A method for predicting crash configurations using counterfactual simulations and real-world data.

Traffic safety technologies revolve around two principle ideas; crash avoidance and injury mitigation for inevitable crashes. The development of relevant vehicle injury mitigating technologies should consider the interaction of those two technologies, ensuring that the inevitable crashes can be adequately managed by the occupant and vulnerable road user (VRU) protection systems. A step towards that is the accurate description of the expected crashes remaining when crash-avoiding technologies are available in vehicles. With the overall objective of facilitating the assessment of future traffic safety, this study develops a method for predicting crash configurations when introducing crash-avoiding countermeasures. The predicted crash configurations are one important factor for prioritizing the evaluation and development of future occupant and VRU protection systems. By using real-world traffic accident data to form the baseline and performing counterfactual model-in-the-loop (MIL) pre-crash simulations, the change in traffic situations (vehicle crashes) provided by vehicles with crash-avoiding technologies can be predicted. The method is built on a novel crash configuration definition, which supports further analysis of the in-crash phase. By clustering and grouping the remaining crashes, a limited number of crash configurations can be identified, still representing and covering the real-world variation. The developed method was applied using Swedish national- and in-depth accident data related to urban intersections and highway driving, and a conceptual Autonomous Emergency Braking system (AEB) computational model. Based on national crash data analysis, the conflict situations Same-Direction rear-end frontal (SD-ref) representing 53 % of highway vehicle-to-vehicle (v2v) crashes, and Straight Crossing Path (SCP) with 21 % of urban v2v intersection crashes were selected for this study. Pre-crash baselines, for SD-ref (n = 1010) and SCP (n = 4814), were prepared based on in-depth accident data and variations of these. Pre-crash simulations identified the crashes not avoided by the conceptual AEB, and the clustering of these revealed 5 and 52 representative crash configurations for the highway SD-ref and urban intersection SCP conflict situations, respectively, to be used in future crashworthiness studies. The results demonstrated a feasible way of identifying, in a predictive way, relevant crash configurations for in-crash testing of injury prevention capabilities.

[1]  Hampton C Gabler,et al.  Comparison of Expected Crash and Injury Reduction from Production Forward Collision and Lane Departure Warning Systems , 2015, Traffic injury prevention.

[2]  Marco Dozza,et al.  Counterfactual simulations applied to SHRP2 crashes: The effect of driver behavior models on safety benefit estimations of intelligent safety systems. , 2017, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[3]  H Norin,et al.  How thirty years of focused safety development has influenced injury outcome in volvo cars. , 2005, Annual proceedings. Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine.

[4]  Johan Engström,et al.  Great expectations: a predictive processing account of automobile driving , 2018 .

[5]  Bridie Scott-Parker,et al.  Experiences of Teen Drivers and Their Advice for the Learner License Phase , 2015, Traffic injury prevention.

[6]  Nils Lubbe,et al.  The potential of clustering methods to define intersection test scenarios: Assessing real-life performance of AEB. , 2018, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[7]  Ling Wang,et al.  Assessment of the safety benefits of vehicles' advanced driver assistance, connectivity and low level automation systems. , 2018, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[8]  Felix Fahrenkrog,et al.  Prospective effectiveness assessment of adas and active safety systems via virtual simulation: a review of the current practices , 2017 .

[9]  Jessica B. Cicchino,et al.  Effectiveness of forward collision warning and autonomous emergency braking systems in reducing front-to-rear crash rates. , 2017, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[10]  Sou Kitajima,et al.  Multi-agent traffic simulations to estimate the impact of automated technologies on safety , 2019, Traffic injury prevention.

[11]  Paolo Scognamiglio,et al.  Toward harmonizing prospective effectiveness assessment for road safety: Comparing tools in standard test case simulations , 2019, Traffic injury prevention.

[12]  I. Isaksson-Hellman,et al.  Using insurance claims data to evaluate the collision-avoidance and crash-mitigating effects of Collision Warning and Brake Support Combined with Adaptive Cruise Control , 2016, 2016 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV).

[13]  Hanna Jeppsson,et al.  Real life safety benefits of increasing brake deceleration in car-to-pedestrian accidents: Simulation of Vacuum Emergency Braking. , 2018, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[14]  Nils Lubbe,et al.  Market penetration of intersection AEB: Characterizing avoided and residual straight crossing path accidents. , 2018, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[15]  Jonas Fredriksson,et al.  Predicted road traffic fatalities in Germany: The potential and limitations of vehicle safety technologies from passive safety to highly automated driving , 2018 .

[16]  Francisco de A. T. de Carvalho,et al.  Comparative analysis of clustering methods for gene expression time course data , 2004, Genetics and Molecular Biology.

[17]  Mervyn Edwards,et al.  Estimate of Potential Benefit for Europe of Fitting Autonomous Emergency Braking (AEB) Systems for Pedestrian Protection to Passenger Cars , 2014, Traffic injury prevention.

[18]  Irene Isaksson-Hellman,et al.  Evaluation of the crash mitigation effect of low-speed automated emergency braking systems based on insurance claims data , 2016, Traffic injury prevention.

[19]  Lotta Jakobsson,et al.  Integrated safety: establishing links for a comprehensive virtual tool chain , 2019 .

[20]  Jessica B. Cicchino,et al.  Characteristics of rear-end crashes involving passenger vehicles with automatic emergency braking , 2019, Traffic injury prevention.

[21]  Jac Wismans,et al.  The Occupant Response to Autonomous Braking: A Modeling Approach That Accounts for Active Musculature , 2012, Traffic injury prevention.

[22]  C. Cherry,et al.  Characteristics of animal-related motor vehicle crashes in select National Park Service units—United States, 1990–2013 , 2019, Traffic injury prevention.

[23]  Jordanka Kovaceva,et al.  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. , 2020, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[24]  Olatz Arbelaitz,et al.  An extensive comparative study of cluster validity indices , 2013, Pattern Recognit..

[25]  Tal Oron-Gilad,et al.  Formation and Evaluation of Act and Anticipate Hazard Perception Training (AAHPT) Intervention for Young Novice Drivers , 2014, Traffic injury prevention.

[26]  Peter J. Rousseeuw,et al.  Finding Groups in Data: An Introduction to Cluster Analysis , 1990 .

[27]  Cesar H. Comin,et al.  Clustering algorithms: A comparative approach , 2016, PloS one.