08:15 16-06-2026
IIHS verdict: not every “smart” driver-assist feature makes you safer
IIHS research shows automatic emergency braking cuts rear-end crashes by 50%, while adaptive cruise and lane centering show no clear safety benefit.
Modern cars are packed with “smart” assistants, but not all of them are equally useful. Researchers at IIHS in Virginia have sorted them out: some systems really do cut crash rates, while others create a dangerous illusion of control.
The clearest win comes from automatic emergency braking paired with forward collision warning. According to IIHS data, these systems reduce rear-end crashes by 50%. Simpler aids also pull their weight: lane departure warning and blind-spot monitoring help both drivers and pedestrians. They don’t try to drive the car for you — they just flag the moment you missed something or made a mistake.
The trouble starts at the next level, when the car takes on more of the work itself: adaptive cruise control, lane centering, partial highway automation.
IIHS senior vice president for vehicle research Jessica Jermakian puts it bluntly: “There’s a gray area when we move to higher levels of driver assistance, like adaptive cruise control and lane-centering technology.” According to her, IIHS data “doesn’t show a benefit from that type of technology” — and these are exactly the systems where drivers get distracted and start doing other things behind the wheel.
That’s an awkward conclusion for the industry. A big screen, fewer physical buttons and an assistant that steers on its own all look like progress. But if the driver starts scrolling through menus or simply spends less time watching the road, the safety gain quickly evaporates. That’s why IIHS is betting on driver monitoring systems: cameras and algorithms that check whether the person behind the wheel is actually looking ahead and staying awake.
The next step is detecting impaired or drowsy drivers. The United States already has a law requiring such technology on new vehicles by 2027, but no ready-made solution exists yet. In a report to Congress, NHTSA admitted that passive in-vehicle systems capable of reliably measuring blood or breath alcohol simply aren’t available today, and other sensor approaches aren’t mature enough for mass-market cars either.
IIHS wants to tighten safety requirements and start giving credit to technologies that flag signs of impairment or risky driving. The institute is also looking at intelligent speed assistance: two-thirds of 2025 model-year vehicles tested by IIHS already display the speed limit next to the speedometer.
For buyers, the takeaway is simple: choosing a car based on the phrase “it has autopilot” is risky. Better to check whether it has solid automatic emergency braking, blind-spot monitoring, lane departure warning and proper attention monitoring. Partial highway automation is convenient, but it doesn’t replace the driver — sometimes it just makes them less focused.
The most useful safety system isn’t the one that promises to drive for you. It’s the one that won’t let you forget you’re still the driver.