The most difficult at-fault fatal crashes to avoid with current active safety technology.

OBJECTIVE We studied which current fatal at-fault crashes would occur despite the most advanced current active safety devices (up to SAE level 2 of driving automation) and how frequent these crashes would be. METHODS We carried out a cross-sectional study of passenger cars that were first registered during the period 1st January 2010 to 31st December 2017 in Finland. To gain the true exposure for these cars, we accessed the national Vehicular and Driver Data Register to obtain the mileage information and the registration count for the study period of 2010-17. Similarly, we accessed the registry of Finnish road accident investigation teams and included all fatal at-fault crashes among the cars in our study for the same period. We used a real world reference technology for each active safety system in our analysis and chose one car brand as an example. This gave us exact system specifications and enabled testing the operation of the systems on the road. We performed field tests to gain further information on the precise operation of the safety systems in different operating conditions. Finally, we gathered all information on the studied active safety systems and analyzed the investigated at-fault fatal crashes case-by-case using our four level method. RESULTS Cars in our study were the primary party in 113 investigated fatal accidents during the years 2010-17. In 87 of the accidents, the leading cause of death was the injuries due to the crash, and these cases were classified as "unavoidable" (n = 58, 67 %), "avoidable" (n = 26, 30 %) or unsolved (n = 3, 3 %). Of the 58 "unavoidable" crashes 21 (36 %) were suicides, 21 (36%) involved active driver input which would have prevented the safety system operation, 15 (17 %) featured circumstances beyond the safety system performance and in one loss-of-control crash the driver had disabled the relevant safety system (electronic stability control). The registration years of the cars in our study (2010-17) totaled 3,772,864 and during this period, the cars travelled 75.9 billion kilometers. The crash incidence of the "unavoidable" at-fault fatal crashes was 0.76-0.80 fatal crashes per billion kilometers and 15-16 fatal crashes per million registration years. CONCLUSIONS We calculated a crash incidence for the "unavoidable" crashes which was 20-27% smaller than the observed crash rate of ESC-fitted passenger cars in our previous study. We concluded that suicides, active driver input until the crash, and challenging weather and road conditions are the most difficult factors for current active safety systems. Our analysis did not account for issues such as system usability or driver acceptance and therefore our results should be regarded as something that is currently theoretically achievable. However, the observed incidence is a good reference for automated driving development and the crash rate of automated cars.

[1]  Chunshi Guo,et al.  Predictive shared steering control for driver override in automated driving: A simulator study , 2018, Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour.

[2]  A. Williams,et al.  Older driver involvements in police reported crashes and fatal crashes: trends and projections , 2002, Injury prevention : journal of the International Society for Child and Adolescent Injury Prevention.

[3]  T. Vahlberg,et al.  Crash risk of ESC-fitted passenger cars , 2019, Traffic injury prevention.

[4]  Risto Kulmala,et al.  Ex-ante assessment of the safety effects of intelligent transport systems. , 2010, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[5]  Ian J. Reagan,et al.  Crash avoidance and driver assistance technologies - are they used? , 2018 .

[6]  Feng Guo,et al.  Driver crash risk factors and prevalence evaluation using naturalistic driving data , 2016, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[7]  A. Williams,et al.  Driver age and crash involvement. , 1989, American journal of public health.

[8]  Claudio Mulatti,et al.  Advanced driver assistance systems: Using multimodal redundant warnings to enhance road safety. , 2017, Applied ergonomics.

[9]  Alena Høye,et al.  The effects of electronic stability control (ESC) on crashes--an update. , 2011, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[10]  Mark Vollrath,et al.  How to warn drivers in various safety-critical situations - Different strategies, different reactions. , 2018, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[11]  Trevor James Allen,et al.  Safety Benefits of Cooperative ITS and Automated Driving in Australia and New Zealand , 2017 .

[12]  William J. Horrey,et al.  Automated driving: Safety blind spots , 2018 .

[13]  Jing Wang,et al.  Using the U.S. National Household Travel Survey to estimate the impact of passenger characteristics on young drivers' relative risk of fatal crash involvement. , 2010, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[14]  Victoria A Banks,et al.  Is partially automated driving a bad idea? Observations from an on-road study. , 2018, Applied ergonomics.

[15]  Neville A. Stanton,et al.  Adaptive driver modelling in ADAS to improve user acceptance: A study using naturalistic data , 2019, Safety Science.

[16]  Annika F L Larsson,et al.  Driver usage and understanding of adaptive cruise control. , 2012, Applied ergonomics.

[17]  David J. LeBlanc,et al.  Large-Scale Field Test of Forward Collision Alert and Lane Departure Warning Systems , 2016 .