A Quantitative Method to Determine What Collisions Are Reasonably Foreseeable and Preventable

The development of Automated Driving Systems (ADSs) has made significant progress in the last years. To enable the deployment of Automated Vehicles (AVs) equipped with such ADSs, regulations concerning the approval of these systems need to be established. In 2021, the World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations has approved a new United Nations regulation concerning the approval of Automated Lane Keeping Systems (ALKSs). An important aspect of this regulation is that "the activated system shall not cause any collisions that are reasonably foreseeable and preventable." The phrasing of "reasonably foreseeable and preventable" might be subjected to different interpretations and, therefore, this might result in disagreements among AV developers and the authorities that are requested to approve AVs. The objective of this work is to propose a method for quantifying what is "reasonably foreseeable and preventable". The proposed method considers the Operational Design Domain (ODD) of the system and can be applied to any ODD. Having a quantitative method for determining what is reasonably foreseeable and preventable provides developers, authorities, and the users of ADSs a better understanding of the residual risks to be expected when deploying these systems in real traffic. Using our proposed method, we can estimate what collisions are reasonably foreseeable and preventable. This will help in setting requirements regarding the safety of ADSs and can lead to stronger justification for design decisions and test coverage for developing ADSs.Comment: 25 pages, 9 figures, 2 table

“Cyclist at 12 o’clock!”: a systematic review of in-vehicle advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) for preventing car-rider crashes

IntroductionWhile Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) have become a prominent topic in road safety research, there has been relatively little discussion about their effectiveness in preventing car collisions involving specific vulnerable road users, such as cyclists. Therefore, the primary objective of this systematic literature review is to analyze the available evidence regarding the effectiveness of in-vehicle ADAS in preventing vehicle collisions with cyclists.MethodsTo achieve this goal, this systematic review analyzed a selection of original research papers that examined the effectiveness of ADAS systems in preventing car-cyclist collisions. The review followed the PRISMA protocol, which led to the extraction of 21 eligible studies from an initial pool of 289 sources indexed in the primary scientific literature databases. Additionally, word community-based content analyses were used to examine the research topics and their links within the current scientific literature on the matter.ResultsAlthough the current number of studies available is still scarce (most sources focus on car-motorcyclist or car-pedestrian crashes), the overall quality of the available studies has been reasonably good, as determined by the selected evaluation methods. In terms of studies’ outcomes, the literature supports the value of in-vehicle ADAS for preventing car-cyclist crashes. However, threatful side effects such as unrealistic expectations of these systems and users’ overconfidence or desensitization are also highlighted, as well as the need to increase driver training and road user awareness.ConclusionThe results of this study suggest that Advanced Driver Assistance Systems have significant potential to contribute to the prevention of driving crashes involving cyclists. However, the literature emphasizes the importance of concurrently enhancing user-related skills in both ADAS use and road-user interaction through educational and training initiatives. Future research should also address emerging issues, such as ADAS-related behavioral ergonomics, and conduct long-term effectiveness assessments of ADAS in preventing car-cycling crashes and their subsequent injuries.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO, unique identifier CRD42024505492, https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=505492