• search hit 5 of 5
Back to Result List

Assessment of Integrated Pedestrian Protection Systems with Autonomous Emergency Braking (AEB) and Passive Safety Components

  • Autonomous Emergency Braking (AEB) systems for pedestrians have been predicted to offer substantial benefit. On this basis, consumer rating programmes, e.g. Euro NCAP, are developing rating schemes to encourage fitment of these systems. One of the questions that needs to be answered to do this fully, is to determine how the assessment of the speed reduction offered by the AEB is integrated with the current assessment of the passive safety for mitigation of pedestrian injury. Ideally, this should be done on a benefit related basis. The objective of this research was to develop a benefit based methodology for assessment of integrated pedestrian protection systems with pre-crash braking and passive safety components. A methodology has been developed which calculates the cost of pedestrian injury expected, assuming all pedestrians in the target population (i.e. pedestrians impacted by the front of a passenger car) are impacted by the car being assessed, taking into account the impact speed reduction offered by the car’s AEB (if fitted) and the passive safety protection offered by the car’s frontal structure. For rating purposes, this cost can be normalised by comparing it to the cost calculated for selected cars. The methodology uses the speed reductions measured in AEB tests to determine the speed at which each casualty in the target population will be impacted. The injury to each casualty is then calculated using the results from standard Euro NCAP pedestrian impactor tests and injury risk curves. This injury is converted into cost using ‘Harm’ type costs for the body regions tested. These costs are weighted and summed. Weighting factors were determined using accident data from Germany and GB and the results of a benefit analysis performed by the EU FP7 AsPeCSS project. This resulted in German and GB versions of the methodology. The methodology was used to assess cars with good, average and poor Euro NCAP pedestrian ratings, with and without a current AEB system fitted. It was found that the decrease in casualty injury cost achieved by fitting an AEB system was approximately equivalent to that achieved by increasing the passive safety rating from poor to average. Also, it was found that the assessment was influenced strongly by the level of head protection offered in the scuttle and windscreen area because this is where head impact occurs for a large proportion of casualties. The major limitation within the methodology is the assumption used implicitly during weighting. This is that the cost of casualty injuries to body areas, such as the thorax, not assessed by the headform and legform impactors, and other casualty injuries such as those caused by ground impact, are related linearly to the cost of casualty injuries assessed by the impactors. A methodology for assessment of integrated pedestrian protection systems was developed. This methodology is of interest to consumer rating programmes which wish to include assessment of these systems. It also raises the interesting issue if the head impact test area should be weighted to reflect better real-world benefit.

Export metadata

Additional Services

Share in Twitter Search Google Scholar
Author:Mervyn Edwards, Andrew Nathanson, Jolyon Carroll, Marcus WischORCiD, Oliver ZanderORCiDGND, Nils Lubbe
Parent Title (English):Traffic injury prevention
Publisher:Taylor & Francis
Place of publication:Philadelphia, PA
Document Type:Article
Date of Publication (online):2019/11/12
Date of first publication:2015/06/01
Publishing institution:Bundesanstalt für Straßenwesen (BASt)
Contributing corporation:Transport Research Laboratory
Release Date:2019/11/12
Tag:Airbag; Aktives Sicherheitssystem; Automatische Notbremsung; Fußgänger; Passives Sicherheitssystem; Rechenmodell; Verletzung; Wirtschaftlichkeitsrechnung
Active safety system; Air bag (restraint system); Autonomous emergency braking; Cost benefit analysis; Injury; Mathematical model; Passive safety system; Pedestrian
Volume (for the year ...):16
Issue / no.:Supplement 1
First Page:S2
page number: Document ends on page ...:S11
Außerdem beteiligt: Toyota Motor Europe.
Volltext: https://doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2014.1003154
Institutes:Abteilung Fahrzeugtechnik
Dewey Decimal Classification:6 Technik, Medizin, angewandte Wissenschaften / 62 Ingenieurwissenschaften / 620 Ingenieurwissenschaften und zugeordnete Tätigkeiten
Licence (German):License LogoBASt / Link zum Urhebergesetz

$Rev: 13581 $