Utilising Human Crash Tolerance to Design an Interim and Ultimate Safe System for Road Safety
Abstract
:1. Introduction and Aims
1.1. Ultimate Safe System—The Desirable Future State
- Road users are never exposed to forces which are not survivable or can create long-term debilitations even when they or others make mistakes, including deliberate risk-taking;
- the network incorporates road and vehicle features that are maintained, reliable, and effective, and can prevent deaths and serious injuries without being reliant on road user behaviour and compliance with laws;
- the network includes setting and achieving compliance with the speed limits through vehicle engineering without relying on drivers to choose to comply with limits.
1.2. Human Tolerance to Crash Forces
- Locations with possible conflicts between pedestrians and cars = 30 km/h
- Intersections with possible side impacts between cars = 50 km/h
- Roads with possible frontal impacts between cars = 70 km/h
- Roads with no possibility of a side impact or frontal impact (only impacts with roadside infrastructure) = ≥100 km/h [19].
1.3. Safe Mobility and Accessibility
1.4. Aims
- To review the human tolerance to crash forces and compile a more precise relationship between delta-v and impact speeds and the level and risk of injury.
- To define the operational boundaries of what could constitute an Ultimate Safe System in 2050 that is both trauma-free and fit for its strategic transport purpose by utilising human tolerance as the key design factor. As many jurisdictions are aiming for zero by 2050 in their planning horizon, this was selected as the example year.
- To define the operational boundaries of what could constitute an Interim Safe System able to reduce the most severe injuries and contribute to trauma reduction by 2030, utilising human tolerance as the key design factor. As the UN has set a target of a 50% reduction in fatalities and injuries by 2030, this was selected as the example year.
2. Methods
2.1. Approach
- Described the road trauma problem by crash types and road users in the different parts of the road network in the M&P framework for Victoria;
- Described the human tolerance per crash type and road user;
- Determined the infrastructure and vehicle countermeasures available to address the road trauma issues/crash types identified;
- Consulted the human tolerance for different crash types and determined the combination of infrastructure and vehicle countermeasures in conjunction with a maximum travel speed which together would be able to prevent all fatalities and serious injuries in an Ultimate Safe System scenario for each of the M&P areas;
- Consulted the human tolerance for different crash types and determined the combination of infrastructure and vehicle countermeasures in conjunction with a maximum travel speed which together would likely be able to significantly reduce fatalities and severe injuries in an Interim Safe System scenario for each of the M&P areas.
2.1.1. Identifying the Road Trauma Problem in M&P Network
2.1.2. Compiling the Human Tolerance to Crash Forces
2.1.3. Identifying Available Countermeasures
- Vehicle Safety Countermeasures
- Road Infrastructure Countermeasures
- Utilise Australian based studies of effectiveness where available;
- Utilise meta-analyses of effectiveness where available;
- Utilise studies with real world data where available.
2.1.4. Determining an Ultimate and Interim Safe System
- The transport function of the area;
- The key trauma issues of the area;
- The human tolerance boundaries.
3. Results
3.1. Road Trauma Problem in M&P Network
- Pedestrian priority areas = civic hubs, city streets and city places;
- Mixed traffic areas = activity streets;
- Vehicle priority areas = connectors and local streets.
3.2. Human Tolerance for Fatalities, Severe and Serious Injuries
3.3. Available Countermeasures
3.4. Designing an Ultimate and Interim Safe System
3.4.1. Pedestrian Priority Areas
3.4.2. Mixed Traffic Areas
- Advisory ISA instead of limiting ISA, although limiting ISA would still be the preference where possible;
- A minimum of 2 m distance from sidewalk to closest road lane to avoid high severity car-to-pedestrian collisions based on a person running into traffic or pedestrian fencing to prevent access;
- 30 km/h for pedestrian crossing instead of 10 km/h;
- Utilising roundabouts to reduce impact angle severity and to slow vehicles down to the tolerance level for severe injuries in side impact crashes;
- Addition of traffic calming measures to encourage higher levels of speed compliance.
3.4.3. Vehicle Priority Areas
3.5. Minimum Vehicle Requirements for the Fleet in 2030 and 2050
- Target 5–By 2030, 100% of new (defined as produced, sold or imported) and used vehicles meet high quality safety standards, such as the recommended priority UN Regulations, Global Technical Regulations, or equivalent recognized national performance requirements [40].
