Background

Need for the Study

In 2016, large trucks were involved in 475,000 crashes in the United States that resulted in approximately 145,000 injuries and 4,317 fatalities.( ) One way to reduce these crashes and their resulting injuries and fatalities is to focus on correcting driver risky behaviors and errors though the adoption of advanced safety technologies (ASTs). There are a large number of ASTs available for large trucks. However, few ASTs have been independently evaluated to identify their effectiveness at preventing or mitigating crashes. ASTs that have been independently evaluated in revenue-producing operations or by using real-world carrier crash data include automatic emergency braking (AEB), lane departure warning (LDW), and video-based driver onboard safety monitoring (OSM). A recent study completed by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety found AEB, LDW, and video-based OSM systems to be cost effective on the societal level if installed in all U.S. large trucks, as long as the current pricing and higher effectiveness rates were realized. (2,3,4)

Automatic Energy Braking

Large truck AEB systems are designed to mitigate or prevent a rear-end collision where the large truck strikes a lead vehicle. AEB systems combine at least one forward-facing sensor (e.g., radar, LIDAR, and/or camera); a driver interface with visual, audible, and/or haptic alerts; and automatic truck braking.

AEB systems work by first identifying and tracking a lead vehicle. Once the truck moves to within a preset distance or time-to-collision with the lead vehicle, the truck driver receives a warning alert. Depending on the system, the driver may receive an audible, visual, and/or haptic warning. In response to this warning, the driver can decide to reduce speed and/or change lanes to avoid a collision with the lead vehicle. If the driver does not slow down or change lanes, the AEB system will apply the truck’s brakes once a subsequent preset time-to-collision or distance is reached.

Early research showed AEB systems may prevent 16% to 52.3% of all rear-end crashes where the large truck struck a lead vehicle.(5,6,7,8,9) Differences in study design and variations in AEB capabilities (i.e., added capability to brake for stationary objects, 0.3 g to 0.6 g braking) between different generations of AEB systems contributed to the wide range of effectiveness. However, a recent study found the latest generation of AEB prevented 41% of rear-end crashes.(10) Additionally, carriers and AEB technology providers have claimed higher rates of reduction in rear-end crashes.(11,12) In general, the costs of AEB systems range from $2,400 to $2,600 per vehicle.(8,13)

Lane Departure Warning

LDW systems are designed to prevent crashes that result from the truck deviating outside its lane, such as truck-initiated sideswipes, run-off-road crashes, and to a lesser extent, truck-initiated head-on collisions. LDW systems use a camera(s) to monitor the truck’s position on the roadway, tracking the lane line markings to determine if the truck will unintentionally deviate from the lane. Typically, LDW systems provide direction-specific audible or haptic warnings depending on which lane line the truck will cross. For example, the sound of a rumble strip will be played through the right speaker if the truck crosses the right lane line. Unlike AEB, LDW systems do not actively assume control of the truck. Instead, they simply alert the driver when the truck begins to deviate from the lane without using a turn signal. These systems are designed to provide the driver with feedback about possible conflicts with other vehicles/objects or unsafe driving.

There has been a significant amount of research examining the effectiveness of LDW in preventing large truck crashes. Overall, this research has shown that LDW systems may prevent between 13% and 53% of large truck initiated sideswipes, run-off-road, and head-on crashes.(5,6,8,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21) However, LDW providers have claimed that these systems can prevent up to 75% of lane departures.(22) The costs for LDW systems have been reported to range from $300 to $2,000 per vehicle.(8,14,15,18,23)

Video Based Driver Onboard Safety Monitoring System

Unlike AEB and LDW, video-based OSM systems are not designed to prevent a specific crash type. Instead, video-based OSM systems are safety tools that allow carriers to efficiently and effectively coach drivers. If carriers follow best practice guidance regarding the effective introduction of the system and coaching of drivers, these systems have the potential to reduce the overall number of preventable crashes caused by driver error or behaviors.

