Advanced driver assistance systems for teen drivers: Teen and parent impressions, perceived need, and intervention preferences

<p><b>Objective:</b> From the advent of airbags to electronic stability control, technological advances introduced into automobile design have significantly reduced injury and death from motor vehicle crashes. These advances are especially pertinent among teen drivers, a population whose leading cause of death is motor vehicle crashes. Recently developed advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) have the potential to compensate for skill deficits and reduce overall crash risk. Yet, ADAS is only effective if drivers are willing to use it. Limited research has been conducted on the suitability of ADAS for teen drivers. The goal of this study is to identify teen drivers’ perceived need for ADAS, receptiveness to in-vehicle technology, and intervention preferences. The long-term goal is to understand public perceptions and barriers to ADAS use and to help determine how these systems must evolve to meet the needs of the riskiest driving populations.</p> <p><b>Methods:</b> Three focus groups (<i>N</i> = 24) were conducted with licensed teen drivers aged 16–19 years and 2 focus groups with parents of teen drivers (<i>N</i> = 12). Discussion topics included views on how ADAS might influence driving skills and behaviors; trust in technology; and data privacy. Discussions were transcribed; the team used conventional content analysis and open coding methods to identify 12 coding domains and code transcripts with NVivo 10. Interrater reliability testing showed moderate to high kappa scores.</p> <p><b>Results:</b> Overall, participants recognized potential benefits of ADAS, including improved safety and crash reduction. Teens suggested that ADAS is still developing and therefore has potential to malfunction. Many teens reported a greater trust in their own driving ability over vehicle technology. They expressed that novice drivers should learn to drive on non-ADAS-equipped cars and that ADAS should be considered a supplemental aid. Many teens felt that overreliance on ADAS may increase distracted driving or risky behaviors among teens. Parents also expressed skepticism for the technology but felt that it would likely be a useful support for teen drivers after the initial learning phase.</p> <p><b>Conclusions:</b> This study elicited important end-user viewpoints by exploring the intersection between advanced automobile safety technology and human perception for the particular use case of teen drivers. For example, despite evidence that teens are the highest risk driving population, teens trust their own driving skills and competence more than in-vehicle technology. This understanding will ultimately advance the safety of teen drivers by identifying barriers to effective ADAS use.</p

Comparison of Q3s ATD Biomechanical Responses to Pediatric Volunteers

<div><p><b>Objective:</b> The biofidelity of pediatric anthropomorphic test devices (ATDs) continues to be evaluated with scaled-down adult data, a methodology that requires inaccurate assumptions about the likeness of biomechanical properties of children and adults. Recently, evaluation of pediatric ATDs by comparison of pediatric volunteer (PV) data has emerged as a valuable and practical alternative to the use of scaled adult data. This study utilized existing PV data to evaluate a 3-year-old side impact ATD, the Q3s. Though ATDs have been compared to volunteer responses in frontal impacts, this study is the first to extend ATD-PV comparison methods to the Q3s ATD and among the first to extend these methods to side impacts.</p><p><b>Methods:</b> Previously conducted experiments were replicated in order to make a direct comparison between the Q3s and PVs. PV data were used from 4- to 7-year-olds (shoulder tests, <i>n</i> = 14) and 6- to 8-year-olds (sled tests, <i>n</i> = 7). Force–deflection data were captured during quasistatic shoulder tests through manual displacement of the shoulder joint. Resulting shoulder stiffness was compared between the Q3s and PVs. Low-speed far-side sled tests were conducted with the Q3s at lateral (90°) and oblique (60°) impacts. Primary outcomes of interest included (1) lateral displacement of the torso, (2) torso rollout angle, and (3) kinematic trajectories of the head and neck.</p><p><b>Results:</b> The Q3s exhibited shoulder stiffness values at least 32 N/mm greater than the PVs for all conditions (PV muscle tensed and relaxed, deflection calculated for full- and half-thoracic). In lateral sled tests, the Q3s demonstrated increased coronal torso rollout (Q3s: 49.2°; PVs: 35.7° ± 12.4°) and lateral (Δ<i>Y</i>) movement of the top of the head (Q3s: −389 mm; PVs: −320 ± 23 mm) compared to PVs. In oblique trials, the Q3s achieved significantly decreased lateral torso displacement (Q3s: 153.3 mm; PVs: 193.6 ± 25.6 mm) and top of the head forward (Δ<i>X</i>) motion (Q3s: 68 mm; PVs: 133 ± 20 mm) compared to PVs. In all tests, greater downward (Δ<i>Z</i>) excursions of C4 and T1 were observed in the Q3s relative to PVs.</p><p><b>Conclusions:</b> Increased Q3s shoulder stiffness could affect head–neck kinematics as well as thorax responses because unrealistic force can be transmitted to the spine from the shoulder. Q3s and PV trajectories were of similar shape, although Q3s head kinematics displayed rigid body motion followed by independent lateral bending of the head, suggesting cervical and thoracic spine rigidity compared to PVs.</p></div

