Potential Reduction in Crashes, Injuries and Deaths from Large-Scale Deployment of Advanced Driver Assistance Systems
A synthesis of existing research on the potential safety benefits of selected Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) providing new estimates of the numbers of crashes, injuries, and deaths that such systems could potentially help prevent.
ABSTRACT
Introduction
This research brief reviews recent literature and provides updated statistical estimates regarding the numbers of crashes, injuries, and deaths that could theoretically be addressed by equipping all cars, pickup trucks, vans, minivans, and sport utility vehicles with advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) technologies. Technologies included in the scope of this brief are designed to prevent or reduce the severity of specific types of crashes, or to help the driver do so. Specific technologies examined are: forward collision warning (FCW), automatic emergency braking (AEB), lane departure warning (LDW), lane keeping assistance (LKA), and blind spot monitoring (BSM) systems. Driver assistance technologies designed primarily for driver convenience (e.g., adaptive cruise control systems; parking assistance systems) are outside the scope of this review. This brief estimates the numbers of crashes, injuries, and deaths that these technologies could theoretically help prevent or mitigate, it does not attempt to quantify the likely actual real-world reductions in crashes, injuries, and deaths attributable to these technologies.
Key Findings
The technologies examined are estimated to have the potential to prevent a combined total of approximately 40% of all passenger-vehicle crashes, 37% of injuries that occur in crashes involving passenger vehicles, and 29% of all deaths in crashes that involve passenger vehicles.
FCW/AEB and LDW/LKA systems were each estimated to have the potential to help prevent approximately 14% of all motor vehicle crash fatalities. However, FCW/AEB systems were estimated to be relevant to more than four times as many crashes and injuries as LDW/LKA. This is because the types of crashes targeted by LDW/LKA systems, i.e., lane departure crashes and especially single-vehicle road departure crashes, tend to be more severe than most other crash types. FCW and AEB systems with pedestrian detection capability have the potential to prevent a substantial number of fatalities, especially involving pedestrians and cyclists; however, most of the overall crashes to which they are relevant are rear-end crashes, which are rarely fatal. The overall contribution of BSW systems to crash reductions was the smallest by all measures, but they are still estimated to have the potential to help prevent as many as 318,000 crashes annually.
Methodology
This study sought to quantify the number of crashes, injuries, and deaths that occurred in the United States in 2016 that theoretically might have been avoided or reduced in severity if all vehicles had been equipped with the technologies of interest. Data on police-reported crashes and injuries that occurred in crashes were from the NHTSA’s Crash Report Sampling System, which comprises a representative sample of all police-reported motor vehicle crashes nationwide. Data on deaths that occurred in crashes were from the NHTSA’s Fatality Analysis Reporting System, which is a census of all fatal motor vehicle crashes nationwide.
Variables pertaining to the vehicle, driver, geometry of the crash, environmental conditions, and the sequence of events of the crash were used to identify crashes that the systems of interest are designed to prevent or mitigate. Crashes of potential interest in the current analysis were those that involved a passenger vehicle in the first harmful event of the crash.
First, researchers examined the data to identify crashes of the general type that each respective technology is designed to address (e.g., LDW systems are designed to prevent crashes in which the vehicle leaves its travel lane unintentionally). Researchers then identified and subtracted specific subsets of those crashes that the technology likely would not have prevented due to its known limitations (e.g., sensors not functioning reliably in inclement weather) or idiosyncratic factors present in the crash (e.g., the driver was intoxicated and thus might not have responded appropriately to warnings). The remaining crashes represent crashes that theoretically might have been prevented if the vehicles involved in the crash had been equipped with the technologies examined.
ABSTRACT
Introduction
Many new vehicles available for consumers to purchase today offer advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) technologies designed to improve the convenience and safety of driving by warning the driver that a crash is imminent or by temporarily automating certain aspects of vehicle control such as acceleration, braking or steering. As these technologies become more available to motorists, they have the potential to reduce rates of crashes, injuries and deaths on our roadways. However, that potential will not be realized fully unless consumers accept these technologies, understand how to use them, use them as intended, and avoid misusing or becoming overreliant on them.
The purpose of the study was to examine experiences with, opinions about and understanding of specific ADAS technologies by surveying the registered owners of selected model year 2016 and 2017 vehicles equipped with technologies of interest, which included forward collision warning (FCW), automatic emergency braking (AEB), lane departure warning (LDW), lane keeping assist (LKA), blind spot monitoring (BSM), rear cross-traffic alert (RCTA) and adaptive cruise control (ACC).
Key Findings
The majority of drivers generally have favorable impressions of the technologies on their vehicles. For example:
- At least two in three owners of vehicles with each respective technology reported that they trusted it.
- More than three in four reported that they found each respective technology useful.
- At least seven in ten owners indicated they would want each respective technology on their next car and that they would recommend it to others.
However, many respondents demonstrated lack of awareness of the key limitations of the technologies. For example:
- Only 21% of owners of vehicles with BSM systems correctly identified inability to detect vehicles passing at very high speeds as a limitation of the system; the remainder expressed various other misconceptions about its function or reported that they were unsure of the system’s limitations.
- 33% of owners of vehicles with AEB systems did not realize that the system relied on cameras or sensors that could be blocked by dirt, ice, or snow.
The data also provided some suggestive evidence of some potentially-unsafe behavioral adaption in response to the technologies. For example:
- 29% of respondents reported at least occasionally feeling comfortable engaging in other activities while driving with ACC.
- 30% of owners of vehicles with BSM systems reported at least sometimes relying on the system to the point of changing lanes without visually checking their blind spot.
- 25% of owners of vehicles with RCTA systems reported at least sometimes backing up without looking over their shoulder.
Methodology
Researchers surveyed the registered owners of selected model year 2016 and 2017 vehicles equipped with technologies of interest.
Vehicles equipped with technologies of interest were identified by cataloguing the ADAS technologies offered as standard or optional equipment on the 194 vehicle makes and models that comprised 99% of the total US market share in 2016. Technologies available on vehicles were catalogued at the trim level by examining the websites and marketing materials of OEMs supplemented with information from automotive websites such as TESLA.COM, cargurus.com and Edmunds.com in cases in which the technology available on a particular vehicle could not be determined definitively from OEM sources alone.
A sample of 10,000 names and mailing addresses of registered owners of 94 specific vehicle trims identified as including three or more technologies of interest as standard equipment were purchased from IHS Automotive, which compiles a list of registered owners of vehicles in most US states. Owners probability of being included in the survey was roughly proportional to the market share of their vehicle with the exception that owners of vehicles with low market share were slightly oversampled to increase the diversity of vehicles included in the study. These 10,000 vehicle owners were invited by mail to participate in an online survey that included detailed questions about their experiences with, opinions about, and knowledge of the technologies on their vehicles. To avoid excessive respondent burden, owners of vehicles with more than three of the technologies of interest were asked questions about a randomly selected three of their technologies. A total of 1,380 vehicle owners responded to the survey.
STARLIGHTER MAGAZINE 