Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Keywords: The objective of this study is to predict the real-life benefits, namely the number of injuries avoided rather than
Automated emergency braking the reduction in impact speed, offered by a Vacuum Emergency Brake (VEB) added to a pedestrian automated
Pedestrian emergency braking (AEB) system. We achieve this through the virtual simulation of simplified mathematical
Effectiveness models of a system which incorporates expected future advances in technology, such as a wide sensor field of
Risk curves
view, and reductions in the time needed for detection, classification, and brake pressure build up.
The German In-Depth Accident Study database and the related Pre Crash Matrix, both released in the be-
ginning of 2016, were used for this study and resulted in a final sample of 526 collisions between passenger car
fronts and pedestrians. Weight factors were calculated for both simulation model and injury risk curves to make
the data representative of Germany as a whole. The accident data was used with a hypothetical AEB system in a
simulation model, and injury risk was calculated from the new impact speed using injury risk curves to generate
new situations using real accidents.
Adding a VEB to a car with pedestrian AEB decreased pedestrian casualties by an additional 8–22%, de-
pending on system setting and injury level, over the AEB-only system. The overall decrease in fatalities was
80–87%, an improvement of 8%. Collision avoidance was improved by 14–28%.
VEB with a maximum deceleration in the middle of the modelled performance range has an effectiveness
similar to that of an “early activation” system, where the AEB is triggered as early as 2 s before collision. VEB
may therefore offer a substantial increase in performance without increasing false positive rates, which earlier
AEB activation does.
Most collisions and injuries can be avoided when AEB is supplemented by the high performance VEB; re-
maining cases are characterised by high pedestrian walking speed and late visibility due to view obstructions.
VEB is effective in all analysed accident scenarios.
1. Introduction with more forgiving car fronts, and greater traffic flow separation
(World Health Organisation, 2015). EU initiatives to improve road
Pedestrian fatalities and injuries are frequent: according to the safety (European Commission, 2010) resulted in an overall reduction in
World Health Organisation (2015), 270,000 pedestrian fatalities ac- fatalities of 22% between 2010 and 2013, but of only 11% for pedes-
count for 22% of a total 1.25 million road traffic fatalities. This fre- trians. Further actions to improve the situation were proposed, such as
quently cited report might underestimate the true size of the problem. encouraging safe roadway infrastructure and assessing the effectiveness
Bhalla et al. (2014) for example estimate that 460,000 pedestrian of emergency brake systems with pedestrian detection (European
fatalities account for 35% of a total 1.33 million road traffic fatalities. Commission, 2015). Germany reports figures in line with those of the
In the European Union (EU), 5621 pedestrian fatalities comprised 21% EU, with a below-average fatality reduction for pedestrians in the mid-
of all road fatalities in 2014 (European Commission, 2016). In Ger- term evaluation of the 2011–2020 targets, and has called for a greater
many, 537 pedestrian fatalities (16% of total road traffic fatalities) and focus on pedestrian safety (BMVI, 2015).
31,073 non-fatal pedestrian casualties (8% of total non-fatal road traffic The EU is advanced in pedestrian protection. The European
casualties) were reported for 2015 (Bundestag, 2016). Enhanced Vehicle-Safety Committee (EEVC) published test methods
Better protection of pedestrians in road traffic has been called for, and requirements for pedestrian protection in the 1990s (European
specifically through reduced driving speeds, improved vehicle design Enhanced Vehicle-Safety Committee, 2002). These formed the basis for
⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: hanna.jeppsson@autoliv.com (H. Jeppsson).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2017.12.001
Received 28 April 2017; Received in revised form 1 December 2017; Accepted 1 December 2017
Available online 17 December 2017
0001-4575/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
H. Jeppsson et al. Accident Analysis and Prevention 111 (2018) 311–320
312
H. Jeppsson et al. Accident Analysis and Prevention 111 (2018) 311–320
active safety technology aimed at protecting pedestrians from vehicle- AEB include the VW group’s tool rateEFFECT (Wille and Zatloukal,
to-pedestrian collisions. 2012; Roth et al., 2017), work conducted at IFSSTAR (Hamdane et al.,
System effectiveness can be estimated in a Field Operational Test 2015) and Autoliv’s estimate for pedestrian and cyclist AEB effective-
(FOT) whereby the new technology is installed in a vehicle fleet driven ness (Rosén, 2013). Hamdane et al. (2015) and Rosén (2013) used
on public roads, thus mimicking normal usage. The safety benefits in simplified vehicle kinematics and ideal sensor models, which may lead
these approximated normal driving conditions can then be estimated by to an overestimation of effectiveness as real systems may not yet detect
comparing collision events with and without the technology (Bärgman, pedestrians perfectly.
