Estimate of Potential Benefit for Europe of Fitting Autonomous Emergency Braking (AEB) Systems for Pedestrian Protection to Passenger Cars

Edwards, Mervyn; Nathanson, Andrew T.; Wisch, Marcus

doi:10.1080/15389588.2014.931579

Cited by 40 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…needs 0 second to react, the avoidance rate is comprised between 70% with a FOV of 20° and 83% with a FOV of 35°. With a FOV of 35° or more, if the system requires 0.5s for triggering (like the systems described by (Edwards et al, 2014), the avoidance rate decreases to 75%. If the reaction time is 1s (respectively 2s) the avoidance rate is 64% (respectively ~8%).…”

Section: Parameters Relevant To Aeb Performancementioning

confidence: 99%

Issues and challenges for pedestrian active safety systems based on real world accidents

Hamdane

Serre²,

Masson

et al. 2015

Accident Analysis & Prevention

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Issues and challenges for pedestrian active safety systems based on real world accidents 2Issues and challenges for pedestrian active safety systems based on real world accidents Abstract The purpose of this study was to analyze real crashes involving pedestrians in order to evaluate the potential effectiveness of Autonomous Emergency Braking systems (AEB) in pedestrian protection. A sample of 100 real accident cases were reconstructed providing a comprehensive set of data describing the interaction between the vehicle, the environment and the pedestrian all along the scenario of the accident. A generic AEB system based on a camera sensor for pedestrian detection was modeled in order to identify the functionality of its different attributes in the timeline of each crash scenario. These attributes were assessed to determine their impact on pedestrian safety. The influence of the detection and the activation of the AEB system were explored by varying the Field Of View (FOV) of the sensor and the level of deceleration. A FOV of 35° was estimated to be required to detect and react to the majority of crash scenarios. For the reaction of a system (from hazard detection to triggering the brakes), between 0,5 and 1s appears necessary.

show abstract

Section: Parameters Relevant To Aeb Performancementioning

confidence: 99%

Issues and challenges for pedestrian active safety systems based on real world accidents

Hamdane

Serre²,

Masson

et al. 2015

Accident Analysis & Prevention

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The specific data used were injury costs estimated from a benefit analysis reported in Edwards et al (2014). In this analysis, injury costs were calculated for the following 4 potential situations:…”

Section: Overall Calibration Factormentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Specifications of the AEB systems are described in Edwards et al (2014). Both the Great Britain and German methodology versions were run using input data to represent the 4 situations described above.…”

Section: Overall Calibration Factormentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As described in Edwards et al (2014), baseline exposure-impact velocity curves were developed for Great Britain and Germany (Figures 1 and 2) using detailed and national accident data appropriate for each country. For Great Britain, On the Spot (OTS) data were weighted using STATS19 national data on the basis of the number of fatal, serious, and slight casualties.…”

Section: Conceptmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…estimated that the fitment of a pedestrian AEB system would improve a car's European New Car Assessment Programme (Euro NCAP) performance rating by approximately one color band, which corresponds to an increase in the score of 25% of the maximum. Edwards et al (2014) estimated an annual benefit for the EU from about €1 billion to €3.5 billion depending on the type of AEB and assuming that it was fitted to all cars.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

Edwards

Nathanson

Carroll

et al. 2015

Traffic Injury Prevention

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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...

