Modern mobility is undergoing an unprecedented transformation, with technological advancements making vehicles increasingly safer. However, a recent report by Economist Enterprise, "Safety in Motion: Driving trust in modern mobility," supported by Brembo, revealed a surprising dichotomy in safety perception: while most people feel safe in their daily commutes, industry experts harbor significantly greater concerns.
This study, based on a survey of over 6,000 respondents across ten global markets, sheds light on one of the most critical challenges for modern road safety: the "trust gap."
The Confidence Gap: A Concerning Reality
The report reveals a surprising and potentially dangerous fact: 90% of road users claim to feel safe in their daily travels, while only 45% of mobility sector professionals – engineers, politicians, operators – share this same confidence. This misalignment between public perception and expert evaluation is what we define as the "confidence gap."
Jean Todt, Special Envoy of the United Nations Secretary-General for Road Safety, emphasized that this excessive confidence can lead people to take unnecessary risks. For a company like Brembo, whose mission is to create a "zero-accident future," understanding and addressing this divergence in perceptions is of fundamental importance.
Why do users feel so safe?
High user trust is fueled by various perceptions and tangible advancements:
• Technological Progress and Rapid Modernization: Users perceive significant engineering improvements in vehicle and infrastructure safety. For example, better brakes, sturdier structures, and smarter impact protection systems have drastically reduced risks in recent decades. Rapid modernization—with new infrastructures, smarter vehicles, and advanced technologies—is seen as evidence of enhanced safety.
• Familiarity with Technology: Certain demographic groups, such as Millennials (94% high trust), who have grown up with many new technologies, tend to be more open and confident in innovations integrated into modern mobility. Positive perceptions of technology increase with practical experience.
• Overestimation of Automated Systems' Capabilities: There is a tendency to overestimate the safety of mobility automation technologies. However, this trust can lead to reduced vigilance and an underestimation of the real limitations of the technology. Particularly in "optimistic" markets like Brazil, China, and India, where the trust gap is wider (94% users vs. 18% professionals) and mortality rates are highest, public optimism outpaces actual results and may suppress the demand for improvements.
• Perception of Own Behavior: Although users have high trust, paradoxically, they perceive their own driving behavior (distraction, fatigue, rule violations) as the main cause of mobility safety issues (26%). They also recognize excessive reliance on technology as their primary safety concern (49% in India, 39% in Germany).
• Trust in Approvals and Experience: When a new safety feature is introduced, users tend to place trust in personal experience, regulation, and government approvals.
Why are professionals less confident?
Industry professionals, with a deeper understanding of technologies, are aware of both their potential and their limitations. Their main concerns are as follows:
• Human-Machine Interaction as the Main Risk: Only 3% of professionals identify mechanical failures as the primary cause of mobility safety issues. On the contrary, the greatest concern lies in human-machine interaction:
◦ Misuse or misunderstanding of automated systems: 30% of professionals indicate the misuse or misunderstanding of driver assistance systems as the main cause of safety issues.
◦ Distracting functionalities: 24% highlight how onboard features can distract users from the road.
• Marketing Inconsistent with Reality: A widespread concern (65% of professionals) is that advertising tends to exaggerate the capabilities of systems, implying a reduced need for driver attention (62%) and emphasizing benefits at the expense of limitations (60%). This can lead users to be less vigilant.
• "Naming Debt" and Inconsistent Terminology: The terms used for new technologies (e.g., "Autopilot," "ProPILOT") have often misled drivers, making them believe that cars were fully autonomous when they still required their full attention. This has generated disillusionment and mistrust.
• The "Attention Shift" Moment: Professionals identify the moment when control shifts from the system to the driver as a crucial risk point. Advanced driver assistance systems often fail to keep the driver genuinely engaged, with drivers learning to bypass warnings. The ability to regain situational awareness after a period of disengagement is difficult and takes time.
• Lack of Coordination Between Regulators and Industry: 68% of professionals identify poor coordination between regulators and industry as the main point of failure in mobility safety governance. This leads to fragmented standards and confusion for users.
• Human Behavior as a Design Variable: Professionals recognize that human behavior is difficult to control (e.g., using mobile phones while driving or not wearing seat belts remain widespread issues despite regulations). Therefore, safety must be integrated into system design, considering human behavior as a variable to manage, not just a compliance issue.
In summary, while users rely on visible advancements and personal experience, professionals see behind the scenes, recognizing the complexity of human-machine interaction, the limitations of technologies, and the challenges of governance and communication. This trust gap is dangerous because users' overconfidence can lead to risky behaviors, while experts' awareness does not translate into adequate public pressure for necessary improvements.
Brembo's Commitment to a Safer Future
At Brembo, we firmly believe that advanced technology is not the problem but part of the solution. Research highlights that as technology becomes more capable, trust must evolve accordingly. Our commitment is to responsible innovation, which, as demonstrated by the report, achieves its greatest effectiveness when people fully understand both the capabilities and limitations of systems.
Technologies like Sensify, which independently control braking forces on each wheel for more precise and predictable vehicle behavior, exemplify our approach. In track tests with Michelin, Sensify reduced emergency stopping distances by up to four meters from 90 km/h, even on wet surfaces. This is concrete proof that safety is built through real performance, transparency, and responsible deployment.
An Action Plan to Bridge the Gap
The "Safety in Motion" report proposes a clear roadmap to rebuild trust. For Brembo and the entire private sector, the priorities are:
• Transparency as a Foundation: It is essential to commit to regular and public reporting of safety performance, including accident data and methodologies. This should be a continuous standard of accountability, not just a response to crises.
• Marketing Aligned with Reality: Marketing claims must be explicit about the operating conditions of a feature and the requirements for the driver. Feature names implying autonomy beyond what is approved should be eliminated.
• Redesigning the Human-Machine Attention Transition: The moment when control shifts from the system to the driver is the point of greatest risk. It is crucial to treat this as a primary architectural challenge for safety, ensuring that alert systems promote genuine driver engagement, not just minimal compliance.
For Brembo, bridging the trust gap means not only developing cutting-edge technologies but also ensuring that user communication and education are equally advanced. Our dedication to a zero-incident future drives us to be a key player in this collective effort. By working together with regulators, industry bodies, and consumers, we can ensure that the perception of safety aligns with reality, making mobility truly safer for everyone.