You are more likely to be killed in a traffic accident than to get rich by winning the lottery, according to Aria Etemad. The 1:10,000 odds of a fatal road accident compare with a 1:15 million chance of picking six winning Lotto numbers from 49.
But Etemad believes that the automotive industry can even up the odds, while improving fuel efficiency and cutting transport costs. The solution is to fit vehicles with driver-assistance systems that can provide automatic emergency braking, limit speeds and tell drivers what’s happening in their blind spots.
Etemad works at Ford’s European research centre in Aachen, Germany. He led a four-year European field operational test (Eurofot) study of the impact of such systems when fitted to 1,000 cars and trucks, with 1,200 drivers, travelling 35 million kilometres around Europe. Twenty eight companies and other organisations took part in the project.
The study looked at system performance, driver behaviour, user acceptance, and the effects on safety, efficiency and the environment. It was intended to produce the first firm data – subjective and objective – for such devices. Claes Tingvall, traffic safety director at the Swedish Transport Administration, says that traffic safety has usually relied on trial and error and required long periods to assess benefits.
The devices studied included: adaptive cruise control; forward collision warning; navigation devices; blind-spot information system; speed regulator system consisting of speed limiter and cruise control; curve speed warning; lane departure warning; impairment warning; and fuel efficiency adviser.
The results of the study showed that the wide deployment of such systems across the European Union could potentially reduce accidents and the consumption of resources. The clearest effects would be seen by fitting the devices to trucks.
A socio-economic assessment revealed a cost-benefit ratio of 1.3 to 1.8 for adaptive cruise control (ACC) in trucks. “That’s fairly good,” says Torsten Geissler of the Federal Highway Research Institute in Germany. The cost-benefit is 0.2-0.3 for cars, perhaps because of their lower mileage: “It’s not sufficient to outweigh costs,” says Geissler.
Fitting ACC and forward collision warning (FCW) would lead to annual savings of ¤1.2 billion for cars and ¤180 million for heavy goods vehicles.
The crucial statistics concern the effect on injury and fatality rates. Lucas Malta, of Volvo Group Trucks Technology, says that driver-assistance systems could reduce accidents on motorways by 2.2-5.8% if used in cars and by 0.2-0.6% in trucks. Also, ACC and FCW in cars has the potential to reduce the number of rear-end crashes on motorways by 16-42% and in trucks by 6-15%. An additional benefit is that car fuel consumption on motorways could be reduced by 1.37% by using ACC and by 1.07% by fitting speed regulator systems.
Malta says that navigation systems have the largest impact on efficiency. Speed regulators have the biggest effect on travel times. All the systems tested, except for safety warning devices, have an environmental benefit of 2%.
The European Commission paid €14 million of the projected €22 million cost of the Eurofot project. But Etemad says that handling the 100 terabytes of data generated proved more difficult than anticipated so the consortium extended the study by 10 months and spent far more than expected.
The commission has a target of halving the number of road deaths in the EU in the decade to 2020, and will now consider making driver-assistance systems mandatory if voluntary take-up is low.
Some members of the Eurofot consortium feared that if the study showed very strong benefits regulation would follow, says Dr Maxime Flament at Intelligent Transport Systems and Services for Europe, whose members include the European Commission, transport ministries and companies. The Eurofot consortium included BMW, Daimler, MAN Truck and Bus, Volvo, Audi Volkswagen, Bosch, Continental, Delphi, Centre Européen d’Etudes de Sécurité et d’Analyse des Risques, the University of Leeds, and the Dutch research centre TNO.
Euro Ncap, which assesses the safety of cars sold in Europe, will test autonomous emergency braking systems from 2014. It says that such systems are unavailable on 79% of today’s models and that 66% of manufacturers do not offer them.
Cost is one factor in this. Ford’s Etemad says that a car buyer could pay €1,200 for an anti-collision device and about €350 for other systems. Geissler says that ACC and FCW combined cost €270.
Etemad says it is difficult to pin down costs, as systems are often bundled together. But Andreas Ostendorf, vice-president for sustainability, environment and safety engineering at Ford Europe, says prices have fallen to “acceptable levels” in many cases.
Ignorance of the technology is a big problem, says Etemad, with only 3-5% of drivers aware of the devices. The researchers found that more than 40% of drivers had not heard of lane departure warning systems, for example.
Awareness looks set to improve, however, as insurers are likely to offer lower premiums if vehicles carry systems that reduce the risk of crashes. “The reduction could go up to 20%,” says Johann Gwehenberger, manager of the AZT centre for technology at the insurer Allianz. The firm’s risk managers will be advising owners of vehicle fleets to use the devices, he says.
Allianz was the only insurer in the Eurofot consortium, which Flament suggests could be because others wanted the benefits without reducing premiums. However, market forces could force all insurers to follow Allianz, says Flament. They will probably call
for the use of forward collision warning systems.
Cameras, radar and sensors keep drivers alert to hazards
Adaptive cruise control
Headway sensors measure the distance to other vehicles and automatically adjust the speed to limit the gap. The driver sets a maximum speed and then the time gap to the vehicle in front.
Forward collision warning
Radar or lidar scans the road ahead, and sound and light signals alert the driver if the car approaches too close to another vehicle. If the risk of a collision increases despite the warnings, the brakes are pre-charged. When a collision appears imminent and the driver does not react, the car brakes automatically.
Speed regulation system
Includes speed limiter and cruise control to hold speed to a set value. They cannot be used simultaneously.
Blind-spot information system
Cameras in side mirrors detect when something has entered the driver’s blind spots and give a warning.
Lane departure warning
Gives a warning if the vehicle crosses lane markings unintentionally, as detected by a video sensor, above a minimum speed. The warning is acoustic or haptical – vibration or small torque on the steering wheel or driver’s seat. Driver actions such as setting the indicator suppress the warning and it can be switched off.
Impairment warning
Alerts tired and distracted drivers. Uses a camera to monitor movements between lane markings and calculates the risk of the driver losing control of the vehicle.
Curve speed warning
Warns if a bend in the road is taken too fast, based on information from digital maps, analysis of the geometric characteristics of the bend and external factors such as weather and estimates of road friction. Can prepare safety systems or inhibit acceleration. Can be improved significantly with vision-based sensing such as lane detection and tracking and rain sensing.
Adaptive front lighting
At night, adaptive front lighting can adapt the shape, intensity and direction of the beam to follow the road direction, guiding drivers before they can see bends.
Safe human-machine interface
A safe human-machine interface is needed for in-vehicle information and communication systems, such as navigation devices.
Fuel-efficiency adviser
Volvo Trucks’ Dynafleet system provides realtime information including vehicle location, fuel consumption, messages, driver times and service intervals. Fuel-efficient driving is supported through on-board functions and as follow-up reports.