Assessment of Integrated Pedestrian Protection Systems with Autonomous Emergency Braking (AEB) and Passive Safety Components

Abstract

Objective: Autonomous emergency braking (AEB) systems fitted to cars for pedestrians have been predicted to offer substantial benefit. On this basis, consumer rating programs-for example, the European New Car Assessment Programme (Euro NCAP)-are developing rating schemes to encourage fitment of these systems. One of the questions that needs to be answered to do this fully is how the assessment of the speed reduction offered by the AEB is integrated with the current assessment of the passive safety for mitigation of pedestrian injury. Ideally, this should be done on a benefit-related basis.The objective of this research was to develop a benefit-based methodology for assessment of integrated pedestrian protection systems with AEB and passive safety components. The method should include weighting procedures to ensure that it represents injury patterns from accident data and replicates an independently estimated benefit of AEB.Methods: A methodology has been developed to calculate the expected societal cost of pedestrian injuries, assuming that all pedestrians in the target population (i.e., pedestrians impacted by the front of a passenger car) are impacted by the car being assessed, taking into account the impact speed reduction offered by the car's AEB (if fitted) and the passive safety protection offered by the car's frontal structure. For rating purposes, the cost for the assessed car is normalized by comparing it to the cost calculated for a reference car.The speed reductions measured in AEB tests are used to determine the speed at which each pedestrian in the target population will be impacted. Injury probabilities for each impact are then calculated using the results from Euro NCAP pedestrian impactor tests and injury risk curves. These injury probabilities are converted into cost using "harm"-type costs for the body regions tested. These costs are weighted and summed. Weighting factors were determined using accident data from Germany and Great Britain and an independently estimated AEB benefit. German and Great Britain versions of the methodology are available. The methodology was used to assess cars with good, average, and poor Euro NCAP pedestrian ratings, in combination with a current AEB system. The fitment of a hypothetical A-pillar airbag was also investigated.Results: It was found that the decrease in casualty injury cost achieved by fitting an AEB system was approximately equivalent to that achieved by increasing the passive safety rating from poor to average. Because the assessment was influenced strongly by the level of head protection offered in the scuttle and windscreen area, a hypothetical A-pillar airbag showed high potential to reduce overall casualty cost.Conclusions: A benefit-based methodology for assessment of integrated pedestrian protection systems with AEB has been developed and tested. It uses input from AEB tests and Euro NCAP passive safety tests to give an integrated assessment of the system performance, which includes consideration of effects such as the change in head impact loca...

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

“…The prospective approach performs the assessment before the implementation of the actual systems in the vehicles, for example, by real-world testing, driving simulator studies, or computer simulations. Real-world testing means physical testing in a controlled environment and is often used to determine if the system works according to specifications (Nilsson, 2014;Edwards, et al, 2015). Real-world testing has the advantage of testing the actual system in a safe environment which ensures high fidelity; however, the number of tests is usually limited due to the cost of performing the tests, and the interactions are with dummies and without a driver.…”

A Multi-Vehicle Longitudinal Trajectory Collision Avoidance Strategy Using AEBS With Vehicle-Infrastructure Communication

“…For traditional transportation systems, the vehicles active safety focus on the active control aiming at the vehicle itself. For example, ABS is used to provide maximum friction between tire and road and maintain braking stability of the vehicle [4]- [6]. Electronic Stability Control (ESC) is proposed based on existing ABS controlling the braking force of different wheels to improve the vehicle yaw stability [7]- [9].…”

State-of-the-art review: preventing child and youth pedestrian motor vehicle collisions: critical issues and future directions

“…68 74-77 For example, an automatic braking system that engages immediately at a time to collision of 1.5 s may reduce fatality risk by 84% for pedestrians struck in frontal impacts, a scenario that accounts for about 70% of pedestrian fatalities in the USA. 78 Empirical data from non-fatal pedestrian collisions in Sweden suggested that 60%-70% of pedestrian crashes would be avoided if cars had mandatory pedestrian detection and automated emergency braking systems. 79…”