- UN Regulation 94 Frontal Impact
- UN Regulation 95 Side Impact
- UN Regulation 140 (GTR 8) Electronic Stability Control
- UN Regulation 127 (GTR 9) Pedestrian Protection
- UN Regulation 16 Seat Belts
- UN Regulation 14 Seat Belt Anchorages
- UN Regulations 44/129 Child Restraints
- UN Regulation 78 (GTR 3) Motorcycle ABS
4. Discussion
4.1. Implications for Road Safety
4.2. Limitations
4.3. Next Steps
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A. Currently Available Infrastructure and Vehicle Countermeasures
Infrastructure Intervention | Description | Crash Type | Applicable Vehicle Type * | Boundary Conditions | Effectiveness |
Barriers–wire rope/flexible Far and near side | A cable barrier on the edge of a road to prevent lane departure | Lane departure crashes | M1, M2, M3, N1, N2, N3 |
|
|
Barriers–wire rope/flexible Median | A cable barrier on the median of a road to prevent lane departure | Head on crashes Lane departure crashes | M1, M2, M3, N1, N2, N3 |
| |
Bicycle Path/Track–separated or protected | Formally allocated road space for cyclists and provides a physical separation (e.g., by a barrier or median) between cyclists and motor vehicles | Bicycle crashes | M1, M2, M3, N1, N2, N3, L |
|
|
Fencing | Fencing to direct people away from traffic and guide them to designated pedestrian crossings | Pedestrian crashes | M1, M2, M3, N1, N2, N3, L | N/A |
|
Frangible poles (e.g. for street lighting and road signs) | A pole that is designed to break away when struck | Lane departure crashes into fixed objects | M1, M2, M3, N1, N2, N3, L |
|
|
Grade Separation | The alignment of an intersection at different heights to eliminate conflict | Intersection crashes | M1, M2, M3, N1, N2, N3, L | N/A |
|
Left in/left out | A junction that only allows vehicles to enter and exit from the left | Intersection crashes Side impact crashes | M1, M2, M3, N1, N2, N3, L | N/A |
|
Removal of hazardous objects (e.g., trees, poles) | The permanent removal of any objects that pose a danger if impacted with | Lane departure crashes into fixed objects | M1, M2, M3, N1, N2, N3, L |
|
|
Vehicle Intervention | Description | Crash Type | Applicable Vehicle Type * | Boundary Conditions | Effectiveness |
Alcohol interlock | An electronic breath testing device that prevents a vehicle ignition from starting if it detects the presence of alcohol. It will also request intermittent breath tests during the trip | Alcohol impaired related crashes | M1, M2, M3, N1, N2, N3 |
| |
Autonomous emergency braking (AEB) bicyclist | A technology that utilises cameras, radars or optical sensors to detect any impeding cyclists and automatically applies the brakes to avoid/and or mitigate a crash if the driver does not react–designed to specifically detect bicyclists | Cyclist crashes | M1, M2, M3, N1, N2, N3 |
|
|
Autonomous emergency braking (AEB) city | A technology that utilises cameras, radars or optical sensors to detect any imminent crashes with vehicles travelling in the same direction and automatically applies the brakes to avoid/and or mitigate a crash if the driver does not react–operates in low speed environments | Rear end crashes | M1, M2, M3, N1, N2, N3 |
| |
Autonomous emergency braking (AEB) head-on | A technology that utilises cameras, radars or optical sensors to detect any imminent crashes between vehicles travelling in opposite directions and automatically applies the brakes to avoid/and or mitigate a crash if the driver does not react | Head-on crashes | M1, M2, M3, N1, N2, N3 |
|
|
Autonomous emergency braking (AEB) Intersection | A technology that utilises cameras, radars or optical sensors to detect any imminent crashes with vehicles when turning and automatically applies the brakes to avoid/and or mitigate a crash if the driver does not react. | Intersection crashes | M1, M2, M3, N1, N2, N3 |
| |
Autonomous emergency braking (AEB) interurban | A technology that utilises cameras, radars or optical sensors to detect any imminent crashes with vehicles travelling in the same direction and automatically applies the brakes to avoid/and or mitigate a crash if the driver does not react–operates in high speed environments | Rear end crashes | M1, M2, M3, N1, N2, N3 |
|
|
Autonomous emergency braking (AEB) pedestrian | A technology that utilises cameras, radars or optical sensors to detect any impeding pedestrians and automatically applies the brakes to avoid/and or mitigate a crash if the driver does not react–designed to specifically detect pedestrians | Pedestrian crashes | M1, M2, M3, N1, N2, N3 |
| |
Back-over avoidance/Rear automatic braking | A technology that utilises cameras, radars or optical sensors to detect any imminent crashes with obstacles when reversing and automatically applies the brakes to avoid/and or mitigate a crash if the driver does not react. | Reversing crashes, driveway crashes | M1, M2, M3, N1, N2, N3 |
|
|
E-Call | A technology that will automatically notify emergency services after a serious crash and provide the vehicle’s GPS location | Crashes in which those involved would have survived if they received immediate care | M1, M2, M3, N1, N2, N3 |
|
|
Emergency Lane Keeping | A technology that will apply a large steering input to prevent a vehicle from running off the road or into oncoming or overtaking traffic when a collision is imminent | Lane departure crashes without loss of control | M1, M2, M3, N1, N2, N3 |
|
|
Geofencing | A virtual boundary set up for a geographical location | Speed related crashes | M1, M2, M3, N1, N2, N3 |
|
|
Intelligent Speed Assist (ISA) limiting | A speed detection device that utilises cameras and/or an in built GPS map to determine the speed limit of the road to limit the speed of the car to the detected speed limit. | Speed related crashes | M1, M2, M3, N1, N2, N3 |
| |
Lane Keep Assist | A technology that prevents a vehicle from unintentionally departing from its lane when the turn signal is not engaged | Lane departure crashes without loss of control | M1, M2, M3, N1, N2, N3 |
| |
Seatbelt interlock | A technology that prevents a car ignition from starting if the sensors in the seats detects an occupant and the seatbelt is not engaged. | Unbelted occupant crashes Crashes involving vehicle occupants that were not wearing a seatbelt but would have otherwise survived if they were wearing a seatbelt | M1, M2, M3, N1, N2, N3 |
