Effectiveness of forward collision warning and autonomous emergency braking systems in reducing front-to-rear crash rates

Cicchino, Jessica B.

doi:10.1016/j.aap.2016.11.009

Cited by 357 publications

(137 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

129

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Retrospective assessment has been performed e.g. by analysis of insurance claims data (Doyle, Edwards, & Avery, 2015;Isaksson-Hellman & Lindman, 2016;Cicchino, 2017;Cicchino, 2018;Kuehn, Hummel, & Bende, 2009), by meta-data analysis in Fildes et al (2015), by using national crash databases as in Sternlund et al (2017), Gårder & Davies (2006) or Persaud et al (2001) and by analysing naturalistic driving (ND) data (McLaughlin, Hankey, & Dingus, 2008;van Noort, Faber, & Bakri, 2012). The assessment provides the true representation of the effect of the systems, but it may require a long time until the systems can be evaluated.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Safety benefit assessment of autonomous emergency braking and steering systems for the protection of cyclists and pedestrians based on a combination of computer simulation and real-world test results

Kovaceva¹,

Bálint²,

Schindler³

et al. 2020

Accident Analysis & Prevention

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cyclists and pedestrians account for a significant share of fatalities and serious injuries in the road transport system. In order to protect them, advanced driver assistance systems are being developed and introduced to the market, including autonomous emergency braking and steering systems (AEBSS) that autonomously perform braking or an evasive manoeuvre by steering in case of a pending collision, in order to avoid the collision or mitigate its severity.This study proposes a new prospective framework for quantifying safety benefit of AEBSS for the protection of cyclists and pedestrians in terms of saved lives and reduction in the number of people suffering serious injuries. The core of the framework is a novel application of Bayesian inference in such a way that prior information from counterfactual simulation is updated with new observations from real-world testing of a prototype AEBSS.As an illustration of the method, the framework is applied for safety benefit assessment of the AEBSS developed in the European Union (EU) project PROSPECT. In this application of the framework, counterfactual simulation results based on the German In-Depth Accident Study Pre-Crash Matrix (GIDAS-PCM) data were combined with results from real-world tests on proving grounds.The proposed framework gives a systematic way for the combination of results from different sources and can be considered for understanding the real-world benefit of new AEBSS. Additionally, the Bayesian modelling approach used in this paper has a great potential to be used in a wide range of other research studies.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Safety benefit assessment of autonomous emergency braking and steering systems for the protection of cyclists and pedestrians based on a combination of computer simulation and real-world test results

Kovaceva¹,

Bálint²,

Schindler³

et al. 2020

Accident Analysis & Prevention

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Driving automation technologies such as adaptive cruise control and active lane keeping also are available to consumers. Driver assistance technologies have the potential to prevent many crashes (Jermakian 2011) and already are demonstrating their efficacy in some cases (Cicchino 2017;Sternlund et al 2017). However, the ability of some systems to reach their full promise depends on how drivers use and understand them.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Driver trust in five driver assistance technologies following real-world use in four production vehicles

Kidd

Cicchino

Reagan

et al. 2017

Traffic Injury Prevention

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: Information about drivers' experiences with driver assistance technologies in real driving conditions is sparse. This study characterized driver interactions with forward collision warning, adaptive cruise control, active lane keeping, side-view assist, and lane departure warning systems following real-world use. Methods: Fifty-four Insurance Institute for Highway Safety employees participated and drove a 2016 Toyota Prius, 2016 Honda Civic, 2017 Audi Q7, or 2016 Infiniti QX60 for up to several weeks. Participants reported mileage and warnings from the technologies in an online daily-use survey. Participants reported their level of agreement with five statements regarding trust in an online post-use survey. Responses were averaged to create a composite measure of trust ranging from −2 (strongly disagree) to +2 (strongly agree) for each technology. Mixed-effect regression models were constructed to compare trust among technologies and separately among the study vehicles. Participants' free-response answers about what they liked least about each system were coded and examined. Results: Participants reported driving 33,584 miles during 4 months of data collection. At least one forward collision warning was reported in 26% of the 354 daily reports. The proportion of daily reports indicating a forward collision warning was much larger for the Honda (70%) than for the Audi (18%), Infiniti (15%), and Toyota (10%).Trust was highest for side-view assist (0.98) and lowest for active lane keeping (0.20). Trust in side-view assist was significantly higher than trust in active lane keeping and lane departure warning (0.53). Trust in active lane keeping was significantly lower than trust in adaptive cruise control (0.67) and forward collision warning (0.71). Trust in adaptive cruise control was higher for the Audi (0.72) and Toyota (0.75) compared with the Honda (0.30), and significantly higher for the Infiniti (0.93). Trust in Infiniti's side-view assist (0.58) was significantly lower than trust in Audi (1.17) and Honda (1.23) systems. Coding of answers to free-response questions showed that more than 80% of complaints about Honda's adaptive cruise control were about the way it functioned and/or performed. Infiniti's side-view assist was the only one with complaints mentioning circumstances where it was used. Trust in forward collision warning, lane departure warning, and active lane keeping was not significantly different among vehicles. Conclusions: Driver trust varied among driver assistance technologies, and trust in adaptive cruise control and side-view assist differed among vehicles. Trust may affect real-world use of driver assistance technologies and limit the opportunity for the systems to provide their intended benefits.

show abstract

“…Several researchers have analyzed the effectiveness of crash avoidance technologies in reducing crash frequency and severity. Cicchino (2017) evaluated the effectiveness of FCW alone and FCW with AEB in reducing rear-end crashes in 27 U.S. states during 2010-14, using poisson regression analysis was to compare rates of police-reported crashes of passenger vehicles equipped with these technologies. Cicchino (2017) concluded that FCW alone and FCW with AEB systems could reduce rear-end crash involvement by 27% and 50%, respectively.…”

Section: Existing Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Net-societal and net-private benefits of some existing vehicle crash avoidance technologies

Khan

Harper

Hendrickson

et al. 2019

Accident Analysis & Prevention

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Effectiveness of forward collision warning and autonomous emergency braking systems in reducing front-to-rear crash rates

Cited by 357 publications

References 11 publications

Safety benefit assessment of autonomous emergency braking and steering systems for the protection of cyclists and pedestrians based on a combination of computer simulation and real-world test results

Safety benefit assessment of autonomous emergency braking and steering systems for the protection of cyclists and pedestrians based on a combination of computer simulation and real-world test results

Driver trust in five driver assistance technologies following real-world use in four production vehicles

Net-societal and net-private benefits of some existing vehicle crash avoidance technologies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About