Abstract
Abstract
Objective
We aimed to quantify, through simulations using real crash data, the number of potentially avoided crashes following different replacement levels of light vehicles by level-5 automated light vehicles (AVs).
Methods
Since level-5 AVs are not on the road yet, or are too rare, we simulated their introduction into traffic using a national database of all fatal crashes and 5% of injury crashes observed in France in 2011. We fictitiously replaced a certain proportion of light vehicles (LVs) involved in crashes by level-5 AVs, and applied crash avoidance probabilities estimated by a number of experts regarding the capabilities of AVs depending on specific configurations. Estimates of the percentage of avoided crashes per user configuration and according to three selected (10%, 50%, 100%) replacement levels were made, as well as estimates taking into account the relative weight of these crash configurations, and considering fatal and injury crashes separately.
Results
Our simulation suggests that a reduction of almost half of fatal crashes (56%) and injury crashes (46%) could be expected by replacing all LVs on the road with level-5 AVs. The introduction of AVs would be the least effective for crashes involving a vulnerable road user, especially motorcyclists.
Conclusion
This result represents encouraging prospects for the introduction of automated vehicles into traffic, while making it clear that, even with all light vehicles replaced with level 5-AVs, all issues would not be solved, especially for crashes involving motorcyclists, cyclists and pedestrians.
Funder
Direction de la Sécurité et de la Circulation Routières
Fondation Sécurité Routière
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Mechanical Engineering,Transportation,Automotive Engineering
Reference17 articles.
1. Althoff, M., & Mergel, A. (2011). Comparison of Markov Chain abstraction and Monte Carlo simulation for the safety assessment of autonomous cars. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 12(4), 1237–1247. https://doi.org/10.1109/TITS.2011.2157342
2. Fagnant, D. J., & Kockelman, K. (2015). Preparing a nation for autonomous vehicles: Opportunities, barriers and policy recommendations. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 77, 167–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2015.04.003
3. Fahrenkrog, F., Wang, L., Platzer, T., Fries, A., & Raisch, F. (2019). Prospective safety effectiveness assessment of automated driving functions—From the methods to the results. In ESV 26th Conference Search, 11, 2019. https://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/database/esv/proceedings/esvpdf. aspGDV. (1998). Unfalltypen-Katalog. https://udv.de/de/publikationen/broschueren/unfalltypen-katalog
4. Faisal, A., Kamruzzaman, M., Yigitcanlar, T., & Currie, G. (2019). Understanding autonomous vehicles: A systematic literature review on capability, impact, planning and policy. Journal of Transport and Land Use, 12(1), 45–72.
5. Favarò, F. M., Nader, N., Eurich, S. O., Tripp, M., & Varadaraju, N. (2017). Examining accident reports involving autonomous vehicles in California. PLoS ONE, 12(9), e0184952. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0184952
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献