2015). However, such an evaluation of collision events necessitates an Simulation-based estimates for car-to-car rear end AEB effectiveness
extensive amount of data, typically several million to hundreds of in avoiding collisions of approximately 80% (Sander, 2017; Bärgman
millions of driven kilometres, to get reliable results, which is often not et al., 2017) exceed estimates from retrospective analyses of effective-
realistically feasible (Bärgman, 2015). ness in collision avoidance: 50% in police reported collisions (Cicchino,
Instead, surrogate safety indicators, that is safety-critical events 2017) and 38% in injury collisions (Fildes et al., 2015). Bärgman et al.
defined by close proximity or severe braking, are often used to evaluate (2017) argue that the differences are likely to originate from the dif-
safety benefits, as safety-critical events are more frequent than colli- ferences in the formulation of the system logic. The system logic in
sions. However, the underlying assumption that surrogate safety in- Bärgman et al. (2017) and Sander (2017) is based on the deceleration
dicators can reliably predict crash occurrence is debated (Hydén, 1987; required, and is more effective than the TTC-based system logic em-
Jonasson and Rootzén, 2014; Bärgman,2016). ployed in a simulation study by Kusano and Gabler (2012) which does
Extreme Value Theory (Coles, 2001) can deliver a more formal re- not initiate braking below 15 km/h. Kusano and Gabler’s effectiveness
lation between safety-critical events and crashes while avoiding the estimate for injury reduction of AEB of 50% is close to the retrospective
pitfalls of arbitrary definitions of a safety-critical event (Tarko, 2012). estimates from Cicchino (2017) and Fildes et al. (2015). In contrast,
Extreme Value Theory has been applied to predict crash occurrence collision avoidance of 7.7% is far from the approximate 80% given by
from non-crash events in FOTs (Jonasson and Rootzén, 2014) and Bärgman et al. (2017) and Sander (2017). Hence, it appears that the
Driving Simulator studies (Farah and Azevedo, 2017), but not yet to performance differences between systems is far larger than the potential
pedestrian protection evaluations. inaccuracies introduced by simplified models such as ideal sensors in
FOTs are complex, require vehicle instrumentation and volunteers simulations.
to drive in traffic. The need for unrealistic amounts of data can be For pedestrian AEB, no retrospective effectiveness estimates of
balanced with applying approximations based on critical events rather production systems in the market are publically available as systems are
than crashes, but this inevitably introduces sources of bias and error. No fairly new and data is sparse. Ohlin et al. (2017), for example, found
FOT evaluation aiming to quantify the benefit of pedestrian AEB system that only 31 vehicles involved in pedestrian and cyclist collisions in
has been undertaken to date. Sweden from 2003 to March 2014 were equipped with pedestrian AEB,
Simulation methods are becoming increasingly popular, making the and did not find statistically significant effects on injury collisions. It is
evaluation of millions of km more affordable. A first differentiation of not yet possible, therefore, to quantify the effect that simplifying si-
simulation methods can be made between traffic simulation and single mulation models has on performance estimation, but the conclusions
accident simulation. Traffic simulation generates traffic flow including from car-to-car rear end AEB evaluations indicate that simulation will
accident and non-accident situations based on previously-collected in- yield useful results.
formation on traffic and accidents, replicating this in mathematical Attempts have been made to reduce the complexity and number of
models of the traffic environment, vehicle, and safety system (Helmer, types of different traffic encounters and sift out those that are most
2014; Tanaka, 2015). Simulating hundreds of millions of km of driving representative and relevant to safety benefit analyses. Regulatory and
is fairly easy. However, collecting the data needed to accurately model consumer testing in this field is commonly carried out with very few
traffic with all the possible dependencies between different describing hardware tests. Euro NCAP, for example, tests only 3 scenarios at dif-
variables and validating the mathematical models requires tremendous ferent driving speeds for pedestrian encounters (Schram et al., 2015).
effort (Sander and Lubbe, 2016). Edwards et al. (2014), Edwards et al. (2015), and Yanagisawa et al.
Toyota developed a traffic simulation framework consisting of road (2017) provide further examples of using a limited set of test scenarios
environment, vehicle, and driver behaviour models. Simulating driver to predict system performance. While such attempts can be successful –
error in various traffic situations leads to collisions in the simulated as demonstrated by the correlation between Euro NCAP passive safety
traffic (Tanaka, 2015). This simulation framework was applied to pedestrian score and real-world performance (Strandroth et al., 2011;
evaluate the effect of pedestrian FCW and AEB in Japan (Morales Pastor, 2013) – it remains yet to be seen whether any of the existing test
Teraoka et al., 2013) and Europe (Morales Teraoka and Tanaka, 2014). series provide accurate real-world estimates. Until then, simulating a
However, effectiveness estimates are not presented. wide range of different accidents should at least complement perfor-
BMW developed a traffic simulation tool to estimate ADAS benefits mance estimates based on these limited number of tests.
for pedestrian safety called S.A.F.E.R. According to Kompass (2012), In conclusion, a simulation-based method was selected as most
S.A.F.E.R. simulates all relevant processes in detail to obtain re- suitable to predict the benefit of VEB.
producible estimates of key indicators such as system effectiveness and
False Positive rates. Helmer (2014) has studied effectiveness and false 3. Methods
positive rates for pedestrian AEB systems. The quality of the data to
model traffic, which was a mix of German accident data and US normal German PCM data was used together with simplified models for
driving data, and the accuracy of representation of dependencies be- pedestrian AEB and VEB systems in virtual simulation to predict the
tween variables, remain questionable. reduction in injuries achievable by these systems.