Evaluation of Pediatric ATD Biofidelity as Compared to Child Volunteers in Low-Speed Far-Side Oblique and Lateral Impacts

<div><p><b>Objective:</b> Motor vehicle crashes are a leading cause of injury and mortality for children. Mitigation of these injuries requires biofidelic anthropomorphic test devices (ATDs) to design and evaluate automotive safety systems. Effective countermeasures exist for frontal and near-side impacts but are limited for far-side impacts. Consequently, far-side impacts represent increased injury and mortality rates compared to frontal impacts. Thus, the objective of this study was to evaluate the biofidelity of the Hybrid III and Q-series pediatric ATDs in low-speed far-side impacts, with and without shoulder belt pretightening.</p><p><b>Methods:</b> Low-speed (2 <i>g</i>) far-side oblique (60°) and lateral (90°) sled tests were conducted using the Hybrid III and Q-series 6- and 10-year-old ATDs. ATDs were restrained by a lap and shoulder belt equipped with a precrash belt pretightener. Photoreflective targets were attached to the head, spine, shoulders, and sternum. ATDs were exposed to 8 low-speed sled tests: 2 oblique nontightened, 2 oblique pretightened, 2 lateral nontightened, 2 lateral pretightened. ATDs were compared with previously collected 9- to 11-year-old (<i>n</i> = 10) volunteer data and newly collected 6- to 8-year-old volunteer data (<i>n</i> = 7) tested with similar methods. Kinematic data were collected from a 3D target tracking system. Metrics of comparison included excursion, seat belt and seat pan reaction loads, belt-to-torso angle, and shoulder belt slip-out.</p><p><b>Results:</b> The ATDs exhibited increased lateral excursion of the head top, C4, and T1 as well as increased downward excursion of the head top compared to the volunteers. Volunteers exhibited greater forward excursion than the ATDs in oblique nontightened impacts. These kinematics correspond to increased shoulder belt slip-out for the ATDs in oblique tests (ATDs = 90%; volunteers = 36%). Contrarily, similar shoulder belt slip-out was observed between ATDs and volunteers in lateral impacts (ATDs = 80%; volunteers = 78%). In pretightened impacts, the ATDs exhibited reduced lateral excursion and torso roll-out angle compared to the volunteers.</p><p><b>Conclusions:</b> In general, the ATDs overestimated lateral excursion in both impact directions, while underestimating forward excursion of the head and neck in oblique impacts compared to the pediatric volunteers. This was primarily due to pendulum-like lateral bending of the entire ATD torso compared to translation of the thorax relative to the abdomen prior to the lateral bending of the upper torso in the volunteers, likely due to the multisegmented spinal column in the volunteers. Additionally, the effect of belt pretightening on occupant kinematics was greater for the ATDs than the volunteers.</p></div