Citation

Kidd DG, Teoh ER, Jermakian JS. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2023; 191: e107199.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2023, Elsevier Publishing)

DOI

10.1016/j.aap.2023.107199

PMID

37406545

Abstract

Government and consumer-information organizations can motivate automakers to address additional crash types through front crash prevention (FCP) testing programs. This study examined the current state of crashes potentially relevant to current and future FCP systems to provide a roadmap for the next crash types that vehicle testing programs in the United States should evaluate. Crash records from 2016 to 2020 were extracted from the Crash Report Sampling System (CRSS) and the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS). Crashes were restricted to ones involving no more than two vehicles where the striking or path-intruding vehicle was a passenger vehicle and a vehicle defect was not coded. Percentages of police-reported crashes, nonfatal-injury crashes, and fatal crashes were computed for different crash types and circumstances. Rear-end and pedestrian crashes evaluated in existing FCP testing programs accounted for 27% of all police-reported crashes, 19% of nonfatal-injury crashes, and 18% of fatal crashes. The remaining crash types relevant to FCP accounted for 25% of police-reported crashes, 31% of nonfatal-injury crashes, and 23% of fatal crashes. A turning passenger vehicle crossing the path of an oncoming vehicle accounted for the largest proportion of the remaining police-reported (8%) and nonfatal-injury crashes (13%). Head-on crashes accounted for the largest proportion of remaining fatal crashes (9%). Most FCP-relevant police-reported crashes occurred on roads with a posted speed limit between 30 and 50 mph. Medium/heavy trucks were the crash partner in a disproportionate number of fatal head-on and rear-end crashes and motorcycles in a disproportionate number of fatal rear-end and turning crossing-path crashes. Fatal bicyclist and pedestrian crashes were overrepresented at night. The findings from this study indicate that testing organizations should evaluate FCP performance at higher speeds; with non-passenger vehicles and vulnerable road users; during the night; and in more complex head-on and turning crash scenarios to reduce crashes of all severities. Some of these conditions are currently assessed by other testing organizations and can be readily adopted by U.S. programs or possibly addressed with new approaches like virtual testing.

Language: en

Keywords

Automatic emergency braking; Front crash prevention; CRSS; FARS; Forward collision warning; Police-reported crashes