Single accident simulation, on the other hand, makes use of data
collected on accidents and replicates pre-collision situations for models 3.1. Data
of vehicles with and without the safety system under consideration
(Erbsmehl, 2009). By using complete accident records, dependencies The German In-Depth Accident Study, GIDAS, is a database which
between variables are naturally being taken into account and so-called collates details of accidents investigated in and around Dresden and
surprise events are more likely to be captured (Sander and Lubbe, Hanover by specialist investigation teams. The teams are contacted if a
2016). crash occurs within these regions and an injury is suspected by the
Examples of single accident reconstruction applied to pedestrian police. An extensive investigation is then undertaken to provide a
313
H. Jeppsson et al. Accident Analysis and Prevention 111 (2018) 311–320
detailed perspective on the accident, including the sequence of events pedestrian at impact, and the road friction coefficient at the accident
and the cause (Erbsmehl, 2009). Although the GIDAS data is collected scene. In Fig. 2e, the vehicle front is divided laterally into 10 fields,
with the aim of being representative of Germany as a whole, it over- showing where on the vehicle front the impact occurs together with
represents severe and fatal accidents. This can be compensated for by information as to which side the pedestrian entered the driving path
weighting the data using German national road traffic accident statis- (from the right, the left, or from other, mainly longitudinal). Most
tics. impacts occur at the leftmost 10% of the vehicle width, with the pe-
The cases in the GIDAS-based Pre Crash Matrix, PCM, are selected destrian entering from the left. The distribution of crash scenarios is
by the GIDAS to constitute a representative subset of the GIDAS data- given in Fig. 2f; the most common impact scenarios are where the ve-
base. Crashes are reconstructed to generate a detailed description of the hicle is going straight and the pedestrian is crossing the road either
trajectories (including velocities and accelerations) of both car and from the right (38.2%) or from the left (24.8%).
vulnerable road user (VRU) during the final seconds before collision.
Based on the reconstruction, data is generated at a rate of 100 times per 3.3. Injury risk curves
second (100 Hz) for a time span beginning 5 s before the collision. In
the GIDAS PCM, both cars and VRUs are modelled as rectangular ob- Pedestrian injury risk curves quantify the probability of sustaining
jects. Exact car dimensions are available in each case, while pedestrians an injury dependent on collision speed. Risk curves for the three injury
are given a size of 0.8 × 0.4 m (Erbsmehl, 2009). severities fatal, MAIS3 + F and MAIS2 + F were calculated from PCM
GIDAS data released January 2016 and PCM data released February data for a pedestrian struck by the front of a modern M1 vehicle (see
2016 were used for this study from which a sample was selected as filtering method in 2.1), using normalized and weighted data (Table 1).
follows. For the years 1999–2015, the GIDAS database contains 3548 Logistic regression was performed using R glm function, with collision
accidents involving pedestrians with reported injury, of which 1385 speed as the independent variable, injury outcome at the considered
also have additional information in the GIDAS PCM database. severity level as the dependent variable, and case weights according to
Removing cases where the severity of injury was not recorded reduces Table 1. Injury risk curves are defined in Eq. (2)
the number to 1384. Restricting the count to pedestrians struck by an
e b0 + b1 v
M1 vehicle, a vehicle not having more than eight seats in addition to risk (v ) =
1 + e b0 + b1 v (2)
the driver's seat, decreases the number of cases to 1348. Of these, 766
cases involved vehicles with registration year 1997 (the year Euro where v is the impact speed in km/h, and b0 and b1 are the regression
NCAP started publishing pedestrian ratings and thereby the car man- coefficients.
ufacturer started to enhance the vehicle for better pedestrian safety) or
later. Since AEB is only effective in frontal impacts, a Matlab script then 3.4. Simulation model
analysed these cases to assess the degree to which the pedestrian col-
lided with the front of the vehicle compared to the side; only cases The PCM accident data was used with a hypothetical AEB system in
where they collided with the front to a greater degree were kept in the a simulation model, and an injury risk was calculated from the new
sample, reducing the number of accidents to 559. Finally, removing impact speed using the injury risk curve. This generates new situations
cases where the Maximum Abbreviated Injury Scale (MAIS) level was using real accidents. The framework of the Matlab implementation to
missing resulted in a final sample of 526 accidents. simulate PCM cases was adopted from Rosén (2013).
Weight factors were calculated for both the simulation model and The functionality of the AEB system was described by a number of
injury risk curves to make the PCM data representative of Germany as a system parameters. Those were set to reasonable values for future AEB
whole. First, weight factors were calculated for all pedestrian casualties systems. All system parameters can be found in Appendix A.
(1384) recorded in the PCM database to replicate the distribution of The AEB system was activated if, and only if, the following five
fatal, severe, and slight pedestrian injuries (raw weight factors). requirements were satisfied (Rosén, 2013) (Fig. 3):
Second, these factors were normalized to obtain an equal total number
(526) of cases for the unweighted and weighted samples (see Table 1). 1. VRU visible (visibility was calculated for all four pedestrian corners)
and within sensor FoV and range during time for classification.