|
|
Truck underrun–front | A technology that can prevent smaller vehicles from being lodged underneath the front of a truck in a truck to car rear end collision | Crashes involving a truck rear ending a passenger vehicle, cyclist or motorcyclist | N2, N3 |
|
|
Truck underrun-rear | A technology that can prevent smaller vehicles from being lodged underneath the back of a truck in a car to truck rear end collision | Crashes involving other vehicle rear ending the truck | N2, N3 |
|
|
Truck underrun-side | A technology that can prevent smaller vehicles from being lodged underneath the side of a truck in a side impact collision | Crashes involving cyclists, pedestrians or motorcyclists where they get thrown under the truck from the side Vehicle side impact crashes into truck | N2, N3 |
| |
Vehicle Crashworthiness | The ability of a vehicle to protect its occupants in a crash | Crashes involving car occupants that would have survived in a newer car (e.g., 7 years, 10 years) due to better crashworthiness | M1, N1 |
|
|
Infrastructure Intervention | Description | Crash Type | Applicable Vehicle Type * | Boundary Conditions | Effectiveness |
Bicycle lanes-dedicated | Formally allocated road space for cyclists and provides a spatial separation between cyclists and motor vehicles | Bicyclist crashes | M1, M2, M3, N1, N2, N3, L |
|
|
Cameras-Speed or red light | Traffic cameras to detect vehicles travelling above the posted speed limit or disobeying a red stop light signal | Multiple | M1, M2, M3, N1, N2, N3, L |
| |
Raised Platforms/Pavements (raised intersections) | Speed management treatment to reduce the maximum operating speed of a vehicle–includes platforms on the approach to an intersection or midblock and raising the entire intersection | Urban Intersection crashes in ≤60 km/h zones | M1, N1, L |
| |
Reduced speed limit with police enforcement | A reduction in the posted speed limit in combination with enforced compliance via road policing | Multiple | M1, M2, M3, N1, N2, N3, L |
| |
Roundabouts | An intersection treatment designed so that vehicles deviate from a straight travel path to navigate a circular island in order to control the speed of vehicles through an intersection | Intersection crashes | M1, M2, M3, N1, N2, N3, L |
|
|
Rumble Strips–Transverse | Raised pavement markings that extend across traffic lanes to alert drivers they are approaching a dangerous intersection | Speed crashes at intersections in ≥70 km/h zones | M1, M2, M3, N1, N2, N3 |
|
|
Signalised intersection | An intersection with traffic signals to control the flow of traffic | Urban intersection crashes | M1, M2, M3, N1, N2, N3, L |
| |
Speed humps/road cushions/flat top road humps | Raised vertical deflection treatments to reduce vehicle travel speed | Pedestrian and cyclist to vehicle crashes in ≤60 km/h zines | M1, N1, L |
|
|
Tactile lane markings with road widening-middle | Raised profile lines on the centre of an undivided road that provides tactile and auditory warnings to alert drivers of lane departure combined with wide centre lines that create a greater separation between opposing lanes of traffic | Unintentional lane departure crashes | M1, M2, M3, N1, N2, N3, |
|
|
Tactile lane markings-side | Raised profile lines on the edge of a road that provides tactile and auditory warnings to alert drivers of lane departure | Unintentional lane departure crashes | M1, M2, M3, N1, N2, N3, |
|
|
Traffic calming E.g., chicanes/Lane Narrowing/Kerb Extensions/slow points [85] | Road treatments used to reduce vehicle speeds, especially in permanent lower speed urban environments | Speed related crashes in ≤50 km/h zones | M1, M2, M3, N1, N2, N3, L |
|
|
Wombat Crossing | A raised flat top pavement marked for pedestrian crossing and are commonly used at school crossings | Pedestrian crashes on crossings in ≤50 km/h zones | M1, N1, L |
| |
Vehicle Intervention | Description | Crash Type | Applicable Vehicle Type * | Boundary Conditions | Effectiveness |
Blind Spot Monitoring | A vehicle technology that alerts the driver to objects in the driver’s near and far side blind spots | Lane change crashes into other vehicles and VRUs in blind spot | M1, M2, M3, N1, N2, N3 |
|
|
Electronic Stability Control | An anti-skid technology that can help prevent loss of control crashes by reducing engine torque and braking individual wheels to bring the vehicle back on course | Loss of control crashes | M1, M2, M3, N1, N2, N3 |
| |
Fatigue monitoring/Driver Monitoring–audio and haptic warning | A technology that can detect a change in the driver’s attention such as from fatigue or distraction and provides a warning | Lane departure due to fatigue/distraction | M1, M2, M2, N1, N2, N3 |
| |
Intelligent Speed Assist (ISA)–Advisory | A speed detection device that utilises cameras and/or an in built GPS map to determine the speed limit of the road to provide warnings to the driver if the detected speed limit has been exceeded | Speed related crashes | M1, M2, M2, N1, N2, N3 |
| |
Lane departure Warning | A technology that provides warnings when a vehicle starts to unintentionally depart from its lane when the turn signal is not engaged | Lane departure crashes | M1, M2, M3, N1, N2, N3 |
| |
Motorcycle ABS | A motorcycle technology that can prevent wheel lockup, increase motorcycle stability and decrease stopping distance | Motorcycle loss of control during braking crashes | L |
| |
Motorcycle Daytime Running Lights | Dedicated low beam headlights for the daytime to increase visibility of the motorcycle to other road users | Motorcycle to vehicle crashes | L |
| |
Reversing Cameras | A camera mounted on the rear of the vehicle and shows the view behind the vehicle, including at ground level | Back over crashes | M1, M2, M3, N1, N2, N3 |
|
|
Seat belt reminder system | A technology that provides a warning when the seatbelt in an occupied seat is not worn | Crashes where car occupants would have survived if they were wearing a seatbelt | M1, M2, M2, N1, N2, N3 |
|
|
References
- United Nations General Assembly. In Proceedings of the Improving Global Road Safety Resolution A/RES/74/299 74th Session, New York, NY, USA, 31 August 2020.
- Victorian Government. Towards Zero 2016–2020 Strategy and Action Plan; Victorian Government: Melbourne, VIC, Australia, 2016.
- Job, R.F.S.; Truong, J.; Sakashita, C. The Ultimate Safe System: Redefining the Safe System Approach for Road Safety. Sustainability 2022, 14, 2978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salmon, P.M.; Read, J.M. Many model thinking in systems ergonomics: A case study in road safety. Ergonomics 2019, 62, 612–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kechagias, E.P.; Miloulis, D.M.; Chjatzistelios, G.; Gayialis, S.P.; Papadopoulos, G.A. Applying a system dynamics approach for the pharmaceutical industry: Simulation and optimization of the quality control process. WSEAS Trans. Environ. Dev. 2021, 17, 983–996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- World Health Organization; United Nations Regional Commissions. Global Plan Decade of Action for Road Safety 2021–2030; WHO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Cameron, I.; Ward, D.; Hakkert, A.S.; Weijermars, W.; Larsson, P.; Brodie, C.; Kloth, M. Zero Road Deaths and Serious Injuries: Leading a Paradigm Shift to a Safe System; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Lie, A.; Tingvall, C.; Krafft, M.; Kullgren, A. The effectiveness of electronic stability control (ESC) in reducing real life crashes and injuries. Traffic Inj. Prev. 2006, 7, 38–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Erke, A. Effects of electronic stability control (ESC) on accidents: A review of empirical evidence. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2008, 40, 167–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ohlin, M.; Strandroth, J.; Tingvall, C. The combined effect of vehicle frontal design, speed reduction, autonomous emergency braking and helmet use in reducing real life bicycle injuries. Saf. Sci. 2017, 92, 338–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sternlund, S.; Strandroth, J.; Rizzi, M.; Lie, A.; Tingvall, C. The effectiveness of lane departure warning systems-A reduction in real-world passenger car injury crashes. Traffic Inj. Prev. 2017, 18, 225–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gayialis, S.P.; Kechagias, E.; Papadopoulos, G.A.; Konstantakopoulos, G.D. Design of a Blockchain-Driven System for Product Counterfeiting Restraint in the Supply Chain. In Proceedings of the IFIP International Conference on Advances in Production Management Systems (APMS), Austin, TX, USA, 1–5 September 2019; pp. 474–481. [Google Scholar]
- Kechagias, E.; Gayialis, S.; Konstantakopoulos, G.D.; Papadopoulos, G. An Advanced Routing and Scheduling System for Dangerous Goods Transportation. In Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium and 30th National Conference on Operational Research, Patras, Greece, 16–18 May 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Strandroth, J.; Moon, W.; Corben, B. Zero 2050 in Victoria—A Planning Framework to Achieve Zero with a Date. In Proceedings of the World Engineering Convention Australia, Melbourne, Australia, 20–22 November 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Robinson, J.B. Unlearning and Backcasting: Rethinking some of the questions we aks about the future. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Changes 1988, 33, 325–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Geurs, K.; van Wee, B. Backcasting as a tool for sustainable transport policy making: The environmentatlly sustainable transport study in the Netherlands. Eur. J. Transp. Infrastruct. Res. 2004, 4, 47–69. [Google Scholar]
- Vägverket. Nollvisionen—En Idé Om Ett Vägtransportsystem Utan Hälsoförluster; Vägverket: Borlänge, Sweden, 1996.
- Anderson, R.W.G.; Mclean, A.J.; Farmer, M.J.B.; Lee, B.H.; Brooks, C.G. Vehicle travel speeds and the incidence of fatal pedestrian crashes. Accid. Anal. Prev. 1997, 29, 667–674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tingvall, C.; Haworth, N. Vision Zero—An ethical approach to safety and mobility. In Proceedings of the 6th ITE International Conferene Road Safety & Traffic Enforcement: Beyond 2000, Melbourne, Australia, 6–7 September 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Welle, B.; Sharpin, A.B.; Adriazola-Steil, C.; Job, S.; Shotten, M.; Bose, D.; Bhatt, A.; Alveano, S.; Obelheiro, M.; Imamoglu, T. Safe and Sustainable: A Vision and Guidance for Zero Road Deaths; World Resources Institute & Global Road Safety Facility: Washington, DC, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Rosen, E.; Sander, U. Pedestrian fatality risk as a function of car impact speed. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2009, 41, 536–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jurewicz, C.; Sobhani, A.; Woolley, J.; Dutschke, J.; Corben, B. Exploration of vehicle impact speed—Injury severity relationships for application in safer road design. Transp. Res. Procedia 2016, 14, 424–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Doecke, S.; Dutschke, J.; Baldock, M.; Kloeden, C. Travel speed and the risk of serious injury in vehicle crashes. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2021, 161, 106359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- State Government of Victoria. Movement and Place in Victoria; Department of Transport: Melbourne, VIC, Australia, 2019.
- European Commission. Road Traffic Accident Statistics; 2015; Available online: https://unece.org/DAM/trans/doc/2015/wp6/_Maria_Teresa_Sanz_Villegas__UNECE_17_June_2015.pdf (accessed on 23 December 2021).
- Tingvall, C.; Ifver, J.; Krafft, M.; Kullgren, A.; Lie, A.; Rizzi, M.; Sternlund, S.; Stigson, H.; Strandroth, J. The Consequences of Adopting a MAIS 3 Injury Target for Road Safety in the EU, a Comparison with Targets Based on Fatalities and Long-term Consequences. In Proceedings of the International Research Council on the Biomechanics of Injury, Gothenburg, Sweden, 11–13 September 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Malm, S.; Krafft, M.; Kullgren, A.; Ydenius, A.; Tingvall, C. Risk of permanent medical impairment (RPMI) in road traffic accidents. Annu. Proc. Assoc. Adv. Automot. Med. 2008, 52, 93–100. [Google Scholar]
- European Commission; Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship; SMEs; McCarthy, M.; Seidl, M.; Hunt, R.; Mohan, S.; Hynd, D.; O’Connell, S.; Martin, P.; et al. In Depth Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of the Identified Measures and Features regarding the Way forward for EU Vehicle Safety: Final Report; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2017.
- Eugensson, A.; Ivarsson, J.; Lie, A.; Tingvall, C. Cars are driven on roads, joint visions and modern technologies stress the need for cooperation. In Proceedings of the 22nd Enhanced Safety of Vehicles Conference, Washington, DC, USA, 13–16 June 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Rosen, E. Pedestrian Risk for MAIS3+F Injury—A Work Description; Autoliv: Vårgårda, Sweden, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Ding, C.; Rizzi, M.; Strandroth, J.; Sander, U.; Lubbe, N. Motorcyclist injury risk as a function of real-life crash speed and other contributing factors. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2019, 123, 374–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, A.; Jeppsson, H.; Lubbe, N. Development of Injury Risk Curves as the Basis for Safe System Speed Limit; Autoliv: Vårgårda, Sweden, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Kullgren, A. Dose-response models and edr data for assessment of injury risk and effectiveness of safety systems. In Proceedings of the IRCOBI, Bern, Switzerland, 17–19 September 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Gabauer, D.J.; Gabler, H.C. Comparison of delta-v and occupant impact velocity crash severity metrics using event data recorders. Annu. Proc. Assoc. Adv. Automot. Med. 2006, 50, 57–71. [Google Scholar]
- Krafft, M.; Kullgren, A.; Malm, S.; Ydenius, A. Influence of Crash Severity on Various Whiplash Injury Symptoms: A Study Based on Real-Life Rear-End Crashes with Recorded Crash Pulses. In Proceedings of the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, Washington, DC, USA, 6–9 June 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Australasian New Car Assessment Program. ANCAP Test Protoco. Oblique Pole Side Impact v7.0.2; 2018; Available online: https://s3.amazonaws.com/cdn.ancap.com.au/app/public/assets/bb1f6cd32724457956604d3e102cf7ad2913116f/original.pdf?1501468828 (accessed on 23 December 2021).
