Convenience or safety system? Crash rates of vehicles equipped with partial driving automation.

IF 1.6 3区 工程技术 Q3 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Jessica B Cicchino
{"title":"Convenience or safety system? Crash rates of vehicles equipped with partial driving automation.","authors":"Jessica B Cicchino","doi":"10.1080/15389588.2024.2448511","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Although partial driving automation systems are usually discussed as convenience features, consumers sometimes consider them to be safety features. The goal of this study was to assess if partial driving automation reduces rear-end and lane departure crashes beyond safety systems like automatic emergency braking (AEB) and lane departure prevention (LDP).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Analyses examined crash rates of model year 2017-2019 Nissan Rogues and model year 2013-2017 BMW vehicles. Negative binomial regression was used to assess the association of Nissan's partial driving automation system, ProPILOT Assist, and BMW's system, Driving Assistant Plus, with police-reported rear-end and lane departure crash rates on the limited-access roads where they are designed to be used per vehicle mile traveled. Crash rates were also examined on roads with speed limits of ≤ 35 mph, where the systems were expected to have limited functionality and not be used much.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Equipment with BMW's Driving Assistant Plus was not associated with significantly lower crash rates than equipment with LDP alone. Rear-end crash rates were 26% lower on limited-access roads and 43% lower on roads with speed limits ≤ 35 mph for Nissan Rogues with ProPILOT Assist than for those with AEB alone. Similarly, lane departure crash rates were 25% lower for Nissan Rogues with ProPILOT Assist compared with those with LDP alone on limited-access roads, but were 31% lower on roads with speed limits ≤ 35 mph and 43% lower on limited-access roads in the dark. This brings into question if the lower crash rates associated with ProPILOT Assist can be attributed to use of the system, given that it would be activated infrequently on residential roads and that vehicles with it generally had better headlights than those unequipped.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>There is no convincing evidence that partial driving automation is a safety system that is preventing crashes in the real world. Research incorporating system use will be key to understanding safety effects. Considering that drivers have been documented misusing these systems, designing partial driving automation with robust safeguards to deter misuse will be crucial to minimizing the possibility that the systems will inadvertently increase crash risk.</p>","PeriodicalId":54422,"journal":{"name":"Traffic Injury Prevention","volume":" ","pages":"1-11"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Traffic Injury Prevention","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2024.2448511","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Although partial driving automation systems are usually discussed as convenience features, consumers sometimes consider them to be safety features. The goal of this study was to assess if partial driving automation reduces rear-end and lane departure crashes beyond safety systems like automatic emergency braking (AEB) and lane departure prevention (LDP).

Methods: Analyses examined crash rates of model year 2017-2019 Nissan Rogues and model year 2013-2017 BMW vehicles. Negative binomial regression was used to assess the association of Nissan's partial driving automation system, ProPILOT Assist, and BMW's system, Driving Assistant Plus, with police-reported rear-end and lane departure crash rates on the limited-access roads where they are designed to be used per vehicle mile traveled. Crash rates were also examined on roads with speed limits of ≤ 35 mph, where the systems were expected to have limited functionality and not be used much.

Results: Equipment with BMW's Driving Assistant Plus was not associated with significantly lower crash rates than equipment with LDP alone. Rear-end crash rates were 26% lower on limited-access roads and 43% lower on roads with speed limits ≤ 35 mph for Nissan Rogues with ProPILOT Assist than for those with AEB alone. Similarly, lane departure crash rates were 25% lower for Nissan Rogues with ProPILOT Assist compared with those with LDP alone on limited-access roads, but were 31% lower on roads with speed limits ≤ 35 mph and 43% lower on limited-access roads in the dark. This brings into question if the lower crash rates associated with ProPILOT Assist can be attributed to use of the system, given that it would be activated infrequently on residential roads and that vehicles with it generally had better headlights than those unequipped.

Discussion: There is no convincing evidence that partial driving automation is a safety system that is preventing crashes in the real world. Research incorporating system use will be key to understanding safety effects. Considering that drivers have been documented misusing these systems, designing partial driving automation with robust safeguards to deter misuse will be crucial to minimizing the possibility that the systems will inadvertently increase crash risk.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Traffic Injury Prevention
Traffic Injury Prevention PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
10.00%
发文量
137
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: The purpose of Traffic Injury Prevention is to bridge the disciplines of medicine, engineering, public health and traffic safety in order to foster the science of traffic injury prevention. The archival journal focuses on research, interventions and evaluations within the areas of traffic safety, crash causation, injury prevention and treatment. General topics within the journal''s scope are driver behavior, road infrastructure, emerging crash avoidance technologies, crash and injury epidemiology, alcohol and drugs, impact injury biomechanics, vehicle crashworthiness, occupant restraints, pedestrian safety, evaluation of interventions, economic consequences and emergency and clinical care with specific application to traffic injury prevention. The journal includes full length papers, review articles, case studies, brief technical notes and commentaries.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信