3.2. Data characterization 2. VRU within trigger width which is the lateral extension from the
driving path (one corner minimum).
The final weighted sample characterization is described in Fig. 2a–f. 3. Predicted TTC (for the car when it starts braking) less than TTClimit.
Fig. 2a shows the Time to Collision (TTC) when the pedestrian becomes TTClimit is the earliest Time to Collision when the system is allowed
visible to the car sensor. TTC is the predicted time to collision, assuming to activate. The system might activate later, at lower TTC values,
an unbraked vehicle and a pedestrian in constant motion, when the depending on other conditions, but not earlier, at TTC values ex-
brake decision is taken. TTC is calculated using Eq. (1), ceeding TTClimit. See Table 2 for parameter settings of TTClimit.
4. Car predicted to collide with VRU.
Stot
TTC = 5. Required distance to come to full stop smaller than available dis-
v0 (1)
tance with 1 m safety margin.
where v0 is the instantaneous speed in m/s and Stot is the available
distance to the predicted collision point in m. Six different systems are here evaluated (Table 2). The reference
Fig. 2b–d depicts the speed of the vehicle, the walking speed of the system used adopted parameters similar to those of Rosén (2013)
Table 1
Weight factors for the PCM database.
Germany PCM
Numbers (%) Numbers (%) Sample numbers (%) Raw weight factors Normalised factors
Fatal 537 1.7 52 3.8 29 5.5 1 0.48
Severe 7792 24.7 690 49.9 278 52.9 1.09 0.53
Slight 23281 73.7 642 46.4 219 41.6 3.51 1.68
Σ 31610 100 1384 100 526 100
314
H. Jeppsson et al. Accident Analysis and Prevention 111 (2018) 311–320
315
H. Jeppsson et al. Accident Analysis and Prevention 111 (2018) 311–320
Table 3
Result from logistic regression.
except that FoV was set to 180° and no minimum range for detection
was used. The maximum deceleration of the AEB system, amax, was
1 g*μ where μ was the coefficient of friction from PCM (recall Fig. 2d)
and g the gravitational constant (9.81 m/s2). For the VEB systems an-
other amax was used based on the dimension of the VEB. Three variants
were evaluated representing three different sizes of the VEB with the
smallest having dimensions 0.4 × 0.4 m and the largest 0.6 × 0.6 m
(see Table 2 for amax levels). For example “VEB high” has an amax of
1.8*g*μ; this formula is valid for all road conditions.
Two additional system settings were simulated for comparison. The
first, “Perfect road”, assumed that a maximum deceleration of 9 m/s2
could always be reached, which would be the case if all roads were of
the standard of the best roads, as indicated by the maximum value in
Fig. 2d. The second, “Early activation”, assumed the same maximum
Fig. 4. Pedestrian injury risk curves for modern M1 vehicle frontal accidents.
deceleration as the reference system, but activated earlier with a
greater trigger width (Table 2).
System effectiveness — the percentage reduction of fatal, MAIS3+F terms of impact speed reduction, but pedestrian injury reduction.
and MAIS2+F injuries — was assessed using a standard dose-response Regression coefficients for the injury risk curves as defined in Eq. (2)
method (Korner, 1989; Kullgren, 2008; Fredriksson and Rosén, 2012). are given in Table 3. The exponential function of the coefficient b1 gives
The number injured without system was obtained by summing up the odds ratio. For fatal and MAIS3+F the odds ratio is the same, 1.09,
weighted injury risks at the original collision speeds for each impact but for MAIS2+F the value is smaller, 1.06. This means that the curve
using injury risk curves. The combined AEB and VEB systems resulted for MAIS2+F is flatter and for each 1 km/h collision speed increase, the
in a reduction of impact speed. The same injury risk curves were then odds of sustaining injury increase by 6%, whereas for MAIS3+F and
used to calculate the risks of being injured with these new impact fatal injuries the odds increase by 9%. The injury risk curves are shown
speeds. The weighted (for the original injury outcome of the case being in Fig. 4. Injury risk curves for fatal, MAIS3+F and MAIS2+F with 95%
slight, sever or fatal) sum of these risks gave the number injured with confidence intervals are shown in Appendix B.
the system. The effectiveness was defined in Eq. (3) as the relative
difference between the numbers injured at the original speeds and the
modified speeds. 4.2. Real world benefit
Table 2
Summary of the AEB system parameters.
Reference VEB low VEB mid VEB high Perfect road Early activation
TTClimit (s) 1 1 1 1 1 2
w (m) 1 1 1 1 1 2
amax (m/s2) g*μ 1.3*g*μ 1.55*g*μ 1.8*g*μ 0.9*g g*μ
316
H. Jeppsson et al. Accident Analysis and Prevention 111 (2018) 311–320
Table 4
System effectiveness (%) of fatal, MAIS3+F, MAIS2+F and collision avoidance.
Reference VEB low VEB mid VEB high Perfect road Early activation
Fig. 6. Accident scenarios for all collisions and remaining collisions for ‘reference’ and “VEB high”.
