When the automated safety features in your car take over, could they actually be putting you and others at risk? Ultimately, the driver is still responsible, even when these systems intervene on your behalf.
An unexpected near-miss
Recently, while driving on a provincial road in Belgium I use daily, I approached a long, slow curve. At the start of the curve, a dashed center line indicated no parking on the roadside. Yet, halfway through the bend, a car was parked partly in my lane. Seeing no oncoming traffic, I gently crossed the dashed center line to pass around the parked car — without using my indicators.
As I crossed the center line, the car’s emergency lane-keeping system forcefully jerked the steering wheel back towards the parked car, sending me straight toward a collision. This triggered the car’s own collision warning, forcing me to counter-steer quickly to avoid hitting the parked vehicle at around 65 km/h.
If someone had stepped out from behind that parked car, there would have been zero margin left. Just think about that for a moment.
Emergency lane-keeping systems (ELK): what are they?
Emergency lane-keeping systems (ELK) became mandatory on all new EU cars as of 2022 1. These systems aim to prevent crashes caused by drifting into another lane due to drowsiness or distraction.
My car uses a feature called “Lane Departure Warning” with three selectable modes. According to the manual (since the car’s user interface does not fully explain them), these modes behave as follows:
- Expanded: warns and actively intervenes whenever the vehicle is about to cross a lane marking, regardless of context.
- In Dangerous Situations: intervenes only if it detects the crossing is unintended or senses oncoming traffic.
- Off: disables all active interventions.
From the naming on the car's interface alone, it’s reasonable to assume a warning system would only alert the driver and not actively steer. However, the manual clarifies that these modes can include steering corrections — a detail you’d easily overlook without reading it carefully.
Contradictions and frustrations
After the near-miss, I carefully documented what had happened — including photographs of the location and a detailed description of the system’s behavior — and reported it to my local dealership. I offered any data or follow-up they might need to assess the nature of my experience.
The dealership eventually closed my case, arguing the system worked within its specifications and that I should have used my indicators to tell the system I intended to cross the center line. They did not consider the intervention dangerous, despite their own collision warning activating as a result of the intervention.
That seems contradictory: if a steering intervention causes a collision warning, doesn’t that suggest the intervention itself is unsafe?
Final thoughts
Reflecting on this leaves me feeling uneasy:
-
If a system can trigger a collision warning because of its own steering input, is it truly improving safety?
-
Despite having camera and radar sensors, the system seems remarkably crude, following rules that satisfy regulations but don’t necessarily protect real people on real roads.
-
The car's software update changelog occasionally notes "improvements" to the "lane departure warning" system but lacks specific details. Probably because acknowledging specific errors could have legal consequences for the manufacturer.
-
If an accident occurs due to a steering intervention, what is the driver's legal standing? Various warning messages in the manual indicate that the responsibility remains with the driver, providing limited recourse against the manufacturer. Is that fair?
-
These intervention systems undoubtedly collect vast amounts of data that benefit the car manufacturer, while the driver carries the responsiblity.
These systems, though well-intentioned, risk creating new types of danger and unfair legal implications when they override driver judgment. This raises critical questions for car manufacturers, regulators, and drivers alike.