Automakers receive a certain amount of credits for exceeding the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) requirements, aimed at improving the average fuel economy of vehicles sold in the United States, which they can then use later when they fail to meet the standards. These regulations have helped make cars and light trucks much more fuel efficient, which currently average 25.2 mpg, but that’s still way below the 54.5-mpg target mandated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency, that needs to be met by 2025.
Now, automakers are asking for a change in the way CAFE credits are awarded, demanding that advanced safety features be taken into account, in addition to fuel consumption ratings. The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, an auto industry lobby group, has asked regulators to start awarding fuel-economy credits for certain safety features automakers install in their vehicles. Specifically, automakers say that they should be credited for installing active safety systems that are aimed at preventing collisions, such as adaptive cruise control, automated braking, a forward-collision warning, or a lane-departure warning. The alliance consists of several high-profile members, including BMW, General Motors, Toyota, Volkswagen, Volvo, Ford, and Mercedes-Benz.
The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers claims that since these so-called autonomous driving features help prevent crashes, they also lead to reduced fuel consumption. They explain these claims by arguing that fewer accidents result in improved traffic flow and reduced congestion, with less vehicles idling on the road and less stop-and-go driving, which means that less fuel is being burned. Also, reduced fuel consumption translates into lower carbon emissions, meaning safety features are a contributing factor for improving air quality, as well.
To support these claims, the automaker trade group has cited findings from a study by the University of California at Riverside, according to which, carbon emissions can be cut by 30% if all vehicles had collision-avoidance features and other similar technologies that help ease congestion.
The NHTSA, for its part, is not to keen on accepting these demands at the moment. Although it acknowledges the benefits of automated braking and other active crash-avoidance systems, and their contribution towards reduced fuel consumption, the agency says that it would be difficult to determine exactly how much a given safety feature helps improve a vehicle’s fuel economy.
“It’s going to be very difficult to prove the amount of crashes avoided…that turns into the amount of congestion avoided that turns into the amount of fuel savings and emissions reduced. You want to give a credit for something that is meaningful,” said David Strickland, former head of NHTSA, in an interview with The Wall Street Journal. However, the NHTSA has also said that it is willing to consider every piece of evidence of the correlation between safety features and reduced fuel consumption in the future.