317
H. Jeppsson et al. Accident Analysis and Prevention 111 (2018) 311–320
Fig. 7. (a) Pedestrian impact speed. (b) Time to Collision at Point of Visibility. (c) Vehicle impact speed. (d) Distribution of frontal impact for “VEB high”.
is important as earlier activation and increased false positives rates go to under-report view obstructions as moving traffic is not recorded. This
hand in hand (Helmer, 2014), mainly due to increased uncertainty in may result in an overestimation of the predictability of pedestrian paths
vehicle and pedestrian motion until the predicted collision (Seiniger and collisions.
et al., 2013). The “Early activation” system’s advantage of higher injury This study analyses potential rather than real system performance
prevention performance will therefore be accompanied by the dis- despite our best efforts to set realistic system parameters (see Appendix
advantage of higher false positive rates. VEB on the other hand offers a A). However, as it compares different systems to which these limita-
substantial increase in performance without increasing false positive tions apply equally, relevant conclusions can still be drawn.
rates compared to the reference system as it does not alter activation Furthermore, no investigation into the effectiveness of other technolo-
time. gies which aim to reduce pedestrian casualties, such as V2X commu-
nication or steer avoidance, has yet been undertaken. No quantification
of the relative effectiveness of VEB compared to competing technologies
5.1. Strengths and limitations can therefore be made.
318
H. Jeppsson et al. Accident Analysis and Prevention 111 (2018) 311–320
be seen. A comparison between the risk curves obtained here and those such accidents, i.e., 56%*87%, giving 49%. Hence, one can predict the
reported by Rosén (2013) was also made. No major differences were number of pedestrian fatalities in Germany in 2015 that would have
seen for either fatal or MAIS3+F, despite the fact that Rosén filtered been avoided, had all M1 vehicles been thus equipped, as
the data differently, for example by excluding sport utility vehicles, 537*49% = 263. This is 46 more fatalities prevented than the
other light trucks and vans, and children under 15 years of age, and did 56%*72%*537 = 217 cases preventable with the “Reference” AEB-only
not restrict year of registration. system.
The MAIS2+F injury curve does not pass through the origin, an This can be applied to global accident statistics. Assuming the same
often observed issue when using logistic regression for injury risk ratio of M1 involvement and the same potential “VEB high” effective-
curves. Schramm (2011) argues that logistic regression is nevertheless a ness globally, about 24,000 more fatalities could be avoided by using
suitable functional description of the injury risk and defining a dis- the “VEB high” compared to the “Reference” AEB system annually
continuity at the origin would be appropriate. Substantial injury risk at (270,000*56%*(87.3%-71.6%) = 24,000).
low speeds reflects a reality in accident data (Schramm, 2011) and may Euro NCAP has been rating AEB VRU protection in cars since 2016
originate from falling and impacting road surfaces. We follow the ar- (Schram et al., 2015). The test scenario consists of the vehicle traveling
gument and assume no injury if the impact is avoided (zero impact straight and a pedestrian crossing from the left or the right, with or
speed) and otherwise apply the risk curve. without obstruction. The sample data can be filtered for this accident
The MAIS2+F injury risk curve is less steep compared with scenario which results in a total of 426 accidents. Of these, 47% would
MAIS3+F and fatal risk curves as indicated by Fig. 4 and the coefficient be avoided with the reference AEB system and 80% would be avoided
b1 in Table 3. There could be several explanations; one hypothesis is with the “VEB high” system (see Fig. 6). Discussions of rating other AEB
that MAIS2+F injury risk is less dependent on impact speed as it spans VRU scenarios, such as those in which the vehicle is turning and the
lower impact speeds where other factors (for example ground contact) pedestrian is crossing, is ongoing, for example in the Prospect project
have a larger influence on the injury outcome. Another hypothesis is (Seiniger et al., 2016). Filtering the sample data for situations with a
that the injury risk level is steeper at higher speeds since bottoming out turning vehicle and a pedestrian crossing in the same direction results
has occurred. Bottoming out describes a situation where the available in a total of 41 accidents, of which 48% could be avoided with the
deformation space between outer (softer) structures and harder un- reference system installed, and 78% avoided with the “VEB high”
derlying parts of a vehicle has been used up and contact with under- system. For scenarios where the vehicle is turning and the pedestrian is
lying hard structures is made. In these situations, injury risk increases crossing in the opposite direction, all cases would be prevented with
rapidly (Hutchinson et al., 2012). The higher the impact speed, the VEB. It should be possible to assess the benefit of VEB in all current or
more deformation space is needed, and the more likely bottoming out future scenarios used in Euro NCAP testing.
becomes. As Euro NCAP tests at 40 km/h, bottoming out can be ex-
pected to occur above but close to 40 km/h. 5.5. Future work
5.3. Considerations for implementing VEB in new vehicles Even though the effectiveness of the VEB is high, 27% of pedestrian
to M1 accidents are cases where the pedestrian is not impacted by the
Several areas need careful consideration when implementing a new front of the vehicle, and which therefore cannot be addressed by any
protection system such as VEB. The extra weight, the packaging space AEB system that only brakes for pedestrians projected to impact the
required, and positioning to ensure no negative interaction with vehicle front of the car. There is a clear need, therefore, also to address colli-
dynamics, are three of the greatest challenges. The performance of the sions where the pedestrian is impacted by the side of a car, and by a
VEB is dependent on the effective area. In this study three different reversing car.
