Skip to footer

Is cruise control dangerous?

One study says yes. Using cruise control on a highway may make your road trip more enjoyable, but it could also reduce your reaction time and hamper your ability to change lanes safely.

|
Josh Armstrong/The Christian Science Monitor/File
The 2005 Toyota Avalon, like many other cars, offers drivers the option of using cruise control. Is it safer not to use it?
  • By Richard Read Contributor

For decades, cruise control has been a common feature on automobiles. It's beloved by many road-trippers, who say that it reduces fatigue and boosts fuel economy.

But others aren't so sold on the technology. When it debuted, for example, older drivers worried about their ability to deactivate it. That's not much of a concern nowadays, but a new study from the VINCI Autoroutes Foundation suggests that cruise control poses other dangers. 

The study employed 90 subjects, who were put into a driving simulator and challenged with four different scenarios: approaching a toll booth, encountering an 18-wheeler accident in the passing lane, encountering construction in the driving lane, and entering an area in which their speed was tracked by radar. 

Subjects went through each scenario three times -- once using cruise control (which sets a car's minimum speed), once using a speed-limiter (which sets a car's maximum speed and is uncommon in the U.S.), and once using neither device.

Researchers identified a number of problems among those using cruise control and speed-limiters:

  • Drivers frequently engaged in unsafe behavior when overtaking other vehicles. Those using cruise control stayed in the passing lane longer because they had difficulty modulating speed. In fact, they often remained in the passing lane long after they'd overtaken a vehicle. 
  • When cruise control-users did move back into the slow lane, they tended to do so without leaving a safe distance between their vehicle and the one they'd just passed. Moreover, cruise control caused those motorists to slow down once they'd settled into the driving lane, cutting distances even more.
  • Drivers in cruise control scenarios didn't correct their direction as often as other test subjects, meaning that they had a greater chance of slipping into another lane or drifting off the road entirely.
  • Reaction times of those using cruise control were slowed by an average of one second. At a speed of 70 mph, that one second translates to a stopping difference of over 100 feet.

Researchers attribute some of these problems to a lack of attentiveness on the part of cruise control users. Though many proponents of the technology claim that it reduces driver fatigue, the motorist's lack of engagement when using cruise control could cause the opposite to be true.

The Foundation's Bernadette Moreau notes that the study isn't meant to do away with cruise control altogether, but to make motorists aware of when it should -- and shouldn't -- be employed: "The idea is not to simply advise drivers to refrain from using these driving aids, which provide real benefits in terms of speed limit compliance and comfort.... However, these aids should not be used systematically, but rather advisedly, and a number of precautions should be taken."

You can check out a summary PDF of the report here. Complete results should be released later this fall.

[BBC via Marty Padgett]

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.
editor@csmonitor.com
Subscribe
Mark Sappenfield
Editor

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

Subscribe to insightful journalism

QR Code to Is cruise control dangerous?
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/Business/In-Gear/2013/0812/Is-cruise-control-dangerous
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe