The Future of Vehicle Safety - UMN CTS presentation slides_1.pdfSenior Associate Administrator,...
Transcript of The Future of Vehicle Safety - UMN CTS presentation slides_1.pdfSenior Associate Administrator,...
1
Ron MedfordSenior Associate Administrator, Vehicle Safety
The Future of Vehicle Safety
Presented at theUniversity of Minnesota CTS Winter Luncheon 2008
2
Top 10 Leading Causes of Death in U.S.2002 data, by Age GroupTop 10 Leading Causes of Death in U.S.2002 data, by Age Group
3
Motor Vehicle Traffic Crashes 2006
42,642 fatalities1.42 fatalities per 100million VMT2,575,000 injures
4
Economic Cost of Crashes
$230 billion total• $32 billion medical cost• $51 billion for impaired
driving• $17.5 billion for failure to use
belts ('03)
Source: The Economic Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes, 2000
5
Vehicle Miles Traveled1966 – 2006 (in Billions)
Source: FHWA
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02 04 06
6
Persons Killed and Rate
Source: FARS and FHWA
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005
Per
son
s K
illed
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
Fata
litie
s /
100M
VM
T
Persons Killed Fatalities / 100M VMT
7
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006
Crash Year
Cra
shes
/Inju
ries/
100M
VM
TMotor Vehicle Crash & Injury RatesPolice Reported
Source: 2004 Annual Assessment
Crashes / 100M VMT
Injuries / 100M VMT
8
Crashes of all Severities2005 GES
Opposite Direction
2%
Animal4%
Backing2%
Lane Change9%
Rear-End28%
Pedalcyclist1%
Pedestrian1%
Off-Roadway23%
Crossing Paths25%
Other4%
9
Passenger Car / Light Truck Fatalities2006 FARS
Impact with Fixed Object
Other/Unknown Impact with Another
MV
Rear Impact with Another MV
Side Impact with Another MV
Frontal Impact with Another MV
Impact with Non-fixed Object
Noncollision 32%13%
13%
1%
18%
18%
5%
Impact with Fixed Object
Rear Impact with Another MV
Side Impact with Another MV
Frontal Impact with Another MV
37%
5%
Impact with Non-fixed Objec
Noncollision
1%Other/Unknown
Impact with Another MV
23%
13%
12%9%
Passenger Car Light Truck
10
Haddon Matrix
Human EnvironmentVehicle
Pre
Pre --
Eve n
tEv
e nt
Pos t
Pos t
-- Ev e
ntEv
e nt E
v ent
Eve n
t
11
INJURY MITIGATION MEDICAL ATTENTION
HUMAN / PRE - EVENT
SEVERITY REDUCTIONPREVENTION
Volvo forward collision warning
The Crash Timeline - Prevention
12
The Crash Timeline – Severity Reduction
PREVENTION INJURY MITIGATION
VEHICLE / EVENT
SEVERITY REDUCTION MEDICAL ATTENTION
-500-1000
13
The Crash Timeline – Injury Mitigation
PREVENTION INJURY MITIGATIONSEVERITY REDUCTION MEDICAL ATTENTION
VEHICLE / EVENT200msec.0
14
The Crash Timeline – Medical Attention
PREVENTION INJURY MITIGATIONSEVERITY REDUCTION MEDICAL ATTENTION
ENVIROMENT / POST EVENT
15
Lives Savedby Belts and Combined Safety Technologies - 1960-2002
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
60 64 68 72 76 80 84 88 92 96 00
Live
s Sa
ved
Year Source: NHTSA
Lives SavedBy All Other Safety Features
Lives Saved By Safety Belts Alone
Total Lives Saved328,551
16
14 14
21
3742
45 4649
5962
66 67 68 68 69 69 6771 73 75
79 80 82 81
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
9019
83
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
Year
Perc
enta
ge U
seSafety Belt Use Rates in US
1% Increase in Belt Use Saves 268 Lives in US
Click It Or
Ticket
17
Effectiveness of Safety Belts
Source: “Fatality Reduction by Safety Belts For Front-Seat Occupants of Cars And Light Trucks,” Charles J. Kahane, Ph.D, December 2000, DOT HS 809 199
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
Car 3 Pt. Belts
Light Trucks 3 Pt. Belts
Frontal Impact Near Side Far SideRollover (Primary) Rear Impacts & Others
18
NCAP Revisions
Improved crashworthiness ratingsIntroduction of crash avoidance and advanced technologies
19
Side Impact
Updated FMVSS No. 214• Provide greater head and chest protection• We estimate that this final rule will prevent at least
266 fatalities and 352 serious injuries a year when fully implemented throughout the light vehicle fleet
Pole testNew dummies
20
Crash Types2005 GES and FARS
These 4 crash types = 85% of all crashes
• Run-Off-Road (23%)• Rear-End (28%)• Lane Change (9%)• Crossing Path (25%)
And ~75% of all fatalities
• Run-Off-Road (41%)• Rear-End (5%)• Lane Change (4%)• Crossing Path (14%)
21
Crash Causal Factors
Driver Related Driver Related FactorsFactors90%90%
Vehicle Related 2%
Vehicle Related Vehicle Related 2%2%
RoadSurface8%
RoadRoadSurfaceSurface8%8%
Source: Syntheses Report: Examination of Target Vehicular Crashes and Potential ITS Countermeasures, Wassim Najm, et al, DOT HS 808 263, 1995, Section 3
22
Evolution of Vehicle Electronics
Crash Avoidance and Injury Mitigation
Information
The Future
23
Crash PreventionWhat can Advanced Technologies do to Help Prevent Crashes?
Augment driver performance• Adaptive cruise control • Brake assist• Drowsy-driver monitoring• Night Vision• Warnings of specific types of impending crash; such as rear-end,
lane/road departure, intersection, etc.
Take control of the vehicle• Intervene when driver action would be insufficient to prevent a
crash (ESC and Rollover prevention)• Alcohol detection
Augment other vehicle systems• DSRP - vehicle to vehicle communications
24
Rollover 2006 Data
R/Os account for (pass vehicles): • ~3% of the crashes• ~35% of occupant fatalities
10,698 killed• 8,826 in single vehicle crashes
Percent occupant fatalities result from R/O crashes
• 59% SUV occupants deaths from R/O• 47% pickup occupant deaths from R/O
25
Rollover Activities
Ejection Mitigation
Safety Belts Electronic Stability Control
Roof Strength
NCAP Rollover Prevention
26
Our Preliminary Analysis on ESC Benefits
Effectiveness of ESCEffectiveness of ESCState Data (5 states) Percent Reduction for Single
Vehicle Crashes
Vehicle Type1997 1997 –– 2002 Single Vehicle Crashes2002 Single Vehicle Crashes
Passenger CarsPassenger CarsSUVSUV’’ss
35%35%67%67%
1997 1997 –– 2003 Fatal Single Vehicle Crashes2003 Fatal Single Vehicle Crashes
Passenger CarsPassenger CarsSUVSUV’’ss
30%30%63%63%
27
Longer TermNew ITS Safety Initiatives
Integrated Vehicle-Based Safety Systems (IVBSS)Intersection Crash Prevention Systems (CICAS)Vehicle-Infrastructure Integration (VII)Next generation 911
28
Integrated Vehicle-Based Safety Systems
Integrates into the same platform• Rear-end collision avoidance• Road departure crash prevention• Lane change and merge systems
29
Cooperative Intersection Collision Avoidance Systems (CICAS)
Every year at intersections:• 9,100 Fatalities• 1,500,000 Injuries • 3,000,000 Crashes
To develop and demonstrate cooperative intersection collision avoidance systems To assess the value and acceptance of collision avoidance systems that utilize cooperative communication
30
Vehicle Infrastructure Integration (VII)
Facilitates implementation of FCC allocation of frequency at 5.9 GHz for safety communicationCreating an “enabling communication infrastructure”Emphasis on safety applicationsPotential to reduce congestion
31
Crash MitigationWhat can Advanced Technologies do to Help Reduce Injuries?
Take control of the vehicle to mitigate the severity of a crash
• Automatic braking• Automatic steering• Belt pre-tensioners• Close windows
Prepare restraint systems for a pending crash• Improves the performance of restraint systems in
preventing or mitigating the severity of injuries
32
Post CrashWhat can Advanced Technologies do to Help Improve Outcomes?
Automatic Collision Notification• Calls for help
Advanced ACN• Assesses crash severity• Transmits urgency information
(Severity of crash which is related to possible injuries)
Improves crash occupant triageEvent Data Recorders (EDR)
Cover removed
33
Advanced Technology
What level of reliability is needed to:• Convince consumers that they’ll work and be worth
the money• Convince manufacturers to put them in their
vehicles
How much of the safety technical function can be taken away from consumers without causing false reliance?
34
NHTSA’s Role
Continue to encourage the refinement and integration of advanced technologies through ITSEvaluate technology effectivenessHelp ensure minimum performanceEducate consumersEncourage the market (e.g. NCAP) where appropriateRegulate (e.g. ESC) where appropriate
35
Alcohol-Related Fatalities & Rate (per 100M VMT) 1982 – 2006
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 060
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
36
Drivers (Veh & MC) Involved In Fatal Crashes with Positive BACs, 2006
0100200300400500600700800900
0
0.05 0.
1
0.15 0.
2
0.25 0.
3
0.35 0.
4
0.45
+
BAC (g/dl)
Num
ber
of D
rive
rs
Median, 2003.16
Legal Limit In 50 States
Source: 2006 Annual AssessmentSource: 2006 Annual Assessment
37
Development of Advanced Alcohol Sensing Technology
Cooperative research and development effort• NHTSA and Automotive Coalition for Traffic Safety (ACTS)
5-Year effort• NHTSA contributing up to $1M per year with ACTS matching
or exceeding NHTSA’s contribution
Concept• In-vehicle capability to detect impairment before vehicle can be
operated
Significant technical and public acceptance challenge
38
Potential Technical Areas of Promise
Volpe conducted a technology reviewPotential technologies include:
• Breath Alcohol Ignition Interlock Device (BAIID)
• Tissue Spectroscopy• Transdermal Detectors• Ethanol Vapor Detectors• Occular Measures
39
SAAB Alchokey & P.A.S. III Alcohol Screening System
Is an adaptation of an anti-theft systemIncludes a mouthpiece at the end of the key fob, in which a driver blows If alcohol is detected, it will not allow the engine to start (i.e., interlock)
Passive system that “sniffs”ambient airApplications include testing for alcohol in exhaled breath or vehicles/other enclosed spaces, or over open containers
SAAB Alchokey
P.A.S. III Alcohol Screening System
40
Vehicle technologies that can detect distraction/impairment are being developedWhat is the appropriate action if the vehicle detects an impaired driver during operation?August 2007 – Nissan announced a concept car featuring multiple preventative features
Intermediate Steps with Advanced Technology
Alcohol Odor Sensors
Facial Recognition System
41
Heavy Truck Fatalities2006 FARS
NoncollisionImpact w ith Non-
fixed Object
Frontal Impact w ith Another MV,
Side Impact w ith Another MV
Rear Impact w ith Another MV
Impact w ith Fixed Object
Fatalities:805 - Truck Occupants3,766 - Other Vehicle Occupants424 - Non-occupants
10%11%
4%
15%
12%
46%
1%Other/Unknown
Impact with Another MV
42
Heavy Truck ESC/RSC
Rulemaking expected in late ’08NHTSA is currently researching benefits of
• Yaw stability systems• Roll stability systems• Yaw + roll stability systems
43
Heavy Truck Tires
Upgrade to FMVSS 119 in ’08• Upgrade endurance test• Add new high speed test
Agency initiated truck tire testing in 2003 in support of this upgrade
44
Heavy Truck Tractor Stopping Distance
Upgrade to FMVSS 121 in ’08• Substantial reductions in stopping distance are
achievable with current technology
Estimate 20 to 30 percent reduction in stopping distance
45
Motorcycle Riders Killed and RateIn 2006, per registered vehicle, the fatality rate for motorcycle riders was 5.5 times higher than the fatality rate for passenger vehicle occupants
Source: NCSA
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
1975 1977 19791981 19831985 1987 19891991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 20032005
Pers
ons
Kille
d
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Fata
litie
s/10
0K R
egis
tere
d
Persons KilledFatalities/100K Registered
46
Motorcycle Rider Fatalitiesby Age Group and Year
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
50+40-4930-3920-29<20
Source: 2004 Annual Assessment
47
DOT Motorcycle Action Plan
New national standards for entry-level rider trainingCurb counterfeit helmet labelingMotorcycle-specific road improvementsProvide training to law enforcement officers on their role in reducing motorcycle crashesPSA featuring Secretary Peters discussing safe riding techniques
48
Thank you!