dimensions were evaluated: 0.4 × 0.4 m, 0.5 × 0.5 m and 0.6 × 0.6 m. The VEB functionality has great potential to increase the effective-
Fitting the large version may be problematic, but already the smallest ness of systems other than pedestrian-focused AEB systems, such as
shows good effectiveness. To transfer the extra braking force from the rear-end AEB systems and those developed for crossing vehicle-to-ve-
VEB, stiff mountings to the vehicle structure are needed. It is also im- hicle scenarios, or for vehicles colliding with cyclists. VEB is likely to be
portant to consider the position under the vehicle regarding exposure to especially effective in scenarios when the time to activation is short, i.e.
water and dirt for an optimal installation. crossing and obstructed accidents, or when the friction is low; the ef-
False positive VEB activation may occur. To limit the number of fectiveness should be quantified in future work. Another application
false activations, a conservative trigger logic should be used. As an area that also might be of interest is trucks colliding with the end of a
example, if a collision can be avoided with the AEB system without the traffic jam.
VEB, it should not be activated, even if activation of the VEB would
mean that the brake decision could be taken later. Instead the “normal” 6. Conclusion
AEB trigger logic should be used and if, for example, friction is less than
expected and a collision is still immanent, the VEB should then be ac- This study has introduced and modelled a braking system which
tivated. Special cases where the VEB could have a major effect on the increases deceleration up to a maximum of 16 m/s2 using PCM accident
end result are cases with late visibility, i.e. obscured situations and data. Pedestrian AEB with VEB decreases pedestrian fatalities in colli-
cases with very short exposure such as crossing scenarios. sions with M1 vehicle fronts by 80–87%, which is an increase of at least
8% over the AEB-only system. Had all M1 vehicles been equipped with
5.4. Implications AEB and a high performance VEB, approximately 215 pedestrian
fatalities could have been avoided in Germany in 2015, 46 more than
Equipping all M1 vehicles with “VEB high”, VEB with the maximum with AEB only. Collision avoidance increases by 14–28% when VEB is
deceleration assessed here, would prevent 82% of pedestrian frontal added to the reference AEB system.
accidents, as shown in Table 4. Frontal accidents with M1 vehicles re- Most collisions and injuries can be avoided when AEB is supple-
present 48% of all pedestrian accidents in GIDAS. Therefore, the col- mented by the high performance VEB; remaining cases are char-
lision avoidance effectiveness of “VEB high” can be calculated as acterised by high pedestrian walking speeds and late visibility due to
48%*82% = 38%. view obstructions. VEB is effective in all analysed accident scenarios,
Similarly, the effectiveness of “VEB high” for all pedestrian fatalities and we believe that the real-life performance increase of VEB over AEB
can be calculated as the product of its effectiveness in preventing fatal that we have demonstrated here would also be demonstrated in Euro
pedestrian accidents and the proportion of M1 vehicle involvement in NCAP pedestrian AEB tests.
319
H. Jeppsson et al. Accident Analysis and Prevention 111 (2018) 311–320
Appendix A. Supplementary data Korner, J., 1989. A Method for Evaluating Occupant Protection by Correlating Accident
Data with Laboratory Test Data. SAE Tech. (Pap. 890747).
Kullgren, A., 2008. Dose-response models and EDR data for assessment of injury risk and
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the effectiveness of safety systems. In: Proceedings of IRCOBI Conference. Bern,
online version, at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2017.12.001. Switzerland. pp. 3–14.
Kusano, K.D., Gabler, H.C., 2012. Safety benefits of forward collision warning, brake
assist, and autonomous braking systems in rear-end collisions. IEEE Trans. Intell.
References Transp. Syst. 13 (4), 1546–1555. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TITS.2012.2191542.
Lang, J., 2015. Vacuum emergency brake introduction: the torricelli brake. In: The 1 st
Bärgman, J., Boda, C.N., Dozza, M., 2017. Counterfactual simulations applied to SHRP2 Praxis Conference Autonomous Emergency Braking. Bicester, United Kingdom.
crashes: the effect of driver behavior models on safety benefit estimations of in- Lindman, M., Oedblom, A., Bergvall, E., Eidehall, A., Svanberg, B., Lukaszewicz, T., 2010.
telligent safety systems. Accid. Anal. Prev. 102, 165–180. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ Benefit estimation model for pedestrian auto brake functionality. In: The 4th
j.aap.2017.03.003. International Conference Expert Symposium on Accident Research (ESAR).
