Potential Benefits of Forward Collision Avoidance Technology
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Potential benefits of forward collision avoidance technology RWG Anderson, SD Doecke, JRR Mackenzie, G Ponte Centre For Automotive Safety Research D Paine, M Paine Vehicle Design and Research Pty Ltd. CASR REPORT SERIES CASR0106 April 2012 Funded by the Department of Transport and Main Roads, Queensland Government, and the Department of Infrastructure and Transport, Australian Government Report documentation REPORT NO. DATE PAGES ISBN ISSN CASR0106 April 2012 88 978 1 921645 44 0 1449-2237 TITLE Potential benefits of forward collision avoidance technology AUTHORS RWG Anderson, SD Doecke, JRR Mackenzie, G Ponte, D Paine, M Paine PERFORMING ORGANISATION Centre for Automotive Safety Research The University of Adelaide South Australia 5005 AUSTRALIA SPONSORED BY Department of Transport and Main Roads (Queensland) GPO Box 1412, Brisbane Queensland, 4001 AUSTRALIA Department of Infrastructure and Transport (Australia) GPO Box 594, Canberra Australian Capital Territory, 2601 AUSTRALIA AVAILABLE FROM Centre for Automotive Safety Research http://casr.adelaide.edu.au/publications/researchreports KEYWORDS Collision avoidance system, vehicle fleet, benefit-cost analysis © The University of Adelaide 2012 The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the University of Adelaide or the funding organisations. Executive summary Main points • The simulation study detailed in this report predicts significant crash reductions with the introduction of forward collision avoidance technology (FCAT) systems. • Between 20 and 40 per cent of all fatal crashes and between 30 and 50 per cent of all injury crashes might be prevented with FCAT systems (note that these figures do not account for any unreliability in operation). • The estimates are consistent with previous studies that have suggested reductions of up to and in excess of 40 per cent. • The greatest estimated benefit is from a system that combines long and short range sensing. • Systems with expansive fields of view and that are highly reactive have a greater theoretical effect, but may suffer from the problem of false-positive responses. • A narrow field of view that reduces the chance of false-positive interventions appears to provide substantial benefit; the results of such a system were comparable to a system with a wide field of view. • Estimated benefit-cost ratios (BCR) for passenger vehicles are marginal at less than one in most instances, due to high system costs and declining per-vehicle crash rates. However, a halving of system costs would see BCRs exceed one. • Heavy vehicle BCRs are much higher: between 2.7 and 9.8. Recommendations • Encourage the uptake of FCAT systems by heavy vehicle operators and in passenger vehicle markets as soon as possible. • Liaise with industry groups such as the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries and the Truck Industry Council with a view to finding pathways for the wider-scale introduction of FCAT technologies. • In programs such as the Australasian New Car Assessment Program (ANCAP), provide substantial credit for the installation of effective FCAT systems. • Encourage the creation of performance standards for such systems, to ensure uniformly high effectiveness, and to provide a means of assessment by ANCAP. • Monitoring and evaluation of systems as they are introduced, to confirm or otherwise the benefits of the systems that have been estimated via simulation in this study and similar studies. CASR Road Safety Research Report | Potential benefits of forward collision avoidance technology iii Advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) are likely to become increasingly available in new vehicles over coming years. ADAS typically involve arrays of sensors that provide the vehicle with information about the immediate environment surrounding the vehicle. Important applications of ADAS focus on crash avoidance or mitigation; these applications sense a potential collision and intervene in some way to warn the driver, support emergency manoeuvres or even act autonomously to prevent a collision, or at least mitigate the collision by reducing speed before the crash. Given the connection between impact speed and injury risk, these applications have the potential to drastically reduce the incidence and severity of crashes. This report had several objectives. The first was to describe current ADAS systems that may be described as forward collision avoidance technological systems (FCAT systems), and the trials and evaluations of such systems. FCAT systems typically sense other road users or objects in the forward path of the vehicle and perform some combination of actions in response to a collision threat. Actions may include priming brake systems, warning the driver, applying gentle braking or more aggressive braking, either in concert with the driver, or autonomously. Several field trials of FCAT systems have been conducted in the past, but either published results from the trials are few, or the numbers of vehicles in the trial were small, and hence the trials are limited in what they tell us about the potential benefits of FCAT systems. However, field trials have suggested that forward collision warning systems are generally accepted by drivers using the systems, and do not appear to have negative effects on their driving behaviour. Several field trials of FCAT systems are ongoing; in some cases results have yet to be published, and in others the results are not publically available. Nevertheless, insurance data is already beginning to show that vehicles equipped with such systems experience considerably fewer crashes and an even greater reduction in claims for injury. The second objective of this report was to describe testing and regulatory issues around such systems. There are no current regulations or standards that specify comprehensive design and performance requirements for FCAT systems with autonomous emergency braking. Without such standards some vehicle manufacturers may be reluctant to develop and supply FCAT systems on the vehicles that they offer for sale in Australia. Similarly Australian regulators and consumer organisations such as ANCAP are unlikely to implement unique requirements for FCAT in the absence of suitable international standards. International standards could take the form of a United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Regulation or a Global Technical Regulation (GTR). At this stage, the development of a UNECE Regulation or GTR for FCAT systems for light vehicles does not appear to be a stated goal, and so may be several years away. For heavy vehicles, there is currently a draft UNECE Regulation being developed, using the term Advanced Emergency Braking Systems (AEBS). Consideration of this as a national regulation for Australia, once finalised, is an action under the National Road Safety Strategy 2011-20. It is understood that once a UNECE regulation is developed for heavy vehicles, the technology for light vehicles would also be considered (Hoy S, personal communication, April 19, 2012). In the interim, the most promising FCAT standard that could be used in Australia in the near term is the protocol being developed by a Euro NCAP working group for consumer rating purposes. Another recommendation of this report is that ANCAP give substantial credit to manufacturers who install effective FCAT systems on their vehicles, as part of vehicle assessments. The third objective of the report was to estimate the effectiveness of FCAT systems based on Australian crash data. This involved a three-step process: CASR Road Safety Research Report | Potential benefits of forward collision avoidance technology iv • Estimation of the average changes in crash risk brought about with the use of FCAT systems using in-depth crash data, • Estimation of the likely rate of crash involvement of vehicles that will be built during the present decade, • Application of the changes in risk to the rate of crash involvement to estimate the per- vehicle benefit of having an FCAT system installed. One hundred and four crashes that occurred within 100 km of Adelaide, South Australia, were selected to represent crash configurations likely to be affected by FCAT systems. The crashes had been investigated at the scene, and in this study they were analysed using simulation methods to estimate how collision speeds would have been modified with an FCAT system. Two categories of FCAT system were considered: a short-range system and a long-range system. Five variants of each type of system were simulated. In addition a combination system was simulated. Crash types considered were rear-end, pedestrian, head-on, intersection and a proportion of hit-fixed- object crashes. Other crash types were considered less responsive to the effects of FCAT systems. The variations in FCAT systems were described using several parameters: the range of the forward- looking zone, the angle or width of the forward looking zone, the processing time for the system to respond to the road user or object in its path, the time-to-collision (TTC) at which the system would intervene, and the strength of the intervention (the level of braking). The FCAT simulation used information from the trajectory of vehicles in the 104 crash reconstructions to estimate what difference each system would have made to the collision speed in each case and for each FCAT system considered. Injury risk curves were used to estimate changes in fatal and injury crash risk in each case. The reductions in risk were weighted according to the rate of