Honda's CMBS False Positives Allegedly Caused Accidents to Customers

Honda's Collision Mitigation Braking System (CMBS) allegedly caused accidents to consumers due to frequent instances of false obstacle detection.

Risk classification

• Primary risk domain: 7 AI system safety, failures, & limitations
• Primary risk subdomain: 7.3 Lack of capability or robustness

The incident is primarily a lack of capability or robustness because the CMBS failed to perform reliably, falsely detecting obstacles and executing sudden, unsafe braking maneuvers.

Additional risk subdomains

• 5.1 Overreliance and unsafe use: The report also discusses a fatal Tesla crash where occupants reportedly operated the vehicle in an unsafe 'driverless' mode, demonstrating overreliance on Autopilot.

Causal factors

• Entity: AI
• Intent: Unintentional
• Timing: Post-deployment

The sudden braking is caused by the AI-driven CMBS making incorrect decisions post-deployment, which was an unintentional outcome of its collision avoidance programming.

EU AI Act risk tier

• Risk tier: 2 High Risk

High Risk: The system is integrated into critical transport infrastructure and vehicle safety systems. The report notes that 'automated vehicles, which depend on technologies like automatic emergency braking, hold the promise of being the means that will prevent human choice or error'.

AI system and alleged parties

• AI system: Collision Mitigation Braking System (CMBS) (Honda)
• AI purpose: Autonomous Driving; Threat Detection
• Behaviour type: Autonomous
• Alleged developer: Honda
• Alleged deployer: Honda
• Alleged harmed parties: Honda customers

Harm severity

Severity ratings are based on this scale.

Highest direct severity in any category: Substantial. Severity is scored from Negligible to Catastrophic in each harm category, for harm the reports describe as caused directly or indirectly by the AI system.

• Physical: direct Substantial, indirect Negligible
• Infrastructure: direct Negligible, indirect Negligible
• Property: direct Minor, indirect Negligible
• Financial: direct Negligible, indirect Negligible
• Environmental: direct Negligible, indirect Negligible
• Malicious content: direct Negligible, indirect Negligible
• Differential treatment: direct Negligible, indirect Negligible
• Civil rights: direct Negligible, indirect Negligible
• Democracy: direct Negligible, indirect Negligible
• Privacy: direct Negligible, indirect Negligible
• Psychological: direct Negligible, indirect Negligible
• Epistemic: direct Negligible, indirect Negligible
• Child sexual exploitation and abuse: direct Negligible, indirect Negligible

Physical

Reported: Yes, the report explicitly describes physical injuries including whiplash, sore necks, and sore backs from sudden braking, as well as two fatalities in a Tesla crash.

Directly caused: The sudden deceleration of the Honda vehicles directly caused whiplash and neck/back soreness for at least two individuals. The Tesla Autopilot crash directly resulted in two fatalities.

Inferred additional harm: It is highly likely that other drivers in the class-action lawsuit suffered similar whiplash or minor physical injuries due to sudden phantom braking, estimated at 50 additional minor injuries.

Property

Reported: Yes, the report explicitly mentions property damage in the class-action lawsuit and the destruction of a Tesla vehicle.

Directly caused: The Tesla vehicle was completely destroyed by fire after crashing into a tree.

Inferred additional harm: Vehicles involved in phantom braking incidents likely sustained minor rear-end collision damage or wear, estimated at dozens of vehicles.

People affected

• Occurrences reported: 4
• People reportedly harmed: 4
• People reportedly exposed: 5

Potential causes

Management

• Failing to Disclose Defects: Selling vehicles despite knowing about safety defects in the system.
• Hubris in AI Capabilities: Belief that software can outperform human drivers in all conditions.

Technology

• Imperfect Software Coding: Programs contain bugs or design errors that lead to phantom braking.
• Radar and Camera False Positives: Sensing tech falsely detects obstacles from opposing traffic.
• GPS Signal Vulnerability: AI systems rely on imperfect GPS signals susceptible to dropouts.

Data Inputs

• False Hazard Detection: Sensing system falsely identifies non-hazards as imminent collisions.

Human Factors

• Driver Distraction from Warnings: Numerous false warning messages distract drivers from watching the road.
• Lack of Driver Education: Dealership reps fail to explain AI features and risks to buyers.

Process and Methods

• Inability to Predict Variables: Software fails to account for unpredictable real-time driving variables.
• Limited Programmer Imagination: Software choices only cover scenarios the programmers could anticipate.

Regulatory Environment

• Government Pressure to Deploy AI: NHTSA pushes for rapid AI deployment to mitigate human driver errors.
• Lack of Mandatory Standards: Courts block some lawsuits because NHTSA lacks clear mandatory standards.

Information quality

• Classification confidence: High
• Reason for confidence: The report provides clear, firsthand and legal accounts of the CMBS failures, detailing the technology, the nature of the malfunction, and the resulting physical injuries and lawsuits. The details are consistent across multiple sources cited.
• Ambiguities identified: The exact number of affected vehicles and the precise technical bug causing the false positives are not fully specified.
• Alternative interpretations: The sudden braking could be interpreted as hardware sensor failure rather than software/AI decision-making, though the report argues it is primarily an AI software fault.

The incident involves safety defects in Honda's Collision Mitigation Braking System and Tesla's Autopilot, leading to phantom braking, injuries, and lawsuits. While presenting serious consumer safety and regulatory challenges, the national security impact is negligible, as it does not involve malicious actors, critical infrastructure attacks, or threats to state sovereignty.

• Overall national security impact: Minor
• Scope: Single nation
• Primary target: No clear primary
• Alleged perpetrator: Unknown

Threat characteristics

• Imminence: Long-term. The issue represents an ongoing consumer safety and regulatory concern rather than an imminent national security threat.
• Autonomy: Full autonomy. The collision mitigation system automatically executes emergency braking decisions without requiring human confirmation or intervention.
• Novelty: Established threat. Phantom braking and driver assistance system failures are known issues in the automotive industry with existing regulatory and legal precedents.

Impact by dimension

• Physical security: Minor. Phantom braking and Autopilot failures caused localized physical injuries and fatalities on public roads, but represent consumer safety issues rather than a systemic threat to critical infrastructure.
• Information security: Negligible. No information warfare, intelligence compromise, or systematic information manipulation is associated with this consumer technology malfunction.
• Sovereignty: Negligible. The incident involves commercial vehicle safety defects and does not impact state authority, border control, or core government operations.
• Economic security: Negligible. While involving class-action lawsuits and potential financial losses for automakers, the incident does not threaten national economic stability or strategic technological advantages.
• Societal stability: Negligible. No mass surveillance, systematic discrimination, or erosion of civil liberties is indicated; the issue is limited to technical malfunctions in consumer vehicles.