- European New Car Assessment Program. Euro NCAP Assessment Protocol—Vulnerable Road User Protection. Version 10.0.3; 2019; Available online: https://cdn.euroncap.com/media/58230/euro-ncap-assessment-protocol-vru-v1003.pdf (accessed on 23 December 2021).
- Global Designing Cities Initiative. Global Street Design Guide; Global Designing Cities Initiative: New York, NY, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Strandroth, J. Identifying the Potential of Combined Road Safety Interventions—A Method to Evaluate Future Effects of Integrated Road and Vehicle Safety Technologies; Chalmers University of Technology: Gothenburg, Sweden, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- World Health Organisation. Voluntary Global Performance Targets for Road Safety Risk Factors; WHO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- World Health Organisation. Global Status Report on Road Safety 2016; WHO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Highway Loss Data Institute. Predicted Availability of Safety Features on Registered Vehicles—An Update; Highway Loss Data Institute: Arlington, TX, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Candappa, N.; D’Elia, A.; Corben, B.; Newstead, S. Wire rope barrier effectiveness on Victorian roads. In Proceedings of the Australasian Road Safety Research, Policing and Education Conference, Perth, Western, Australia, 6–9 November 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Alluri, P.; Haleem, K.; Gan, A.; Mauthner, J. Safety performance evaluation of cable median barriers on freeways in Florida. Traffic Inj. Prev. 2016, 17, 544–551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thomas, B.; DeRobertis, M. The safety of urban cycle tracks: A review of the literature. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2013, 52, 219–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Silla, A.; Luoma, J. Effect of three countermeasures against the illegal crossing of railway tracks. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2010, 43, 1089–1094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gan, A.; Shen, J.; Rodriguez, A. Update of Florida Crash Reduction Factors and Countermeasures to Improve the Development of District Safety Improvement Projects: Final Report; Lehman Center for Transportation Research Florida International University: Miami, FL, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- He, Q.; Kamineni, R.; Zhang, Z. Traffic signal control with partial grade separation for oversaturated conditions. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 2016, 71, 267–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Turner, B.; Imberger, K.; Roper, P.; Pyta, V.; McLean, J. Road Safety Engineering Risk Assessement Part 6: Crash Reduction Factors; AP-T151/10; Austroads: Sydney, NSW, Australia, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Ward, J.; Hall, C.; Robertson, J.; Durdin, P.; Smith, D. Guide to Traffic Management Part 6: Intersections, Interchanges and Crossings; AGTM06-19; Austroads: Sydney, NSW, Australia, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Zegeer, C.; Hummer, J.; Reinfurt, D.; Herf, L.; Hunter, W. Safety Effects of Cross-Section Design for Two Lane Roads, Volume 1, Final Report; Federal Highway Adminstration: Washington, DC, USA, 1987.
- Martino, A.; Sitran, A.; Rosa, C. Technical Development and Deployment of Alcohol Interlocks in Road Safety Policy; European Union: Brussels, Belgium, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Ward, G.M.; Vanlaar, W.G.; Mainegra Hing, M.; Robertson, R.D. An evaluation of Nova Scotia’s alcohol ignition interlock program. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2017, 100, 44–52. [Google Scholar]
- Chajmowicz, H.; Saade, J.; Cuny, S. Prospective assessment of the effectiveness of autonomous emergency braking in car-to-cyclist accidents in France. Traffic Inj. Prev. 2019, 20, S20–S25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fildes, B.; Keall, M.; Bos, N.; Lie, A.; Page, Y.; Pastor, C.; Pennisi, L.; Rizzi, M.; Thomas, P.; Tingvall, C. Effectiveness of low speed autonomous emergency braking in real-world rear-end crashes. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2015, 81, 24–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Cicchino, J.B. Effectiveness of forward Collision Warning Systems with and without Autonomous Emergency Braking in Reducing Police-Reported Crash Rates; Insurance Institute for Highway Safety: Arlington, TX, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Seidl, M.; Hynd, D.; McCarthy, M.; Martin, P.; Hunt, R.; Mohan, S.; Krishnamurthy, V.; O’Connell, S. In Depth Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of the Identified Measures and Features regarding the Way forward for EU Vehicle Safety; Transport Research Laboratory: Berkshire, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Strandroth, J.; Rizzi, M.; Kullgren, A.; Tingvall, C. Head-on collisions between passenger cars and heavy goods vehicles: Injury risk functions and benefits of autonomous emergency braking. In Proceedings of the International Research Council on the Biomechanics of Injury, Dublin, Ireland, 12–14 September 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Sander, U. Opportunities and limitations for intersection collision intervention—A study of real world ‘left turn across path’ accidents. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2017, 99, 342–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Isaksson-Hellman, I.; Lindman, M. Evaluation of rear-end collision avoidance technologies based on real world crash data. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium o Future Active Safety Technology Towards Zero Traffic Accidents, Gothenburg, Sweden, 9–11 September 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Rosen, E.; Kallhammer, J.E.; Eriksson, D.; Nentwich, M.; Fredriksson, R.; Smith, K. Pedestrian injury mitigation by autonomous braking. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2010, 42, 1949–1957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fredriksson, R.; Rosen, E. Head injury reduction potential of integrated pedestrian protection systems based on accident and experimental data—Benefit of combining passive and active systems. In Proceedings of the IRCOBI Conference, Berlin, Germany, 10–12 September 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Cicchino, J.B. Real-World Effects of General Motors Rear Automatic Braking, Rear Vision Camera, and Rear Parking Assist Systems; Insurance Institute for Highway Safety: Arlington, TX, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Ponte, G.; Ryan, G.A.; Anderson, R.W. An estimate of the effectiveness of an in-vehicle automatic collision notification system in reducing road crash fatalities in South Australia. Traffic Inj. Prev. 2016, 17, 258–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carsten, O.; Lai, F.; Chorlton, K.; Goodmam, P.; Carslaw, D.; Hess, S. Speed Limit Adherence and Its Effect on Road Safety and Climate Change—Final Report; University of Leeds: Leeds, UK, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Lai, F.; Carsten, O.; Tate, F. How much benefit does Intelligent Speed Adaptation deliver: An analysis of its potential contribution to safety and environment. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2012, 48, 63–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kidd, D.G.; Singer, J.; Huey, R.; Kerfoot, L. The effect of a gearshift interlock on seat belt use by drivers who do not always use a belt and its acceptance among those who do. J. Saf. Res. 2018, 65, 39–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rechnitzer, G. Truck Involved Crash Study: Fatal and Injury Crashes of Cars and Other Road Users with the Front and Sides of Heavy Vehicles; 35; Monash University Accident Research Centre: Clayton, Australia, 1993. [Google Scholar]
- Smith, T.L.; Grover, C.; Gibson, T.; Donaldson, W.; Knight, I. Development of Test Procedures, Limit Values, Costs and Benefits for Proposals to Improve the Performance of Rear Underrun Protection for Trucks; TRL Limited: Berkshire, UK, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Robinson, T.; Cuerden, R. Safer Lorries in London: Identifying the Casualties Associated with Side Guard Rails and Mirror Exemptions; Transport Research Laboratory: Berkshire, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Newstead, S.; Delaney, A.; Watson, L.; Cameron, M. A Model for Considering the ‘Total Safety’ of the Light Paseenger Vehicle Fleet; Monash University Accident Research Centre: Clayton, Australia, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Paine, M.; Paine, D.; Case, M.; Haley, J.; Newland, C.; Worden, S. Trends with ANCAP safety ratings and real-world crash performnce for vehicle models in Australia. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, Seoul, Korea, 27–20 May 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Kullgren, A.; Lie, A.; Tingvall, C. Comparison between Euro NCAP test results and real-world crash data. Traffic Inj. Prev. 2010, 11, 587–593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Commission. Vehicle Categories. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/automotive-industry/vehicle-categories_en (accessed on 23 December 2021).
- Pulugurtha, S.S.; Thakur, V. Evaluating the effectiveness of on-street bicycle lane and assessing risk to bicyclists in Charlotte, North Carolina. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2015, 76, 34–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vaa, T.; Penttinen, M.; Spyropoulou, I. Intelligent transport systems and effects on road traffic accidents: State of the art. IET Intell. Transp. Syst. 2007, 1, 81–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Makwasha, T.; Turner, B. Safety of raised platforms on urban roads. J. Aust. Coll. Road Saf. 2017, 28, 20–27. [Google Scholar]
- VicRoads. VicRoads Supplement to the Austroads Guide to Road Design Part 4A—Signalised and Unsignalised Intersections; VicRoads: Melbourne, VIC, Australia, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Jurewicz, C. Impact of LATM Treatments on Speed and Safety; Austroads: Sydney, NSW, Australia, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- VicRoads. Supplement to Austroads Guide to Traffic Management Part 8: Local Area Traffic Management (2008); VicRoads: Melbourne, VIC, Australia, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Daniel, B.D.; Nicholson, A.; Koorey, G. Investigating speed patterns and estimating speed on traffic-calmed streets. In Proceedings of the Institution of Professional Engineers New Zealand (IPENZ) Transportation Conference, Auckland, New Zealand, 27–30 March 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Damen, P.; Brindle, R.; Rueda, M. Guide to Traffic Management Part 8: Local Area Traffic Management; Austroads: Sydney, NSW, Australia, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Arbogast, H.; Patao, M.; Demeter, N.; Bachman, S.; Devietti, E.; Upperman, J.S.; Burke, R.V. The effectiveness of installing a speed hump in reducing motor vehicle accidents involving pedestrians under the age of 21. J. Transp. Health 2018, 8, 30–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rothman, L.; Macpherson, A.; Buliung, R.; Macarthur, C.; To, T.; Larsen, K.; Howard, A. Installation of speed humps and pedestrian-motor vehicle collisions in Toronto, Canada: A quasi-experimental study. BMC Public Health 2015, 15, 774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wheeler, A.H.; Taylor, M.C. Changes in Accident Frequency Following the Introduction of Traffic Calming in Villages; 452; Transport Research Laboratory: Berkshire, UK, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Cicchino, J.B. Effects of blind spot monitoring systems on police-reported lane-change crashes. Traffic Inj. Prev. 2018, 19, 615–622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Volvo. Driver Alert System. Available online: https://www.volvocars.com/en-th/support/manuals/v40/2018/driver-support/driver-alert-system/driver-alert-control-dac (accessed on 24 August 2020).
