Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Accid Anal Prev. 2018 Jun;115:34-40. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2018.02.026. Epub 2018 Mar 13.

A trial of retrofitted advisory collision avoidance technology in government fleet vehicles.

Author information

1
Centre for Automotive Safety Research, The University of Adelaide, North Terrace, SA 5005, Australia. Electronic address: james@casr.adelaide.edu.au.
2
Centre for Automotive Safety Research, The University of Adelaide, North Terrace, SA 5005, Australia. Electronic address: jamie@casr.adelaide.edu.au.
3
Centre for Automotive Safety Research, The University of Adelaide, North Terrace, SA 5005, Australia. Electronic address: jeff@casr.adelaide.edu.au.
4
Centre for Automotive Safety Research, The University of Adelaide, North Terrace, SA 5005, Australia. Electronic address: matthew@casr.adelaide.edu.au.
5
Centre for Automotive Safety Research, The University of Adelaide, North Terrace, SA 5005, Australia. Electronic address: simon@casr.adelaide.edu.au.
6
Centre for Road Safety, Transport for NSW, Level 3, 84 Crown St, Wollongong, NSW 2500, Australia. Electronic address: john.wall@transport.nsw.gov.au.

Abstract

In-vehicle collision avoidance technology (CAT) has the potential to prevent crash involvement. In 2015, Transport for New South Wales undertook a trial of a Mobileye 560 CAT system that was installed in 34 government fleet vehicles for a period of seven months. The system provided headway monitoring, lane departure, forward collision and pedestrian collision warnings, using audio and visual alerts. The purpose of the trial was to determine whether the technology could change the driving behaviour of fleet vehicle drivers and improve their safety. The evaluation consisted of three components: (1) analysis of objective data to examine effects of the technology on driving behaviour, (2) analysis of video footage taken from a sample of the vehicles to examine driving circumstances that trigger headway monitoring and forward collision warnings, and (3) a survey completed by 122 of the 199 individuals who drove the trial vehicles to examine experiences with, and attitudes to, the technology. Analysis of the objective data found that the system resulted in changes in behaviour with increased headway and improved lane keeping, but that these improvements dissipated once the warning alerts were switched off. Therefore, the system is capable of altering behaviour but only when it is actively providing alerts. In-vehicle video footage revealed that over a quarter of forward collision warnings were false alarms, in which a warning event was triggered despite there being no vehicle travelling ahead. The surveyed drivers recognised that the system could improve safety but most did not wish to use it themselves as they found it to be distracting and felt that it would not prevent them from having a crash. The results demonstrate that collision avoidance technology can improve driving behaviour but drivers may need to be educated about the potential benefits for their driving in order to accept the technology.

KEYWORDS:

Collision avoidance; Driver acceptance; Driver attitudes; Driver behaviour; Evaluation; Vehicle technology

PMID:
29544135
DOI:
10.1016/j.aap.2018.02.026
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center