Ulrich Sander

Pedestrian fatality risk as a function of car impact speed

Knowledge of the amount of violence tolerated by the human body is essential when developing and implementing pedestrian safety strategies. When estimating the potential benefits of new countermeasures, the pedestrian fatality risk as a function of impact speed is of particular importance. Although this function has been analysed previously, we state that a proper understanding does not exist. Based on the largest in-depth, pedestrian accident study undertaken to date, we derive an improved risk function for adult pedestrians hit by the front of passenger cars. Our results show far lower fatality risks than generally reported in the traffic safety literature. This discrepancy is primarily explained by sample bias towards severe injury accidents in earlier studies. Nevertheless, a strong dependence on impact speed is found, with the fatality risk at 50 km/h being more than twice as high as the risk at 40 km/h and more than five times higher than the risk at 30 km/h. Our findings should have important implications for the development of pedestrian accident countermeasures worldwide. In particular, the scope of future pedestrian safety policies and research should be broadened to include accidents with impact speeds exceeding 50 km/h.

Literature review of pedestrian fatality risk as a function of car impact speed

The aim of this review was to evaluate all studies of pedestrian fatality risk as a function of car impact speed. Relevant papers were primarily investigated with respect to data sampling procedures and methods for statistical analysis. It was uniformly reported that fatality risk increased monotonically with car impact speed. However, the absolute risk estimates varied considerably. Without exceptions, papers written before 2000 were based on direct analyses of data that had a large bias towards severe and fatal injuries. The consequence was to overestimate the fatality risks. We also found more recent research based on less biased data or adjusted for bias. While still showing a steep increase of risk with impact speed, these later papers provided substantially lower risk estimates than had been previously reported.

Opportunities and limitations for intersection collision intervention—A study of real world ‘left turn across path’ accidents

Turning across the path of oncoming vehicle accidents are frequent and dangerous. To date not many car manufacturers have introduced Automated Emergency Braking (AEB) systems addressing this type of conflict situation, but it is foreseeable that these scenarios will be part of the Euro NCAP 2020 rating. Nine out of ten collisions are caused by the driver of the turning vehicle. An AEB system evaluating the ego and conflict vehicle drivers possibilities to avoid a pending crash by either braking or steering was specified for application in various constellations of vehicle collisions. In virtual simulation, AEB system parameters were varied, covering parameters that are relevant for driver comfort such as longitudinal and lateral acceleration (to define avoidance possibilities), expected steering maneuvers to avoid conflict, and intervention response characteristics (brake delay and ramp up) to assess the safety benefit. The reference simulation showed a potential of the AEB system in the turning vehicle to avoid approximately half of the collisions. An AEB system of the straight going vehicle was less effective. The effectiveness of the turning vehicles AEB system increases if spatial limitations for the collision-avoidance steering maneuver are known. Such information could be provided by sensors detecting free space in or around the road environment or geographical information shared via vehicle to cloud communication. AEB interventions rarely result in collision avoidance for turning vehicles with speeds above 40km/h or for straight going vehicles with speeds above 60km/h. State of the art field-of-views of forward looking sensing systems designed for AEB rear-end interventions are capable of addressing turning across path situations.

Saving Lives with V2X versus On-Board Sensing Systems -Which will be More Effective?: Technology Leadership Brief

Infrastructure systems such as vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) and vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2X) communication can theoretically prevent nearly all accidents by gathering the speed, locations, and travel directions of traffic participants, and intervening to control vehicle motion as required to help prevent collisions. However, during the phase-in of the communication systems, there will be many vehicles and many roads that do not have the communication systems in place, and therefore the system will not be effective in those cases. This lack of availability is likely the main disadvantage. On-board sensing (autonomous) systems such as cameras and radar sensors may not detect all potential hazards (e.g. due to weather, or hidden hazards), but they are effective in many situations and can help prevent crashes without depending on communication with infrastructure or other vehicles. This paper evaluates and compares the effectiveness of communication and on-board sensing technology in saving lives. Various implementation scenarios and system capabilities are investigated.

Market penetration of intersection AEB: Characterizing avoided and residual straight crossing path accidents

Car occupants account for one third of all junction fatalities in the European Union. Driver warning can reduce intersection accidents by up to 50 percent; adding Autonomous Emergency Braking (AEB) delivers a reduction of up to 70 percent. However, these findings are based on an assumed 100 percent equipment rate, which may take decades to achieve. Our study investigates the relationship between intersection AEB market penetration rates and avoidance of accidents and injuries in order to guide implementation strategies. Additionally, residual accident characteristics (impact configurations and severity) are analyzed to provide a basis for future in-crash protection requirements. We determined which accidents would have been avoided through the use of an Intersection AEB system with different sensor field-of-views (180° and 120°) by means of re-simulating the pre-crash phase of 792 straight crossing path (SCP) car-to-car accidents recorded in the German In-Depth Accident Study (GIDAS) and the associated Pre-Crash Matrix (PCM). Intersection AEB was activated when neither of the conflict opponents could avoid the crash through reasonable braking or steering reactions. For not-avoided accidents, we used the Kudlich-Slibar rigid body impulse model to calculate the change of velocity during the impact as a measure of impact severity and the principal direction of force. Accident avoidance over market penetration is not linear but exponential, with higher gains at low penetration rates and lower gains at higher rates. A wide field-of-view sensor (180°) substantially increased accident avoidance and injury mitigation rates compared to a 120° field-of-view sensor. For a 180° field-of-view sensor at 100 percent market penetration, about 80 percent of the accidents and 90 percent of the MAIS2 + F injuries could be avoided. For the remaining accidents, AEB intervention rarely affected side of impact. The median change of velocity (delta-V) of the remaining crashes reduces only marginally at low penetration rates but this reduction increases with higher penetration rates. With 100 percent market penetration, one quarter of the vehicles still involved in straight crossing path accidents will sustain a delta-V higher than 17 km/h. Intersection AEB is very effective. Enabling a fast initial implementation of systems with wide field-of-view sensor(s) and ensuring a high market penetration over the longer term is essential to achieve high crash avoidance and injury mitigation rates over time. The standards for in-crash protection must be high to mitigate injury in the unavoidable, residual accidents.