- Wilmink, I.; Janssen, W.; Jonkers, E.; Malone, K.; van Noort, M.; Klunder, G.; Rämer, P.; Sihvola, N.; Kulmala, R.; Schirokoff, A.; et al. e-IMPACT Deliverable 4—Impact Assessment of Intelligent Vehicle Safety Systems; VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland: Espoo, Finland, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Fitzharris, M.; Liu, S.; Stephens, A.N.; Lenne, M.G. The relative importance of real-time in-cab and external feedback in managing fatigue in real-world commercial transport operations. Traffic Inj. Prev. 2017, 18, S71–S78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Cicchino, J.B. Effects of lane departure warning on police-reported crash rates. J. Saf. Res. 2018, 66, 61–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rizzi, M.; Strandroth, J.; Kullgren, A.; Tingvall, C.; Fildes, B. Effectiveness of motorcycle antilock braking systems (ABS) in reducing crashes, the first cross-national study. Traffic Inj. Prev. 2015, 16, 177–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bijleveld, F.D. Effectiveness of Daytime Motorcycle Headlights in the European Union; SWOV: Den Haag, The Netherlands, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Paine, M.; Paine, D.; Haley, J.; Cockfield, S. Daytime running lights for motorcycles. In Proceedings of the 19th International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, Washington, DC, USA, 6–9 June 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Keall, M.D.; Fildes, B.; Newstead, S. Real-world evaluation of the effectiveness of reversing camera and parking sensor technologies in preventing backover pedestrian injuries. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2017, 99, 39–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Volvo. Seatbelts. Available online: https://www.volvocars.com/uk/support/manuals/v90/2019-late/safety/seatbelts/door-and-seatbelt-reminder (accessed on 24 August 2020).
- Young, K.L.; Regan, M.A.; Triggs, T.J.; Stephan, K.; Mitsopoulos-Rubens, E.; Tomasevic, N. Field operational test of a seatbelt reminder system: Effects on driver behaviour and acceptance. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2008, 11, 434–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Crash Type | 10% Risk for Serious Injury | 10% Risk for Severe Injury | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Delta-v km/h | Impact Speed km/h | Delta-v km/h | Impact Speed km/h | |
Car to Pedestrian crash | No impact allowable | No impact allowable | 20 | 20 |
Car to powered two-wheeler (PTW) | No impact allowable | No impact allowable | 30 | 30 |
PTW to wide object | N/A | 25 | N/A | 50 |
PTW to narrow object | No impact allowable | No impact allowable | No impact allowable | No impact allowable |
PTW to ground | N/A | N/A | N/A | 75 |
Car to bicyclists | No impact allowable | No impact allowable | 20 | 20 |
Side Impact–Car to Car (of equal mass) | 20 | 40 | 30 | 60 |
Side Impact–Heavy Vehicle into Car | 20 | 20 | 30 | 30 |
Head On Impact–Car to Car (of equal mass) | 25 | 25 | 50 | 50 |
Head on Impact–Car to Heavy Vehicle | 25 | 10 | 50 | 25 |
Rear End–car to car | 10 | 20 | 20 | 40 |
Rear End–heavy vehicle into car | 10 | 10 | 20 | 20 |
Infrastructure Safety Countermeasures | |
---|---|
Not Reliant on Human Input/Compliance | Reliant on Human Input/Compliance |
|
|
Vehicle Safety Countermeasures | |
---|---|
Not Reliant on Human Input/Compliance | Reliant on Human Input/Compliance |
|
|
Vehicles Requirements | Infrastructure Requirements | Maximum Travel Speed Requirements | |
---|---|---|---|
Vehicle free zone | N/A | Off road separated lanes not in pedestrian areas for bicycles and micro-mobility devices | N/A |
Vehicles allowed No motorcycles | AEB pedestrian AEB bicyclist ISA limiting or geofencing for speed control Front, side and rear underrun protection for heavy vehicles | Off road separated lanes not in pedestrian areas for bicycles and micro-mobility devices | 10 km/h |
Vehicles Requirements | Infrastructure Requirements | Maximum Travel Speed Requirements | |
---|---|---|---|
Vehicle free zone | N/A | Off road separated lanes not in pedestrian areas for bicycles and micro-mobility devices | N/A |
Vehicles & Motorcycles Allowed | AEB pedestrian AEB bicyclist AEB rear-end (if ISA advisory is in use instead of ISA limiting) ISA limiting/or advisory Alcohol interlocks Driver monitoring Motorcycle ABS Motorcycle Daytime Running Lights | Off road separated lanes not in pedestrian areas for bicycles and micro-mobility devices Traffic calming (if ISA Advisory is in use instead of ISA Limiting) | 30 km/h |
Vehicles Requirements | Infrastructure Requirements | Maximum Travel Speed Requirements | |
---|---|---|---|
Mix of road users No motorcycles or heavy vehicles | AEB bicyclist AEB pedestrian AEB rear-end AEB intersection AEB head-on ISA limiting or geofencing Seatbelt interlock Front, side and rear underrun protection for heavy vehicles | Off road separated lanes not in pedestrian areas for bicycles and micro-mobility devices Pedestrian crossings with 10 km/h speed zone Frangible narrow roadside objects/and or removal of hazardous narrow roadside objects 5 m distance from sidewalk to road lane/or pedestrian fencing | 40 km/h BUT 10 km/h at pedestrian crossings 20 km/h at intersections |
Vehicles Requirements | Infrastructure Requirements | Maximum Travel Speed Requirements | |
---|---|---|---|
Mix of road users Motorcycles and heavy vehicles allowed | AEB bicyclist AEB pedestrian AEB rear-end (if ISA advisory is in use instead of ISA limiting) AEB head-on AEB intersection Seatbelt reminder ISA limiting or advisory Alcohol interlock Driver monitoring Front, side and rear underrun protection for heavy vehicles Motorcycle ABS Motorcycle Daytime Running Lights | Off road separated lanes not in pedestrian areas for bicycles and micro-mobility devices Roundabouts at all intersections Pedestrian crossings with 30 km/h speed zone 2 m distance from sidewalk to road lane/or pedestrian fencing Frangible narrow roadside objects/and or removal of hazardous narrow roadside objects Traffic calming to ensure maximum travel speed of 30 km/h at pedestrian crossings (if ISA Advisory is in use instead of ISA Limiting) | 40 km/h BUT 30 km/h at pedestrian crosings |