Bärgman, J., 2015. On the Analysis of Naturalistic Driving Data. Chalmers university of Hannover, Germany. pp. 28–33.
technology. Lubbe, N., Kullgren, A., 2015. Assessment of integrated pedestrian protection systems
Bärgman, J., 2016. Methods for Analysis of Naturalistic Driving Data in Driver Behavior with forward collision warning and automated emergency braking. In: Proceedings of
Research. Chalmers university of technology. IRCOBI Conference. Lyon, France. pp. 385–397.
Bhalla, K., Shotten, M., Cohen, A., Brauer, M., Shahraz, S., Burnett, R., Leach-Kemon, K., Mellinghoff, U., Breitling, P.D.T., Schöneburg, P.D.R., Metzler, H.-G., 2009. 2009. the
Freedman, G., Murray, C.J.L., Dingenen, R., Van Dentener, F., Vos, T., Naghavi, M., Mercedes-Benz experimental safety vehicle ESF. In: The 21 st International Technical
Abraham, J., Bartels, D., Weh, P.-H., 2014. Transport for Health: The Global Burden Conference on the Enhaced Safety of Vehicles (ESV). Stuttgart, Germany.
of Disease from Motorized Road Transport. Morales Teraoka, E.Y., Tanaka, S., 2014. Benefit estimation of active safety systems for
Bundesministerium für Verkehr und digitale Infrastruktur, 2015. Halbzeitbilanz des crossing-Pedestrian scenarios. In: Proceeding of FISITA 2014 World Automotive
Verkehrssicherheitsprogramms. pp. 2011–2020. Congress. Maastricht, Netherlands.
Bundestag, Deutscher, 2016. Deutscher Bundestag Unterrichtung Drucksache 18/9640. Morales Teraoka, E.Y., Tanaka, S., Mochida, T., 2013. Benefit estimation of active safety
Cicchino, J.B., 2017. Effectiveness of forward collision warning and autonomous emer- systems for crossing-Pedestrian scenarios. In: Proceedings of the 1 st International
gency braking systems in reducing front-to-rear crash rates. Accid. Anal. Prev. 99, Symposium on Future Active Safety Technology Towards Zero Traffic Accidents.
142–152. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2016.11.009. Nagoya, Japan. pp. 1–7.
Coles, S., 2001. An Introduction to Statistical Modeling of Extreme Values. Springer, Ohlin, M., Strandroth, J., Tingvall, C., 2017. The combined effect of vehicle frontal de-
London, United Kingdom). sign, speed reduction, autonomous emergency braking and helmet use in reducing
Edwards, M., Nathanson, A., Wisch, M., 2014. Estimate of potential benefit for Europe of real life bicycle injuries. Saf. Sci. 92, 338–344. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.
fitting Autonomous Emergency Braking (AEB) systems for pedestrian protection to 2016.05.007.
passenger cars. Traffic Inj. Prev. 15 (Suppl. 1), S173–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ Pastor, C., 2013. The correlation between pedestrian injury severity in real-life crashes
15389588.2014.931579. and Euro NCAP pedestrian test results. Traffic Inj. Prev. 12 (6), 13–0308. http://dx.
Edwards, M., Nathanson, A., Carroll, J., Wisch, M., Zander, O., Lubbe, N., 2015. doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2011.607198.
Assessment of integrated pedestrian protection systems with autonomous emergency Rosén, E., Källhammer, J.E., Eriksson, D., Nentwich, M., Fredriksson, R., Smith, K., 2010.
braking (AEB) and passive safety components. Traffic Inj. Prev 16 (Suppl. 1), S2–S11. Pedestrian injury mitigation by autonomous braking. Accid. Anal. Prev. 42 (6),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2014.1003154. 1949–1957. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2010.05.018.
Erbsmehl, C., 2009. Simulation of real crashes as a method for estimating the potential Rosén, E., 2013. Autonomous emergency braking for vulnerable road users. In:
benefits of advanced safety technologies. In: The 21 St International Technical Proceedings of IRCOBI Conference. Gothenburg, Sweden. pp. 618–627.
Conference on the Enhaced Safety of Vehicles (ESV) Stuttgart. Germany. Roth, F., Schneider, A., Labenski, V., Ag, A., Bejan, P., Coulongeat, F., Clement, B., 2017.
European Commission, 2003. Directive 2003/102/ec. General safety Regulation–Future requirements in VRU safety. In: 12th Praxis
European Commission, 2010. Towards a European Road Safety Area: Policy Orientations Conference Pedestrian Protection. Berglisch-Gladbach, Germany.
on Road Safety 2011–2020. COM 389 Final. Sander, U., Lubbe, N., 2016. Prediction of accident evolution by diversification of influ-
European Commission, 2015. Interim Evaluation of the Policy Orientations on Road ence factors in computer simulation: opportunities for driver warnings in intersection
Safety. pp. 2011–2020. accidents. In: Aktive Sicherheit Und Automatisiertes Fahren ? Methodenentwicklung
European Commission, 2016. Traffic Safety Basic Facts 2016 Pedestrians. http://dx.doi. Im Expertendialog. Essen, Germany. pp. 29.
org/10.1136/bmj.330.7487.367. Sander, U., 2017. Opportunities and limitations for intersection collision intervention—A
European Enhanced Vehicle-Safety Committee, 2002. EEVC Working Group 17 Report. study of real world ‘left turn across path’ accidents. Accid. Anal. Prev. 99, 342–355.
