Search Results

This study examined the effects of formalized training on driver behavior and understanding of an adaptive cruise control (ACC) system with drivers experienced with ACC. Sixteen participants drove an ACC-equipped vehicle while following a lead vehicle around a test track. Participants completed three laps, each involving different lead vehicle behaviors, such as making a lane change or stopping at a red light, that test the limitations and capabilities of ACC (i.e., boundary conditions) of the subject ACC system. Immediately before driving, half of the participants watched a training video describing how the ACC system would respond to these lead vehicle behaviors. Participants’ knowledge of the ACC system limitations was assessed by a pre- and post-test questionnaire, and participants’ interactions with the ACC system - including braking behavior, other pedal movements, and actuation of ACC via steering wheel controls - were recorded by video cameras.

Pedal errors have been widely reported as a leading cause of unintended acceleration (UA) incidents for several decades. Many governmental and scientific studies have attempted to characterize the rate of pedal errors leading to UA incidents using data from the North Carolina Crash Database. These data, however, are limited for various reasons, including the absence of an in-depth investigation of causal factors contributing to the accident. To further examine the rate of UA incidents related to pedal error, we utilized the National Motor Vehicle Crash Causation Survey (NMVCCS), a nationally representative sample of 5,471 crashes that occurred between 2005 and 2007. Using a targeted keyword search, we identified 48 potential pedal errors (30 driver-admitted), providing a national estimate of 17,919 pedal errors. We then investigated accident characteristics across these specific cases, including demographics of the drivers, vehicle characteristics, and pre-crash critical events.

Three years of data from the Large Truck Crash Causation Study (LTCCS) were analyzed to identify accidents involving heavy trucks (GVWR >10,000 lbs.). Risk of rollover and ejection was determined as well as belt usage rates. Risk of ejection was also analyzed based on rollover status and belt use. The Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) was used as an injury rating system for the involved vehicle occupants. These data were further analyzed to determine injury distribution based on factors such as crash type, ejection, and restraint system use. The maximum AIS score (MAIS) was analyzed and each body region (head, face, spine, thorax, abdomen, upper extremity, and lower extremity) was considered for an AIS score of three or greater (AIS 3+). The majority of heavy truck occupants in this study were belted (71%), only 2.5% of occupants were completely or partially ejected, and 28% experienced a rollover event.

The risk of sustaining injury in rear impact collisions is correlated to collision severity as well as other factors such as restraint usage. The most recent National Automotive Sampling System-Crashworthiness Data System (NASS-CDS) data available (1997 to 2011) were analyzed to identify accidents involving passenger vehicles that have experienced an impact with a principal direction of force (PDOF) between 5:00 and 7:00, indicating a rear impact collision. The Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) was used as an injury rating system for the involved vehicle occupants who were at least sixteen years old and were seated in the outboard seating positions of the front row. These data were further analyzed to determine injury risk based on resultant delta-V and restraint system use. Each body region (head, spine, thorax, abdomen, upper extremity, and lower extremity) was considered separately.

The use of electric scooters (e-scooters), which are more generally categorized as motorized scooters, has undergone explosive growth owing to “scooter share” programs in which an e-scooter is rented for a limited period of time. The near-spontaneous ubiquity of e-scooters has prompted government and scooter share companies to address issues partly motivated by concerns related to the inclusion of a large population of e-scooters into vehicular traffic. These issues are influenced by the decisions and behaviors of the scooter operators, who, despite being licensed to drive passenger vehicles, potentially have limited experience operating an e-scooter in the presence of traffic. E-scooters are in a relative unique position where they are small enough to negotiate pedestrian traffic, yet fast enough to travel on roadways.

It is well known from field accident studies and crash testing that seatbelts provide considerable benefit to occupants in rollover crashes; however, a small fraction of belted occupants still sustain serious and severe neck injuries. The mechanism of these neck injuries is generated by torso augmentation (diving), where the head becomes constrained while the torso continues to move toward the constrained head causing injurious compressive neck loading. This type of neck loading can occur in belted occupants when the head is in contact with, or in close proximity to, the roof interior when the inverted vehicle impacts the ground. Consequently, understanding the nature and extent of head excursion has long been an objective of researchers studying the behavior of occupants in rollovers.

Debate surrounds the utility of the Biofidelic Rear Impact Dummy (BioRID) anthropomorphic test device (ATD) for providing meaningful biomechanical metrics during rear impact and the appropriate criteria for interpreting the ATD response. In the current study, we performed a comparison of the kinematic and kinetic responses of the BioRID II and Hybrid III ATDs over a range of low- and moderate-speed rear impact conditions. A BioRID II and a midsize male Hybrid III were tested side-by-side in a series of rear impact sled tests. To evaluate occupant response in rear impact, the ATDs were positioned into front row standard production bucket seats, restrained by 3-point safety belts, and subjected to rear impacts with delta-Vs (ΔVs) of 2.2, 3.6, 5.4, and 6.7 m/s (5, 8, 12, and 15 mph).