Vehicles Requirements | Infrastructure Requirements | Maximum Travel Speed Requirements | |
---|---|---|---|
Urban arterial–high movement link between local streets and freeways | AEB bicyclist AEB pedestrian AEB rear-end AEB intersection AEB head-on ISA limiting Lane Keep Assist Emergency Lane Keeping ESC Seatbelt Interlocks Front, side and rear underrun protection for heavy vehicles | Pedestrian grade separation Off road separated bicycle lanes not in pedestrian areas with soft asphalt Grade separation at all intersections if no speed limit reduction Full continuous flexible side barriers Full continuous flexible mid barriers Barrier/fencing to prevent pedestrian access | 60 km/h BUT 20 km/h at intersections (if no grade separation) |
Unsealed, undivided roads–very low movement, no improvements will be made to road or infrastructure | Close road and reroute to safer route Or One way travel only | 30 km/h | |
Undivided sealed roads–low to high movement | Full continuous flexible side barriers Full continuous flexible mid barriers Pedestrian grade separation Barrier/fencing to prevent pedestrian access near built up areas Grade separation at all intersections if no speed limit reduction Left in Left out with acceleration lanes Off road separated lanes not in pedestrian areas for bicycles and micro-mobility devices | 80 km/h or 100 km/h with good road alignment for good sight lines BUT 80 km/h for heavy vehicles * 20 km/h at intersections (if no grade separation) | |
Divided multi lane roads with a physical median | Full continuous flexible side barriers Full continuous flexible mid barriers Grade separation at all intersections Barrier/fencing to prevent pedestrian access Off road separated lanes for bicycles and micro-mobility devices | 100 km/h BUT 80 km/h for heavy vehicles * |
Vehicles Requirements | Infrastructure Requirements | Maximum Travel Speed Requirements | |
---|---|---|---|
Urban arterial–high movement link between local streets and freeways | AEB bicyclist AEB pedestrian AEB rear-end AEB intersection (for other access points) AEB head-on ISA limiting/advisory Lane Keep Assist/Emergency Lane Keeping ESC Seatbelt Reminder Alcohol Interlocks Front, side and rear underrun protection for heavy vehicles | Off road separated bicycle lanes not in pedestrian areas with soft asphalt Pedestrian grade separation or pedestrian crossing at roundabouts Traffic calming to ensure traffic speed is 30 km/h or less at pedestrian crossing (if not grade separated) Roundabouts at all intersections and/or raised intersection platforms or grade separation Frangible narrow roadside objects/and or removal of hazardous narrow roadside objects Continuous line markings | 60 km/h BUT 30 km/h at pedestrian crossing (if no pedestrian grade separation) |
Unsealed, undivided roads–very low movement | No requirements for road or infrastructure | 60 km/h * | |
Undivided sealed roads–low to mid movement | Targeted flexible side barriers at high risk locations **/or frangible narrow roadside objects/and or removal of hazardous narrow roadside objects Continuous line markings plus sufficient shoulder for recovery Pedestrian grade separation Roundabouts at all intersections or grade separation Left in Left out with acceleration lanes Off road separated lanes not in pedestrian areas for bicycles and micro-mobility devices | 80 km/h | |
Undivided sealed roads–high movement | Full continuous flexible side barriers or Targeted flexible side barriers at high risk locations */Frangible narrow roadside objects/and or removal of hazardous narrow roadside objects Full continuous flexible mid barriers Pedestrian grade separation Roundabouts at all intersections or grade separation Left in Left out with acceleration lanes Off road separated lanes not in pedestrian areas for bicycles and micro-mobility devices | 100 km/h 80 km/h for heavy vehicles *** | |
Divided multi lane roads with a physical median | Full continuous flexible side barriers Full continuous flexible mid barriers Grade separation at all intersections Barrier/fencing to prevent pedestrian access Off road separated lanes for bicycles and micro-mobility devices | 100 km/h 80 km/h for heavy vehicles *** | |
Separated Motorcycle Only Routes **** Motorcycles prohibited from other routes | Motorcycle ABS Motorcycle Daytime running lights | Motorcycle rub rails on identified prioritised motorcycle only routes with a high number of motorcycle riders | 75 km/h |
Technology | Passenger Vehicles | Heavy Vehicles | Powered Two-Wheelers |
---|---|---|---|
AEB Bicyclist | | | N/A |
AEB Head-On | | | N/A |
AEB Intersection | | | N/A |
AEB Pedestrian | | | N/A |
AEB—Rear End | | | N/A |
Alcohol Interlocks | | | N/A |
Electronic Stability Control | | | N/A |
Emergency Lane Keeping | | | N/A |
ISA—Advisory (with a preference for ISA Limiting where possible) | | | N/A |
Lane Keep Assist | | | N/A |
Motorcycle ABS | N/A | N/A | |
Motorcycle Daytime Running Lights | N/A | N/A | |
Seatbelt reminder | | | N/A |
Underrun protection for heavy vehicles—front, side, rear | N/A | | N/A |
Technology | Passenger Vehicles | Heavy Vehicles |
---|---|---|
AEB Bicyclist | | |
AEB Head-On | | |
AEB Intersection | | |
AEB Pedestrian | | |
AEB Rear-End | | |
Electronic Stability Control | | |
Emergency Lane Keeping | | |
Geofencing | | |
ISA—Limiting | | |
Lane Keep Assist | | |
Seatbelt Interlocks | | |
Underrun protection for heavy vehicles—front, side, rear | N/A | |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Truong, J.; Strandroth, J.; Logan, D.B.; Job, R.F.S.; Newstead, S. Utilising Human Crash Tolerance to Design an Interim and Ultimate Safe System for Road Safety. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3491. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14063491
Truong J, Strandroth J, Logan DB, Job RFS, Newstead S. Utilising Human Crash Tolerance to Design an Interim and Ultimate Safe System for Road Safety. Sustainability. 2022; 14(6):3491. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14063491
Chicago/Turabian StyleTruong, Jessica, Johan Strandroth, David B. Logan, R. F. Soames Job, and Stuart Newstead. 2022. "Utilising Human Crash Tolerance to Design an Interim and Ultimate Safe System for Road Safety" Sustainability 14, no. 6: 3491. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14063491