed Adaptation - Limitations

Limitations

An initial reaction to the concept of ISA is that there could be negative outcomes, such as driving at the speed limit rather than to the conditions, but numerous ISA trials around the World have shown these concerns are unsubstantiated.

A particular issue is that most ISA systems use a speed database based purely on information regarding the posted maximum speed limit for a roadway or roadway segment. Obviously, many roads have features such as curves and gradients where the appropriate speed for a road segment with these features is less than the posted maximum speed limit. Increasingly, road authorities indicate the appropriate speed for such segments through the use of advisory speed signage to alert drivers on approach that there are features which require a reduction in travelling speed. It is recognised that the speed limit databases used in ISA systems should ideally take account of posted advisory speeds as well as posted maximum speed limits. The New South Wales ISA trial, underway in the Illwarra region south of Sydney currently, is the only trial that is using posted advisory speeds as well as posted maximum speed limits.

Some car manufacturers have expressed concern that some types of speed limiters "take control away from the driver". This is also unsubstantiated, firstly because ISA systems do have provision for over-ride by the driver in the event that the set speed is inappropriate and secondly, the claim is somewhat hypocritical given that cruise control has been in use on vehicles for many years and forces the vehicle to travel at a minimum speed unless there is driver intervention.

For some traffic safety practitioners, active intelligent speed adaptation is thought to be an example of 'hard automation', an approach to automation that has been largely discredited by the Human Factors community. An inviolable characteristic of human users is that they will adapt to these systems, often in unpredictable ways. Some studies have shown that drivers 'drive up to the limits' of the system and drive at the set speed, compared to when they are in manual control, where they have been shown to slow down. Conversely, the experience of some drivers with driving under an active ISA system has been that they find they can pay more attention to the roadway and road environment as they no longer need to monitor the speedometer and adjust their speeds on a continuing basis.

There is also concern that drivers driving under speed control might accept more risky headways between themselves and vehicles in front and accept much narrower gaps to join traffic (this fact drawing particular criticism from motorcycling groups).

Wider criticism also comes from the insistent focus on speed and that road safety outcomes could be better achieved by focusing on driving technique, situational awareness, and automation that 'assists' drivers rather than 'forces' them to behave in particular ways. Intelligent speed adaptation has also been held as an example of a technology which, like speed cameras, can often alienate the driving public and represents a significant barrier to its widespread adoption.

Some studies which pre-date the development of ISA systems indicated that drivers make relatively little use of the speedometer and instead use auditory cues (such as engine and road noise) to successfully regulate their speed. These studies, however, remain unverified. There is an argument in the literature that suggests that as cars have become quieter and more refined speed control has become more difficult for drivers to perform. Thus an alternative 'soft-automation' approach is simply to re-introduce some of those cues that drivers naturally use to regulate speed (rather than incur the expense and unexpected behavioral adaptations of ISA).