Safety Benefits of Forward Collision Warning, Brake Assist, and Autonomous Braking Systems in Rear-End Collisions

This paper examines the potential effectiveness of the following three precollision system (PCS) algorithms: 1) forward collision warning only; 2) forward collision warning and precrash brake assist; and 3) forward collision warning, precrash brake assist, and autonomous precrash brake. Real-world rear-end crashes were extracted from a nationally representative sample of collisions in the United States. A sample of 1396 collisions, corresponding to 1.1 million crashes, were computationally simulated as if they occurred, with the driver operating a precollision-system-equipped vehicle. A probability-based framework was developed to account for the variable driver reaction to the warning system. As more components were added to the algorithms, greater benefits were realized. The results indicate that the exemplar PCS investigated in this paper could reduce the severity (i.e., ΔV) of the collision between 14% and 34%. The number of moderately to fatally injured drivers who wore their seat belts could have been reduced by 29% to 50%. These collision-mitigating algorithms could have prevented 3.2% to 7.7% of rear-end collisions. This paper shows the dramatic reductions in serious and fatal injuries that a PCS, which is one of the first intelligent vehicle technologies to be deployed in production cars, can bring to highway safety when available throughout the fleet. This paper also presents the framework of an innovative safety benefits methodology that, when adapted to other emerging active safety technologies, can be employed to estimate potential reductions in the frequency and severity of highway crashes.

[1]  David N. Lee,et al.  A Theory of Visual Control of Braking Based on Information about Time-to-Collision , 1976, Perception.

[2]  Saïd Mammar,et al.  Driver Steering Assistance for Lane-Departure Avoidance Based on Hybrid Automata and Composite Lyapunov Function , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems.

[3]  Daniel V. McGehee,et al.  Collision Warning Timing, Driver Distraction, and Driver Response to Imminent Rear-End Collisions in a High-Fidelity Driving Simulator , 2002, Hum. Factors.

[4]  Michael Sivak,et al.  Radar-Measured Reaction Times of Unalerted Drivers to Brake Signals , 1982 .

[5]  James P Bliss,et al.  Alarm mistrust in automobiles: how collision alarm reliability affects driving. , 2003, Applied ergonomics.

[6]  Francesco Biral,et al.  Supporting Drivers in Keeping Safe Speed and Safe Distance: The SASPENCE Subproject Within the European Framework Programme 6 Integrating Project PReVENT , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems.

[7]  Hirofumi Aoki,et al.  Safety Impact Methodology (SIM) for Effectiveness Estimation of a Pre-Collision System (PCS) by Utilizing Driving Simulator Test and EDR Data Analysis , 2010 .

[8]  Thomas A Gennarelli,et al.  AIS 2005: a contemporary injury scale. , 2006, Injury.

[9]  Hampton C Gabler,et al.  Evaluation of the Accuracy of NASS/CDS Delta-V Estimates from the Enhanced WinSmash Algorithm. , 2010, Annals of advances in automotive medicine. Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine. Annual Scientific Conference.

[10]  Terry D. Day,et al.  An Overview of the Way EDCRASH Computes Delta-V , 1987 .

[11]  Kristofer D. Kusano,et al.  Target Population for Injury Reduction from Pre-Crash Systems , 2010 .

[12]  Brian N. Fildes,et al.  Review of crash effectiveness of intelligent transport systems , 2007 .

[13]  Kristofer D. Kusano,et al.  Potential Occupant Injury Reduction in Pre-Crash System Equipped Vehicles in the Striking Vehicle of Rear-end Crashes. , 2010, Annals of advances in automotive medicine. Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine. Annual Scientific Conference.

[14]  G R Preziotti,et al.  ALERT ALGORITHM DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM: NHTSA REAR-END COLLISION ALERT ALGORITHM , 2002 .

[15]  Taewung Kim,et al.  Crash Probability and Error Rates for Head-On Collisions Based on Stochastic Analyses , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems.

[16]  Jean-Fu Kiang,et al.  Estimation on Location, Velocity, and Acceleration With High Precision for Collision Avoidance , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems.

[17]  Wassim G. Najm,et al.  Problem Defi nition for Pre-Crash Sensing Advanced Restraints , 2009 .

[18]  Hampton C. Gabler,et al.  Method for Estimating Time to Collision at Braking in Real-World, Lead Vehicle Stopped Rear-End Crashes for Use in Pre-Crash System Design , 2011 .

[19]  George Bahouth,et al.  Development of URGENCY 2.1 for the prediction of crash injury severity , 2004 .

[20]  Darren Franck,et al.  Mathematical Methods for Accident Reconstruction: A Forensic Engineering Perspective , 2009 .

[21]  Gerd Wanielik,et al.  Situation Assessment for Automatic Lane-Change Maneuvers , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems.

[22]  Nathan A. Rose,et al.  An Examination of the CRASH3 Effective Mass Concept , 2004 .

[23]  Jonas Sjöberg,et al.  Model-Based Threat Assessment for Avoiding Arbitrary Vehicle Collisions , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems.

[24]  John R. Brophy,et al.  An Overview of Nhtsa ’ S Crash Reconstruction Software , 2007 .

[25]  Juan Liu,et al.  An Efficient Computational Architecture for a Collision Early-Warning System for Vehicles, Pedestrians, and Bicyclists , 2011, IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems.

[26]  Vicente Milanés Montero,et al.  Automated On-Ramp Merging System for Congested Traffic Situations , 2011, IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems.

[27]  Vicente Milanés Montero,et al.  Autonomous Pedestrian Collision Avoidance Using a Fuzzy Steering Controller , 2011, IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems.

[28]  Douglas J Gabauer,et al.  Comparison of roadside crash injury metrics using event data recorders. , 2008, Accident; analysis and prevention.