Report: Automated ADAS Safety Features Are A ‘Nightmare’ For Drivers

Forbes - Mar 22nd, 2025

A recent study by UK consumer organisation Which? reveals that over half of British drivers are disabling Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) in their vehicles due to distractions and irritation caused by the features. The systems, which include automated speed controls and lane-keeping assist, are mandated in new European car models since 2022 to enhance road safety. However, the survey indicates that 54% of 1,500 drivers turn off at least one ADAS feature, with complaints about misreading speed limits and unnecessary braking.

The findings raise concerns about the real-world effectiveness of ADAS, which were intended to reduce accidents and pave the way for further automotive automation. With 90% of UK cars manufactured since 2018 featuring some form of ADAS, the research highlights potential safety threats if these systems malfunction. Consumer rights advocates urge car manufacturers and regulators to ensure these technologies function properly and do not add to driver distraction. Hyundai has pledged to address customer concerns through potential software updates, but for now, drivers like Eileen continue to disable these features for a safer driving experience.

Hyundai Adas European Regulations Which? Research Driver Safety Automated Driving Uk Drivers

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

6.6

Fair Story

Consider it well-founded

The article provides a timely and relevant examination of the challenges associated with Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) in vehicles, focusing on the negative experiences reported by drivers. It effectively highlights the potential safety concerns arising from these systems, which are designed to enhance driving safety but may inadvertently cause distraction or irritation. The reliance on data from a credible source, Which?, adds to the article's credibility, although it would benefit from additional data and perspectives to present a more balanced view.

While the article is generally clear and engaging, it lacks transparency regarding the methodology of the cited survey and could offer more detailed technical explanations for readers unfamiliar with ADAS. The inclusion of diverse viewpoints, such as those from safety experts and other manufacturers, would enhance the article's balance and provide a more comprehensive understanding of the issue. Overall, the article effectively raises awareness of the potential drawbacks of ADAS, encouraging further discussion and scrutiny of these technologies in the context of road safety and consumer rights.

Accuracy

The article accurately reports on the European regulators' requirements for Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) beginning in 2022, making specific features mandatory in new models. However, the statement about existing models being required to have these features by 2024 needs verification. The claim that up to 90% of cars in the UK manufactured since 2018 have some form of ADAS is plausible but requires specific data for confirmation. The article cites a survey by Which? that found over half of drivers disable at least one ADAS feature, which aligns with similar studies but should be cross-verified with the survey's methodology and sample size. The report of drivers finding these systems distracting or dangerous is consistent with other research, yet the article could benefit from more precise data on the scope and impact of these issues.

Balance

The article primarily focuses on the negative experiences of drivers with ADAS, highlighting issues such as distraction and annoyance. While it provides a critical perspective on the technology's real-world application, it lacks a balanced view by not sufficiently exploring the benefits or positive outcomes of ADAS features. The inclusion of a statement from Hyundai offers some industry perspective, but the article could improve by presenting more viewpoints from other stakeholders, such as safety experts or other car manufacturers, to provide a more comprehensive picture.

Clarity

The article is generally clear and straightforward in its presentation of the issues surrounding ADAS features. The language is accessible, and the structure logically follows the narrative of drivers' experiences with these systems. However, the article could improve clarity by providing more detailed explanations of technical terms and systems for readers who may not be familiar with automotive technology. Additionally, the use of more precise data and statistics would enhance the article's comprehensibility.

Source quality

The article relies on data from Which?, a reputable UK consumer organization, which adds credibility to the findings presented. The inclusion of a statement from Hyundai further enhances the source quality by providing a manufacturer's perspective. However, the article could benefit from additional sources, such as regulatory bodies or independent automotive experts, to corroborate the claims and provide a broader context.

Transparency

The article mentions the Which? survey and provides anecdotal evidence from drivers, but it lacks detailed information about the survey's methodology, such as sample size, demographics, and data collection methods. This lack of transparency makes it difficult to fully assess the reliability of the claims. Additionally, the article does not disclose any potential conflicts of interest that might affect the reporting, such as financial ties between the publication and automotive industries.