Effectiveness of forward collision warning and autonomous emergency braking systems in reducing front-to-rear crash rates

• Published in: Accident analysis and prevention Vol. 99; no. Pt A; pp. 142 - 152
• Main Author: Cicchino, Jessica B.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England Elsevier Ltd 01-02-2017
• Subjects: Accident Prevention - instrumentation; Accidents, Traffic - prevention & control; Accidents, Traffic - statistics & numerical data; Active safety; Adult; Automobiles - statistics & numerical data; Autonomous emergency braking; Crash avoidance technologies; Crash risk; Emergencies; Forward collision warning; Humans; Models, Theoretical; Police; Protective Devices - utilization; Rear-end crashes; Risk; United States; Wounds and Injuries - prevention & control; Autonomous emergency braking; Crash avoidance technologies; Active safety; Crash risk; Rear-end crashes; Forward collision warning
• ISSN: 0001-4575; 1879-2057
• DOI: 10.1016/j.aap.2016.11.009

•Forward collision warning (FCW) reduced front-to-rear crash rates 27% and front-to-rear injury crash rates 20%.•Low-speed autonomous emergency braking (AEB) reduced front-to-rear crash rates 43% and front-to-rear injury crash rates 45%.•FCW with AEB reduced front-to-rear-crash rates 50% and front-to-rear injury crash rates 56%.•If all U.S. vehicles had FCW with AEB, about 1 million crashes and >400,000 injuries could have been prevented in 2014.
The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of forward collision warning (FCW) alone, a low-speed autonomous emergency braking (AEB) system operational at speeds up to 19mph that does not warn the driver prior to braking, and FCW with AEB that operates at higher speeds in reducing front-to-rear crashes and injuries. Poisson regression was used to compare rates of police-reported crash involvements per insured vehicle year in 22 U.S. states during 2010–2014 between passenger vehicle models with FCW alone or with AEB and the same models where the optional systems were not purchased, controlling for other factors affecting crash risk. Similar analyses compared rates between Volvo 2011–2012 model S60 and 2010–2012 model XC60 vehicles with a standard low-speed AEB system to those of other luxury midsize cars and SUVs, respectively, without the system.
FCW alone, low-speed AEB, and FCW with AEB reduced rear-end striking crash involvement rates by 27%, 43%, and 50%, respectively. Rates of rear-end striking crash involvements with injuries were reduced by 20%, 45%, and 56%, respectively, by FCW alone, low-speed AEB, and FCW with AEB, and rates of rear-end striking crash involvements with third-party injuries were reduced by 18%, 44%, and 59%, respectively. Reductions in rear-end striking crashes with third-party injuries were marginally significant for FCW alone, and all other reductions were statistically significant. FCW alone and low-speed AEB reduced rates of being rear struck in rear-end crashes by 13% and 12%, respectively, but FCW with AEB increased rates of rear-end struck crash involvements by 20%. Almost 1 million U.S. police-reported rear-end crashes in 2014 and more than 400,000 injuries in such crashes could have been prevented if all vehicles were equipped with FCW and AEB that perform similarly as systems did for study vehicles.