Filtern
Erscheinungsjahr
- 2015 (51) (entfernen)
Dokumenttyp
Sprache
- Englisch (51) (entfernen)
Schlagworte
- Germany (38)
- Deutschland (36)
- Conference (32)
- Konferenz (32)
- Unfall (22)
- Accident (21)
- Unfallrekonstruktion (19)
- injury) (16)
- Schweregrad (Unfall (15)
- Verletzung) (15)
Institut
Enhanced protection of pedestrians and cyclists remains on the focus. Besides infrastructural and behavioral aspects it is necessary to exploit technical solutions placed on motorized vehicles. Accident research needs reliable data as well as national road accident statistics. Changing the view on seriously injured road users is one of the challenges which will substantially contribute to the optimization on future traffic safety. The missing accuracy in the definition of personal injury has a detrimental effect on making cost efficient road safety policy which is not only focused on fatal accidents. The European commission requested that, starting in 2015, all EU member states provide more detailed data on the injury status of road casualties, with special regard to the group of seriously injured. Conventional accident data will always be essential. But to obtain detailed data about driver behavior in real traffic situations further data sources are required. These could be EDR data, data from electronic control units, data from traffic surveys and traffic counting, naturalistic diving studies and field operational tests. Gaining insight into normal as well as critical driver behavior will enable accident researchers to deduct functions estimating the increase or decrease of accident risk associated with certain behaviors or vehicle functions. Also with view to the introduction of highly automated driving functions in the future such data is urgently needed. Computer simulation based tools to estimate the benefits of active safety systems are another step on the way towards the safety assessment of automated driving. It is now the duty of the scientific community to ask the right questions, to develop a methodology and to merge all these data sources into a common framework for the assessment of future traffic safety innovations.
SEEKING is looking for answers regarding electric powered bicycles and their relation to traffic safety issues. Does a cyclist need "E"? Is it as risky as riding a moped or are E-bikes creating conflicts with other cyclists? The project described herein, funded by the Austrian Ministry of Transport, has the aim of seeking answers to these hot topics. The SEEKING-team shows an in-depth investigation of vehicle dynamic sensing, together with subjective feedback of test riders to detect similarities and differences between conventional cycling and E-biking. Following an overview on the international status quo, measurement runs and their analyses are performed to find a set of preventative measures to make (E-)biking safer. A specific focus is the detection of curve handling, stopping and acceleration phases as well as conflict studies on course-based test rides and "real world" tests on cycling paths (naturalistic riding).
The Traffic Accident Research Institute at University of Technology Dresden investigates about 1,000 accidents annually in the area around and in Dresden. These datasets have been summarized and evaluated in the GIDAS (German Accident In-Depth Study) project for 13 years. During the project it became apparent that the specific traffic situation of a covert exit of a passenger car and an intersecting two-wheeler involves a high risk potential. This critical situation develops in a large part due to the lack of visibility between the driver and the intersecting bike. In this paper the accident avoidance potential of front camera systems with lateral field of view, which allows the driver to have an indirect sight into the crossing street area will be presented.
Assessment of the effectiveness of Intersection Assistance Systems at urban and rural accident sites
(2015)
An Intersection Collision Avoidance System is a promising safety system for accident avoidance or injury mitigation at junctions. However, there is still a lack of evidence of the effectiveness, due to the missing real accident data concerning Advanced Driver Assistance Systems. The objective of this study is the assessment of the effectiveness of an Intersection Collision Avoidance System based on real accidents. The method used is called virtual pre-crash simulation. Accidents at junctions were reconstructed by using the numerical simulation software PC-Crashâ„¢. This first simulation is called the baseline simulation. In a second step the vehicles of these accidents were equipped with an Intersection Collision Avoidance System and simulated again. The second simulation is called the system simulation. In the system simulation two different sensors and four different intervention strategies were used, based on a time-to-collision approach. The effectiveness of Intersection Collision Avoidance System has been evaluated by using an assessment function. On average 9% of the reviewed junction accidents could have been avoided within the system simulations. The other simulation results clearly showed a change in the principal direction of force, delta-v and reduction of the injury severity.
Analysis of pedestrian leg contacts and distribution of contact points across the vehicle front
(2015)
Determining the risk to pedestrians that are impacted by areas of the front bumper not currently regulated in type-approval testing requires an understanding of the target population and the injury risk posed by the edges of the bumper. National statistics show that approximately 10% of all accident casualties are pedestrians, with 20% to 30% of these pedestrian casualties being killed or seriously injured. However, the contact position across the front of the bumper is not recorded in national statistics and so in-depth accident databases (OTS, UK and GIDAS, Germany) were used to examine injury risk in greater detail. The results showed that some injury types and severities of injuries appear to peak around the bumper edges. Although there are sometimes inconsistencies in the data, generally there is no evidence to suggest that the edges of the bumper are less likely to be contacted or cause injury.
Many safety-relevant tasks in control or diagnostics require binary choices such as "conflict versus separation" in air traffic control, "normal versus pathological" when interpreting x-ray pictures, or "permitted versus forbidden" when inspecting airport security scans. Deciders often are uncertain, but nevertheless required to decide between two alternatives, that is, they have not only to decide upon an action, but also about the admissible level of uncertainty. If the accepted level of judgment certainty is not taken into account, the sequence of decisions does not capture the full picture of the underlying decision process. Differences in judgment certainty are relevant, because they reflect not only the adequacy of the human-machine interface that is evaluated, but also the differences in expertise of the decider and the requirements of the actual situation or task. Therefore, capturing both judgment certainty and discrimination performance is essential. A comparison of different human-machine-interfaces (for air traffic control) is used to illustrate a methodological approach, which allows for integrated analyses of decision processes based on receiver-operator-characteristics and practical guidelines for the evaluation of human-machine-interfaces for safety-relevant operation procedures are provided.
