Advanced driver assistance systems for teen drivers: A national survey of teen and parent perceptions

Abstract

Objective: Recently developed advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) have the potential to compensate for teen driving errors and reduce overall crash risk. To date, very limited research has been conducted on the suitability of ADAS for teen drivers—the population most likely to benefit from such systems. The opportunity for ADAS to reduce the frequency and severity of crashes involving teen drivers is hindered when there is a lack of trust, acceptance, and use of those technologies. Therefore, there is a need to study teen and parent perceptions of ADAS to help identify and overcome any potential barriers to ADAS use.

Methods: A U.S. national survey was developed based on themes from previously conducted teen and parent ADAS focus groups. Survey topics included trust in ADAS, effect of ADAS on teen driver safety and driving behavior, effect of ADAS on skill development, data privacy, and cybersecurity. Responses included 5-point Likert scales and open-ended questions. The survey was managed through an online respondent panel by ResearchNow. Eligibility criteria included licensed teens (16–19 years) and parents of licensed teens. Teen and parent responses were compared using chi-square statistics in SAS 9.4.

Results: Two thousand and three (teens?=?1,000; parents?=?1,003) respondents qualified for and completed the survey between September 1 and September 20, 2017. Overall, teens (72%) and parents (61%) felt that ADAS would have a positive impact on transportation. However, teens were more likely to exhibit a positive outlook on ADAS, whereas parents were more likely to have a negative outlook (P?<?.01). Teens felt that ADAS would be useful during bad weather or drowsy driving but were less concerned than parents about ADAS intervention during their own risky driving (P?<?.01). The majority of teens (65%) and parents (71%) agreed that teens should learn to drive on vehicles without ADAS, with parents being more likely to agree than teens (P?<?.01). Parents (55%) were more likely than teens (47%) to be concerned about insurance companies keeping track of teen driving data (P?<?.01). Most respondents exhibited some concern of ADAS being susceptible to hacking (57%).

Conclusions: This study represents the first effort to quantify ADAS perceptions among teen drivers and their parents at the U.S. national level. These data highlight potential barriers to ADAS use among teen drivers, including a relative disinterest among teens for ADAS intervention during risky driving as well as concerns among both teens and parents that ADAS will inhibit skill development. These survey findings will help inform educational programs to accelerate fleet turnover and provide the foundation for ADAS optimization and evaluation studies among sociodemographic groups.     

Estimated benefit of automated emergency braking systems for vehicle–pedestrian crashes in the United States

Abstract

Objective: The objective of this research study is to estimate the benefit to pedestrians if all U.S. cars, light trucks, and vans were equipped with an automated braking system that had pedestrian detection capabilities.

Methods: A theoretical automatic emergency braking (AEB) model was applied to real-world vehicle–pedestrian collisions from the Pedestrian Crash Data Study (PCDS). A series of potential AEB systems were modeled across the spectrum of expected system designs. Both road surface conditions and pedestrian visibility were accounted for in the model. The impact speeds of a vehicle without AEB were compared to the estimated impact speeds of vehicles with a modeled pedestrian detecting AEB system. These impacts speeds were used in conjunction with an injury and fatality model to determine risk of Maximum Abbreviated Injury Scale of 3 or higher (MAIS 3+) injury and fatality.

Results: AEB systems with pedestrian detection capability, across the spectrum of expected design parameters, reduced fatality risk when compared to human drivers. The most beneficial system (time-to-collision [TTC]?=?1.5?s, latency = 0?s) decreased fatality risk in the target population between 84 and 87% and injury risk (MAIS score 3+) between 83 and 87%.

Conclusions: Though not all crashes could be avoided, AEB significantly mitigated risk to pedestrians. The longer the TTC of braking and the shorter the latency value, the higher benefits showed by the AEB system. All AEB models used in this study were estimated to reduce fatalities and injuries and were more effective when combined with driver braking.     

The post-Bhopal and post-9/11 transformations in chemical emergency prevention and response policy in the United States

The United States' approach to incident prevention and response to hazardous chemical facilities has undergone two major transformations in the last 20 years. The first was triggered by the Bhopal tragedy in 1984, which led to major changes within the US chemical industry and a series of Federal laws and regulations intended to prevent major chemical accidents. A more recent transformation is currently underway in the wake of the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington. It involves the advent of various security-related requirements affecting many of the same facilities covered under the existing accident prevention rules. This paper provides an overview of these transformations and their impacts.     

Use of child safety seats and booster seats in the United States: A comparison of parent/caregiver-reported and observed use estimates

Background: Motor-vehicles crashes are a leading cause of death among children. Age- and size-appropriate restraint use can prevent crash injuries and deaths among children. Strategies to increase child restraint use should be informed by reliable estimates of restraint use practices. Objective: Compare parent/caregiver-reported and observed child restraint use estimates from the FallStyles and Estilos surveys with the National Survey of the Use of Booster Seats (NSUBS). Methods: Estimates of child restraint use from two online, cross-sectional surveys—FallStyles, a survey of U.S. adults, and Estilos, a survey of U.S. Hispanic adults—were compared with observed data collected in NSUBS. Parents/caregivers of children aged ≤ 12 years were asked about the child’s restraint use behaviors in FallStyles and Estilos, while restraint use was observed in NSUBS. Age-appropriate restraint use was defined as rear-facing child safety seat (CSS) use for children aged 0–4 years, forward-facing CSS use for children aged 2–7 years, booster seat use for children aged 5–12 years, and seat belt use for children aged 9–12 years. Age-appropriate restraint users are described by demographic characteristics and seat row, with weighted prevalence and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) calculated. Results: Overall, child restraint use as reported by parents/caregivers was 90.8% (CI: 87.5–94.1) (FallStyles) and 89.4% (CI: 85.5–93.4) for observed use (NSUBS). Among Hispanic children, reported restraint use was 82.6% (CI: 73.9–91.3) (Estilos) and 84.4% (CI: 79.0–88.6) for observed use (NSUBS, Hispanic children only). For age-appropriate restraint use, estimates ranged from 74.3% (CI: 69.7–79.0) (FallStyles) to 59.7% (CI: 55.0–64.4) (NSUBS), and for Hispanic children, from 71.5% (CI: 62.1–81.0) (Estilos) to 57.2% (CI: 51.2–63.2) (NSUBS, Hispanic children only). Conclusion and Practical Application: Overall estimates of parent/caregiver-reported and observed child restraint use were similar. However, for age-appropriate restraint use, reported use was higher than observed use for most age groups.