Video-based OSM systems use in-vehicle video cameras and sensors (e.g., accelerometers) to continuously monitor driver performance. The combination of video and sensor data provides objective information to pinpoint safe and unsafe driving behaviors. Typically, these systems use two cameras (one forward-facing camera and one driver-facing camera), though some systems incorporate fewer or more cameras. If a potentially unsafe event is detected by the camera or sensors, the video-based OSM system saves a pre-determined amount of data surrounding the event (e.g., 30 seconds prior and 30 seconds after the event). Depending on the video-based OSM provider, these data are processed and either sent to the carrier for review, or as is more common, are reviewed by experts at the technology provider, which then sends a summary of the event (along with the video) to the carrier for review. This review results in detailed information surrounding the event and creates actionable data that the carrier can use to coach drivers.

There are few independent evaluations examining the effectiveness of video-based OSM systems. Research has shown that these systems may prevent between 52.2% and 59.1% of safety critical events.(24) However, many carriers have reported much higher reductions in crashes.(25,26) Although the effectiveness data is limited, video-based OSM systems were included in the calculator due to the large number of crashes that could be prevented with the effective introduction and use of the technology as well as increased carrier interest in purchasing these systems.

The cost structure for video-based OSM systems is substantially different that the cost structure for AEB and LDW systems. The largest cost associated with AEB and LDW are the hardware costs. However, the largest video-based OSM system costs are associated with driver coaching. Based on discussions with technology providers, the per-vehicle costs of video-based OSM systems include $300 to $600 for hardware, $0 to $150 for installation, $20 to $60 per month service fee, and costs associated with driver coaching, which averages 10 minutes per driver per coaching session. During the first 2 months after installation, approximately 25% of drivers receive coaching, and after 1 to 2 months this number drops to 1% of drivers who require coaching. On average, one manager is responsible for coaching 75 drivers.

Industry Expert Effectiveness and Cost Recommendations

AST Low Effectiveness High Effectiveness Cost
AEB 28% of preventable rear-end crashes 41% of preventable rear-end crashes $2,500
LDW 30% of preventable sideswipes run-off-road, and head-on crashes 47.8% of preventable sideswipes run-off-road, and head-on crashes $1,000
Video-Based OSM 20% of preventable crashes 52.2% of preventable crashes $525 for hardware, $40 monthly fee, driver and manager coaching

