Citation

Sander U, Lubbe N, Pietzsch S. Traffic Injury Prev. 2019; 20(Suppl 1): S119-S125.

Affiliation

c Zenuity AB, Development , Gothenburg , Sweden.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2019, Informa - Taylor and Francis Group)

DOI

10.1080/15389588.2019.1602728

PMID

31381448

Abstract

Objective: Left turn across path with traffic from the opposite direction (LTAP/OD) is the second most frequent car-to-car intersection crash type after straight crossing path (SCP) in Germany and the United States. Intersection automated emergency braking (AEB) for passenger cars can address these crashes. This study investigates 2 implementation strategies of intersection AEB addressing LTAP/OD crashes: (1) only the turning car is equipped with an intersection AEB and (2) turning and straight-heading cars are equipped with an intersection AEB. For each strategy, the influence of a safety zone around the vehicles that should not be entered is evaluated in terms of accident avoidance, injury mitigation, and change in velocity (delta-V) of remaining accidents.

RESULTS are given as a function of market penetration. Methods: A total of 372 LTAP/OD crashes from the time series precrash matrix (PCM), a subsample of the German In-Depth Accident Study (GIDAS), were resimulated in the PRediction of Accident Evolution by Diversification of Influence factors in COmputer simulation (PRAEDICO) simulation framework. A Kudlich-Slibar rigid-body impact model and an injury risk curve derived from GIDAS were used to predict remaining moderate to fatal (Maximum Abbreviated Injury Scale [MAIS] 2 + F) injuries among car occupants. Results: With a safety zone of 0.2 m, when the turning vehicle only was equipped with an intersection AEB, 59% of the crashes were avoided at a 100% market penetration. With both vehicles equipped the percentage increased to 77%. MAIS 2 + F injured occupants were reduced by 60 and 76%, respectively. Considering both the turning and the straight-heading vehicles, the delta-V decreased strongly with market penetration in remaining left-side impacts but only slightly in remaining frontal and right-side impacts. Eliminating the safety zone substantially decreases effectiveness in all conditions. Conclusions: Implementation strategy and safety zone definition strongly influence the real-life performance of intersection AEB. AEB should be applied not only for the turning vehicle but also for the straight-going vehicle to benefit from the full potential. Situationally appropriate safety zone definitions, in line with human hazard perception, need more attention and are a key to balance true positive and false positive performance. Remaining delta-V does not decrease broadly; hence, there is no evidence that future LTAP/OD crashes will be generally of lower severity. This highlights the need for continuous development of in-crash protection.

Language: en

Keywords

AEB; Left turn across path; crash avoidance; injury mitigation; intersection