show abstract

Effectiveness of road safety interventions: An evidence and gap map

Goel,

Tiwari,

Varghese

et al. 2024

Campbell Systematic Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundRoad Traffic injuries (RTI) are among the top ten leading causes of death in the world resulting in 1.35 million deaths every year, about 93% of which occur in low‐ and middle‐income countries (LMICs). Despite several global resolutions to reduce traffic injuries, they have continued to grow in many countries. Many high‐income countries have successfully reduced RTI by using a public health approach and implementing evidence‐based interventions. As many LMICs develop their highway infrastructure, adopting a similar scientific approach towards road safety is crucial. The evidence also needs to be evaluated to assess external validity because measures that have worked in high‐income countries may not translate equally well to other contexts. An evidence gap map for RTI is the first step towards understanding what evidence is available, from where, and the key gaps in knowledge.ObjectivesThe objective of this evidence gap map (EGM) is to identify existing evidence from all effectiveness studies and systematic reviews related to road safety interventions. In addition, the EGM identifies gaps in evidence where new primary studies and systematic reviews could add value. This will help direct future research and discussions based on systematic evidence towards the approaches and interventions which are most effective in the road safety sector. This could enable the generation of evidence for informing policy at global, regional or national levels.Search MethodsThe EGM includes systematic reviews and impact evaluations assessing the effect of interventions for RTI reported in academic databases, organization websites, and grey literature sources. The studies were searched up to December 2019.Selection CriteriaThe interventions were divided into five broad categories: (a) human factors (e.g., enforcement or road user education), (b) road design, infrastructure and traffic control, (c) legal and institutional framework, (d) post‐crash pre‐hospital care, and (e) vehicle factors (except car design for occupant protection) and protective devices. Included studies reported two primary outcomes: fatal crashes and non‐fatal injury crashes; and four intermediate outcomes: change in use of seat belts, change in use of helmets, change in speed, and change in alcohol/drug use. Studies were excluded if they did not report injury or fatality as one of the outcomes.Data Collection and AnalysisThe EGM is presented in the form of a matrix with two primary dimensions: interventions (rows) and outcomes (columns). Additional dimensions are country income groups, region, quality level for systematic reviews, type of study design used (e.g., case‐control), type of road user studied (e.g., pedestrian, cyclists), age groups, and road type. The EGM is available online where the matrix of interventions and outcomes can be filtered by one or more dimensions. The webpage includes a bibliography of the selected studies and titles and abstracts available for preview. Quality appraisal for systematic reviews was conducted using a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews, AMSTAR 2.Main ResultsThe EGM identified 1859 studies of which 322 were systematic reviews, 7 were protocol studies and 1530 were impact evaluations. Some studies included more than one intervention, outcome, study method, or study region. The studies were distributed among intervention categories as: human factors (n = 771), road design, infrastructure and traffic control (n = 661), legal and institutional framework (n = 424), post‐crash pre‐hospital care (n = 118) and vehicle factors and protective devices (n = 111). Fatal crashes as outcomes were reported in 1414 records and non‐fatal injury crashes in 1252 records. Among the four intermediate outcomes, speed was most commonly reported (n = 298) followed by alcohol (n = 206), use of seatbelts (n = 167), and use of helmets (n = 66). Ninety‐six percent of the studies were reported from high‐income countries (HIC), 4.5% from upper‐middle‐income countries, and only 1.4% from lower‐middle and low‐income countries. There were 25 systematic reviews of high quality, 4 of moderate quality, and 293 of low quality.Authors' ConclusionsThe EGM shows that the distribution of available road safety evidence is skewed across the world. A vast majority of the literature is from HICs. In contrast, only a small fraction of the literature reports on the many LMICs that are fast expanding their road infrastructure, experiencing rapid changes in traffic patterns, and witnessing growth in road injuries. This bias in literature explains why many interventions that are of high importance in the context of LMICs remain poorly studied. Besides, many interventions that have been tested only in HICs may not work equally effectively in LMICs. Another important finding was that a large majority of systematic reviews are of low quality. The scarcity of evidence on many important interventions and lack of good quality evidence‐synthesis have significant implications for future road safety research and practice in LMICs. The EGM presented here will help identify priority areas for researchers, while directing practitioners and policy makers towards proven interventions.

show abstract

Estimate of Potential Benefit for Europe of Fitting Autonomous Emergency Braking (AEB) Systems for Pedestrian Protection to Passenger Cars

Abstract: The potential benefit of fitting AEB systems to cars in Europe for pedestrian protection has been estimated and the results interpreted to indicate the upper limit of cost for a system to allow it to be cost effective.

Cited by 40 publications

References 3 publications

Issues and challenges for pedestrian active safety systems based on real world accidents

Issues and challenges for pedestrian active safety systems based on real world accidents

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

Effectiveness of road safety interventions: An evidence and gap map

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About