References

  1. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. (2018). 2018 Pocket Guide to Large Truck and Bus Statistics. Washington, D.C.: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.
  2. Camden, M.C., Medina-Flintsch, A., Hickman, J.S., Miller, A.M., & Hanowski, R.J. (2017a). Leveraging Large Truck Technology and Engineering to Realize Safety Gains: Automatic Emergency Braking Systems. Washington D.C.: AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety.
  3. Camden, M.C., Medina- Flintsch, A., Hickman, J.S., Miller, A.M., & Hanowski, R.J. (2017b). Leveraging Large Truck Technology and Engineering to Realize Safety Gains: Lane Departure Warning Systems. Washington D.C.: AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety.
  4. Camden, M.C., Medina- Flintsch, A., Hickman, J.S., Miller, A.M., & Hanowski, R.J. (2017c). Leveraging Large Truck Technology and Engineering to Realize Safety Gains: Video-Based Onboard Safety Monitoring Systems. Washington D.C.: AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety.
  5. Kuehn, M., Hummel, T. & Bende, J. (2011). Advanced driver assistance systems for trucks – benefit estimation from real-life accidents. Proceedings of the 22nd International Technical Conference on Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, Washington, D.C.
  6. Jermakian, J. S. (2012). Crash avoidance potential of four large truck technologies. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 49, 338-346.
  7. Woodrooffe, J., Blower, D., Bao, S., Bogard, S., Flannagan, C., Green, P. E., & LeBlanc, D. (2012). Final Report: Performance Characterization and Safety Effectiveness Estimates of Forward Collision Avoidance and Mitigation Systems for Medium/Heavy Commercial Vehicles. (Docket No. NHTSA-2013-0067). Washington, D.C.: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
  8. Hickman, J. S., Geo, F., Camden, M. C., Medina, A., Hanowski, R. J., & Mabry, E. (2013). Onboard Safety System Effectiveness Evaluation Final Report. (Report No. FMCSA-RRT-12-012). Washington, D.C.: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.
  9. Birkland, C. (2016, January 22). Strapping in to advanced safety offerings. Retrieved April 6, 2016, from http://www.fleetequipmentmag.com/heavy-duty-truck-advanced-safety-radar-lane-detection/
  10. Toeh, E. (2020). Effectiveness of Front Crash Prevention Systems in Reducing Large Truck Crash Rates. Arlington, VA: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.
  11. Camden, M.C., Hickman, J.S., & Hanowski, R.J. (2019). Effective Strategies to Improve Safety: Case Studies of Commercial Motor Carrier Safety Advancement (Report No. 19-UI-072). Blacksburg, VA: National Surface Transportation Safety Center for Excellence.
  12. Berg, T. (2016). Wabco-SmartDrive System Uses Video Analytics. Retrieved April 6, 2016 from http://www.truckinginfo.com/channel/products/news/story/2016/04/wabco-smart-drive-system-uses-video-analytics.aspx
  13. NorthAmerican Transportation Association. (n.d.). Collision mitigation systems. Retrieved April 12, 2016, from http://www.ntassoc.com/uploads/FileLinks/be1d5f8106d64e0198d776625e0f31aa/Colision%20Mitigation%20Systems.pdf
  14. Pomerleau, D., Jochem, T., Thorpe, C., Batavia, P., Pape, D., Hadden, J., McMillian, N., Brown, N., & Everson, J. (1999). Run-off-Road Collision Avoidance Using IVHS Countermeasures. (Report No. DOT HS 809 170). Washington, D.C.: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
  15. de Ridder, S. N., Hogema, J., Hoedemaeker, M. (2003). The Dutch Experience with Lane Departure Warning Systems: A Field Operational Test. TNO Document TM-03-C048.
  16. Orban, J., Hadden, J., Stark, G., & Brown, V. (2006). Evaluation of the Mack Intelligent Vehicle Initiative Field Operational Test. (Report No. FMCSA-06-016).Washington, D.C.: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.
  17. Visvikis, C., Smith, T. L., Pitcher, M., & Smith, R. (2008). Study on Lane Departure Warning and Lane Change Assistant Systems: Final Report. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.
  18. Johnson, S. L. (2008). Human Factors Study of Driver Assistance Systems to Reduce Lane Departures and Side Collision Accidents. Fayetteville, AR: Mack-Blackwell Rural Transportation Center.
  19. Kingsley, K. J. (2009). Evaluating crash avoidance countermeasures using data from FMCSA/NHTSA's Large Truck Crash Causation Study. Proceedings of the 21nd International Technical Conference on Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, Stuttgart, Germany.
  20. Houser, A., Murray, D., Shackelford, S., Kreeb, R., & Dunn, T. (2009). Analysis of Benefits and Costs of Lane Departure Warning Systems for the Trucking Industry. (Report No. FMCSA-RRT-09-022). Washington, D.C.: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.
  21. Nodine, E., Lam, A., Wassim, N., Wilson, B., & Brewer, J. (2011). Integrated Vehicle-Based Safety Systems Heavy Truck Field Operational Test Independent Evaluation. (Report No. DOT HS 811 464). Washington, D.C.: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
  22. PeopleNet. (2016). Lane Departure Notifications. Retrieved April 14, 2016, from https://web.archive.org/web/20160601005022/https://www.peoplenetonline.com/products/safety-compliance/safety-monitoring-alerts/
  23. NorthAmerican Transportation Association (n.d.). Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety and Security Systems Technology: Lane Departure Warning Systems. Retrieved April 14, 2016, from http://www.ntassoc.com/uploads/FileLinks/be1d5f8106d64e0198d776625e0f31aa/Lane%20Departure%20Warning%20Systems.pdf
  24. Hickman, J. S., & Hanowski, R. J. (2010). Evaluating the Safety Benefits of a Low-cost Driving Behavior Management System in Commercial Vehicle Operations. (Report No. FMCSA-RRR-10-033). Washington, D.C.: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.
  25. Lytx®. (2017). Client Success. Retrieved November 8, 2017 from https://www.lytx.com/en-us/client-success
  26. Smartdrive® (2017). Case Studies. Retrieved November 8, 2017 from https://www.smartdrive.net/why-smartdrive/case-studies/

© Virginia Tech Transportation Institute • Contact Us • Privacy Policy