No abstract

Six years (2015-2020) of autonomous vehicle (AV Level 3) crash data from California's (CA) OL 316 collision reports of AV crashes while in the autonomous mode (AM) or disengaged from AM just before the collision, divided by the associated CA AV make and mileage driven in the AM, are compared with the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI) corrected human driver crash frequency. AV test drivers in CA mandatorily self-report every crash, whereas average drivers underreport minor accidents, so the UMTRI reporting correction factor permits comparison. CA's AV AM mileage is only a few million miles over the last few years, with virtually no police-reported crash data yet available. OL 316 crash consequence data (e.g., damage, injuries, etc.) is anecdotal and inconsistently self-reported. The CA collision report data indicate the CA AV test fleet exhibits multiples of the human crash frequency. Invariably, the AV accidents are the human driver's fault, with a majority being rear collisions. The human drivers appear less able to anticipate the AV's more conservative driving. CA's AV experience predicts more widespread deployment of existing AV technologies is not likely to reduce vehicle crash frequency, at least in the short term, and might well increase it.

A variety of potential hazards can be identified for nearly any consumer product, often more than can be practically or effectively addressed with warning labels. Published standards and guidelines for warnings do not offer a reasonable basis for limiting the number and length of warning labels. This paper proposes criteria for the use and design of warning labels based on effectiveness research, accident data, and product-associated risk.

A review of approximately 400 published articles, in addition to the authors' own research in the area of on-product warning label design and effectiveness, is summarized. Findings are examined for implications in the design and use of on-product warning labels for improved product safety through modification of user behavior. No scientific evidence was found to support the contention that on-product warning labels measurably increase the safety of any product.There was evi dence that on-product warni ngs have no measurable impact on user behavior and product safety.

Consumer product warnings, often placards, buzzers, etc., are information displays that attempt to influence user behavior through the information presented. A review and background of warnings is presented. Assumptions underlying their employment and the lack of scientific validation of their effectiveness are discussed. Quantitative criteria are proposed for the use of warnings based on risk analysis. Examples of such analysis are presented. The limited information processing capability of man dictates that warnings be reserved for significant risks in the context of the products use, environment, and risks from other products. Contraindications for use of warnings are discussed.