We have located links that may give you full text access.
EVALUATION STUDIES
JOURNAL ARTICLE
Evaluation of the crash mitigation effect of low-speed automated emergency braking systems based on insurance claims data.
Traffic Injury Prevention 2016 September
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the crash mitigation performance of low-speed automated emergency braking collision avoidance technologies by examining crash rates, car damage, and personal injuries.
METHOD: Insurance claims data were used to identify rear-end frontal collisions, the specific situations where the low-speed automated emergency braking system intervenes. We compared cars of the same model (Volvo V70) with and without the low-speed automated emergency braking system (AEB and no AEB, respectively). Distributions of spare parts required for car repair were analyzed to identify car damage, and crash severity was estimated by comparing the results with laboratory crash tests. Repair costs and occupant injuries were investigated for both the striking and the struck vehicle.
RESULTS: Rear-end frontal collisions were reduced by 27% for cars with low-speed AEB compared to cars without the system. Those of low severity were reduced by 37%, though more severe crashes were not reduced. Accordingly, the number of injured occupants in vehicles struck by low-speed AEB cars was reduced in low-severity crashes. In offset crash configurations, the system was found to be less effective.
CONCLUSIONS: This study adds important information about the safety performance of collision avoidance technologies, beyond the number of crashes avoided. By combining insurance claims data and information from spare parts used, the study demonstrates a mitigating effect of low-speed AEB in real-world traffic.
METHOD: Insurance claims data were used to identify rear-end frontal collisions, the specific situations where the low-speed automated emergency braking system intervenes. We compared cars of the same model (Volvo V70) with and without the low-speed automated emergency braking system (AEB and no AEB, respectively). Distributions of spare parts required for car repair were analyzed to identify car damage, and crash severity was estimated by comparing the results with laboratory crash tests. Repair costs and occupant injuries were investigated for both the striking and the struck vehicle.
RESULTS: Rear-end frontal collisions were reduced by 27% for cars with low-speed AEB compared to cars without the system. Those of low severity were reduced by 37%, though more severe crashes were not reduced. Accordingly, the number of injured occupants in vehicles struck by low-speed AEB cars was reduced in low-severity crashes. In offset crash configurations, the system was found to be less effective.
CONCLUSIONS: This study adds important information about the safety performance of collision avoidance technologies, beyond the number of crashes avoided. By combining insurance claims data and information from spare parts used, the study demonstrates a mitigating effect of low-speed AEB in real-world traffic.
Full text links
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app