Improved Test Methods to Evaluate Pedestrian Protection Afforded by Passenger http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2016.12.011.
Cars. Schram, Richard, Williams, A., van, R.M., 2015. Euro ncap’s first step to assess autono-
Farah, H., Azevedo, C.L., 2017. Safety analysis of passing maneuvers using extreme value mous emergency braking (aeb) for vulnerable road users. In: 24th International
theory. IATSS Res. 41 (1), 12–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iatssr.2016.07.001. Enhanced Safety of Vehicles (ESV) Conference. Gothenburg, Sweden. pp. 1–7.
Fildes, B., Keall, M., Bos, N., Lie, A., Page, Y., Pastor, C., Pennisi, L., Rizzi, M., Thomas, P., Schramm, S., 2011. Methode Zur Berechnung Der Feldeffektivität Integraler
Tingvall, C., 2015. Effectiveness of low speed autonomous emergency braking in real- Fußgängerschutzsysteme.
world rear-end crashes. Accid. Anal. Prev. 81, 24–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. Seiniger, P., Bartels, O., Pastor, C., Wisch, M., 2013. An open simulation approach to
aap.2015.03.029. identify chances and limitations for vulnerable road user (VRU) active safety. Traffic
Fredriksson, R., Rosén, E., 2012. Integrated pedestrian countermeasures – potential of Inj. Prev. 14, S2–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2013.797574.
head injury reduction combining passive and active countermeasures. Saf. Sci. 50 (3), Seiniger, P., Bartels, O., Hellmann, A., Fritz, M., 2016. Test Protocol as a Proposal for
400–407. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2011.09.019. Consumer Testing.Test Protocol as a Proposal for Consumer Testing.
Hamdane, H., Serre, T., Masson, C., Anderson, R., 2015. Issues and challenges for pe- Strandroth, J., Rizzi, M., Sternlund, S., Lie, A., Tingvall, C., 2011. The correlation between
destrian active safety systems based on real world accidents. Accid. Anal. Prev. 82, pedestrian injury severity in real life crashes and Euro NCAP pedestrian test results.
53–60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2015.05.014. Traffic Inj. Prev. 12 (6), 604–613.
Hayashi, H., Inomata, R., Fujishiro, R., Ouchi, Y., Suzuki, K., Nanami, T., 2013. Tanaka, S., 2015. Reconstructing accidents by simulation for developing active safety
Development of pre-Crash safety system with pedestrian collision avoidance assist. systems. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on Future Active Safety
In: The 23rd International Enhanced Safety of Vehicles (ESV) Conference. Seoul, Technology Towards Zero Traffic Accidents. Gothenburg, Sweden. pp. 597–603.
Republic of Korea. pp. 8. Tarko, A.P., 2012. Use of crash surrogates and exceedance statistics to estimate road
Helmer, T., 2014. Development of a Methodology for the Evaluation of Active Safety safety. Accid. Anal. Prev. 45, 230–240. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2011.07.
Using the Example of Preventive Pedestrian Protection. Technische Universität, 008.
Berlin. Wille, J.M., Zatloukal, M., 2012. rateEFFECT: effectiveness evaluation of active safety
Hutchinson, T.P., Anderson, R.W.G., Searson, D.J., 2012. Pedestrian headform testing: systems. In: 5th International Conference on ESAR, Expert Symposium on Accident
inferring performance at impact speeds and for headform masses not tested, and Research. Fachverlag NW in Der Carl Schuenemann Verlag GmbH ISSN . 0943-9293.
estimating average performance in a range of real-world conditions. Traffic Inj. Prev. Hanover, Germany. pp. 1–41.
13 (4), 402–411. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2012.660252. World Health Organisation, 2015. Global Status Report on Road Safety 2015, WHO
Hydén, C., 1987. The Development of a Method for Traffic Safety Evaluation: The Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data Global. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/
Swedish Traffic Conflicts Technique. Lund University, Department of Traffic Planning injuryprev-2013-040775.
and Engineering, Lund, Sweden). Yanagisawa, M., Swanson, E., Azeredo, P., Najm, W.G., 2017. Estimation of Potential
Jonasson, J.K., Rootzén, H., 2014. Internal validation of near-crashes in naturalistic Safety Benefits for Pedestrian Crash Avoidance/Mitigation Systems. National
driving studies: a continuous and multivariate approach. Accid. Anal. Prev. 62, Highway Traffic Safety Administration report, Washington, DC).
102–109. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2013.09.013. van Ratingen, M., Williams, A., Lie, A., Seeck, A., Castaing, P., Kolke, R., Adriaenssens, G.,
Kompass, K., 2012. New methods for representative evaluation of integral safety in traffic. Miller, A., 2016. The european new car assessment programme: a historical review.
In: 5th International Conference on ESAR, Expert Symposium on Accident Research. Chin. J. Traumatol. (English Ed.) 19 (2), 63–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cjtee.
Hannover, Germany. pp. 21. 2015.11.016.
320