|
From:
|
NTSB
|
|
To:
|
NHTSA
|
|
Date:
|
12/5/2019
|
|
Response:
|
Reiterated in Safety Study SS-19-01, “Bicyclist Safety on US Roadways: Crash Risks and Countermeasures” adopted November 5, 2019 and published December 5, 2019.
4.2.3.1 Collision Avoidance Systems
CASs were originally designed to prevent or mitigate collisions between motor vehicles, such as rear-end collisions. In 2001, the NTSB published a special investigation report, Vehicle- and Infrastructure-Based Technology for the Prevention of Rear-End Collisions, that made several recommendations to NHTSA to develop performance standards for collision warning systems and adaptive cruise control for commercial and passenger vehicles (H-01-6 and H-01-8) and to then require such systems in new commercial vehicles (H-01-7, NTSB 2001).74 In the ensuing years, little progress was made on these recommendations or on other recommendations pertaining to vehicle technology to prevent rear-end crashes.
In 2015, the NTSB published another special investigation report, The Use of Forward Collision Avoidance Systems to Prevent and Mitigate Rear-End Crashes, to examine the real-world and predicted efficacy of currently available CAS technologies (NTSB 2015). The report concluded that CAS technologies for passenger and commercial vehicles show clear safety benefits; however, more effort was needed to speed deployment of the technologies in all vehicle types. As a result, the NTSB recommended that manufacturers install forward CASs as standard features on all newly manufactured motor vehicles (H-15-8 and H-15-9).75 The NTSB also recommended that NHTSA develop protocols for the assessment of CASs (H-15-4 and H-15-5) and that the agency expand its New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) to include a graded rating of CASs on new vehicle window stickers, also known as Monroney labels (H-15-6 and H-15-7).76 In 2018, the NTSB issued recommendations designed to expand the use of CAS technologies to additional vehicles, including school buses and motorcycles (H-18-8, H-18-19, and H-18-29).77 Also, the 2018 Pedestrian Safety report included two recommendations to NHTSA aimed at fostering the development, evaluation, and implementation of pedestrian CASs (H-18-42 and H-18-43).78
It is likely that the previous recommendations the NTSB has made concerning CASs, if implemented, would lead to safety improvements for bicyclists. It is also worth considering whether vehicle manufacturers should implement specific CASs or modify existing systems to enable detection of bicycles. There is evidence that such systems could reduce the incidence of collisions between motor vehicles and bicycles. For example, in 2015, IIHS researchers used data on crashes between motor vehicles and bicycles from several national highway crash databases to identify common crash scenarios that could benefit from the development of bicyclist-detection systems (MacAlister and Zuby 2015). They identified three crash modes that accounted for 74% of bicyclist fatalities in crashes involving a collision with the front of a motor vehicle. The IIHS researchers suggested that existing CASs could, with minor modifications, be designed to detect bicyclists, potentially mitigating or preventing up to 26% of bicyclist injuries and 52% of fatalities. Some automakers have already taken steps to incorporate bicyclist-detection systems into their CAS technology. For example, Volvo’s City Safety system has a bicyclist-detection capability that uses radar and camera data.79 Additionally, automakers are developing US-based bicycle and bicyclist surrogates that could be used to evaluate the effectiveness of bicyclist precollision systems (Yi and others 2016). Therefore, the NTSB concludes that CAS technologies could be modified to detect bicycles, which would likely reduce the incidence of collisions between motor vehicles and bicycles and mitigate injuries caused by collisions when they occur.
Although in-vehicle bicycle detection systems are a relatively new technology, some organizations have taken steps to promote their implementation. For example, the European New Car Assessment Program, known as Euro NCAP, provides overall vehicle safety ratings based on (1) adult occupant protection; (2) child occupant protection; (3) vulnerable road user protection, including pedestrians and bicyclists; and (4) “safety assist,” which evaluates driver assistance and crash avoidance technologies. Since 2018, Euro NCAP has included two scenarios for bicyclist detection: one in which a bicyclist crosses a vehicle’s path and one in which a bicyclist is traveling in the same direction as the vehicle.80 The test uses a specially designed dummy bicyclist on a moving bicycle platform.81 Although no published studies have yet evaluated whether the bicycle test scenarios have improved safety, research has shown that cars with better scores on the Euro NCAP pedestrian assessment are less likely to be involved in crashes that involve severe pedestrian injury (Pastor 2013).
New car ratings assessment programs, such as NCAP and Euro NCAP, provide a valuable service by evaluating and sharing information about the performance of vehicle safety systems. In the United States, research has shown that consumers are more likely to buy cars that receive high safety ratings (Cicchino 2015). Since 2015, the NTSB has recommended that NHTSA update NCAP to include ratings on the performance of CASs. Specifically, the NTSB recommended that NHTSA— Expand the New Car Assessment Program 5-star rating system to include a scale that rates the performance of forward collision avoidance systems. (H-15-6)
Once the rating scale, described in Safety Recommendation H-15-6, is established, include the ratings of forward collision avoidance systems on the vehicle Monroney labels. (H-15-7)
Incorporate pedestrian safety systems, including pedestrian collision avoidance systems and other more-passive safety systems, into the New Car Assessment Program. (H-18-43)
In December 2015, as part of the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, Public Law 114-94, Congress directed NHTSA to “promulgate a rule to ensure that crash avoidance information is indicated next to crashworthiness information on stickers placed on motor vehicles by manufacturers.”82 Since then, NHTSA has, on two occasions, solicited public comments on potential changes to NCAP. In response, several commenters asked NHTSA to include bicycle safety in NCAP. For example, the League of American Bicyclists and the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals asked NHTSA to create crash avoidance and mitigation testing procedures for bicyclists and pedestrians and to harmonize its testing with Euro NCAP as the Australasian NCAP program has done.
In a March 2018 letter to the NTSB, NHTSA stated that the agency was reviewing public comments concerning revisions to NCAP. Although NHTSA has sought public comment on the future of NCAP, it has not yet taken any meaningful steps to modify the program to rate CASs or to incorporate tests to evaluate vehicle safety with respect to vulnerable road users, such as pedestrians and bicyclists. Therefore, the NTSB concludes that NHTSA’s delays in updating NCAP have likely slowed the development of important safety systems for vulnerable road users and their implementation into the vehicle fleet. Therefore, the NTSB reiterates Safety Recommendations H-15-6, H-15-7, and H-18-43 to NHTSA. The NTSB also recommends that NHTSA incorporate into NCAP tests to evaluate a car’s ability to avoid crashes with bicycles.
|
|