Today's volumes of traffic require more and more responsibility from each individual road user in their interactions. Those who drive motor vehicles have the singular obligation to minimise the risk of accidents and hence the severity of injuries, particularly with a view to the most vulnerable road users such as motor bikes, bikes and pedestrians. Since responsible and pro-active driving depends first and foremost on the visual information relayed by our eyes and the visual channel this requires good command of the traffic and all-round visibility from our driver's seat. Granted that human error can never be fully excluded, improving visibility around the car is nevertheless an urgent priority. To do so, we need to rate visibility in the most realistic driving situations. Since the existing visibility metrics and methodology are not applicable to real-life driving situations, this study aimed at developing a new visibility rating methodology based on real-life accident scenarios. On the basis of the cases documented by the accident research project, this study analysed criteria indicative of diminishing visibility on the one hand and revealing some peculiarities in connection with the visibility issue on the other. Based on the above, the project set out to develop a rating methodology allowing to assess all-round visibility in various road situations taking into account both driver and road geometries. In this context, the assessment of visibility while turning a corner, crossing an intersection and joining traffic on a major road (priority through route) is of major importance. The first tests have shown that critical situations can be avoided by adapting the relevant geometries and technical solutions and that significant improvements of road safety can be derived therefrom.
Event data recorders (EDRs) are a valuable tool for in-depth investigation of traffic accidents. EDRs are installed on the airbag control module (ACM) to record vehicle and occupant information before, during, and after a crash event. This study evaluates EDR characteristics and aims at better understanding EDR performance for the improvement of accident reconstruction with more reliable and accurate information regarding accidents. The analysis is based on six crash tests with corresponding EDR datasets.
Since the beginning of the testing activities related to passive pedestrian safety, the width of the test area being assessed regarding its protection level for the lower extremities of vulnerable road users has been determined by geometrical measurements at the outer contour of the vehicle. During the past years, the trend of a decreased width of the lower extremity test and assessment area realized by special features of the outer vehicle frontend design could be observed. This study discusses different possibilities for counteracting this development and thus finding a robust definition for this area including all structures with high injury risk for the lower extremities of vulnerable road users in the event of a collision with a motor vehicle. While Euro NCAP is addressing the described problem by defining a test area under consideration of the stiff structures underneath the bumper fascia, a detailed study was carried out on behalf of the European Commission, aiming at a robust, worldwide harmonized definition of the bumper test area for legislation, taking into account the specific requirements of different certification procedures of the contracting parties of the UN/ECE agreements from 1958 and 1998. This paper details the work undertaken by BASt, also serving as a contribution to the TF-BTA of the UN/ECE GRSP, towards a harmonized test area in order to better protect the lower extremities of vulnerable road users. The German In-Depth Accident Database GIDAS is studied with respect to the potential benefit of a revised test area. Several practical options are discussed and applied to actual vehicles, investigating the differences and possible effects. Tests are carried out and the results studied in detail. Finally, a proposal for a feasible definition is given and a suggestion is made for solving possible open issues at angled surfaces due to rotation of the impactor. The study shows that, in principle, there is a need for the entire vehicle width being assessed with regard to the protection potential for lower extremities of vulnerable road users. It gives evidence on the necessity for a robust definition of the lower extremity test area including stiff and thus injurious structures at the vehicle frontend, especially underneath the bumper fascia. The legal definition of the lower extremity test area will shortly be almost harmonized with the robust Euro NCAP requirements, as already endorsed by GRSP, taking into account injurious structures and thus contributing to the enhanced protection of vulnerable road users. After finalization of the development of a torso mass for the flexible pedestrian legform impactor (FlexPLI) it is recommended to consider again the additional benefit of assessing the entire vehicle width.
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.
During the past five years, a Euro NCAP technical working group on pedestrian safety has been working on improving test and assessment procedures for enhanced passive pedestrian safety. After harmonizing the tools and procedures as much as possible with legislation, the work was mainly focused on the development of grid procedures for the pedestrian body regions head, upper leg with pelvis and lower leg with knee. Furthermore, the test parameters for the head and the upper leg were revised, a new lower legform impactor was introduced and the injury thresholds were adjusted or, where necessary, the injury criteria were changed. Finally, the assessment limits and colour scheme were refined, widening the range and adding two more colours in order to provide a more detailed description of the pedestrian safety performance. By abstaining from an assessment based on a worst point selection philosophy, the improved test point determination procedures that were introduced during the years 2013 and 2014 give a more homogeneous, high resolution picture of the pedestrian safety performance of the vehicle frontends. By using a uniform grid for each test zone approximately 200 test points, evenly distributed within each area, can now be assessed per vehicle. The introduction of the flexible pedestrian legform impactor in 2014 enables a more realistic injury prediction of the knee and the tibia using a biofidelic test tool. With the new upper legform test that has been launched in 2015 the assessment in that area is now focusing on the injured body region instead of the injury causing vehicle part and thus is aligned with the approach in the remaining body regions head and lower leg. At the same time, a monitoring test with the headform impactor against the bonnet leading edge is closing the possible gap between the test areas to identify injury causing vehicle parts that moved out of focus due to the introduction of the new upper legform test. The paper describes the new test and assessment procedures with their underlying philosophy and gives an outlook in terms of open issues, specifying the needs for further improvement in the future. In parallel to the work of the pedestrian subgroup, a Euro NCAP working group on heavy vehicles introduced a set of protocol changes in 2011 that were related to the assessment of M1 vehicles derived from commercial vehicles, with a gross vehicle weight between 2.5 and 3.5 tons and 8 or 9 seats. The paper also investigates the applicability of the new pedestrian test and assessment procedures to heavy vehicles.