|
| Authors | Methods | ADAS systems | Area of study | Findings |
|
| Brown et al. [8] | Analytical analysis | FCW | AS | TTC and driver reaction time had the most effects on FCW performance |
| Lee et al. [9] | Driving simulator | FCW | ES | For distracted drivers, early warning reduced the number of collisions by 80.7% and its severity by 96.5%. The ∆V for a subject vehicle was used to measure the crash severity |
| Ervin and Sayer [10] | Field operational test | FCW | ES (safety + driver acceptance) | The rate and severity of traffic conflicts did not change with or without FCW systems, and the acceptance of FCW was mixed due to the false alarms |
| Lee and Peng [7] | Naturalistic driving data | FCW | AS | Six FCW algorithms were analyzed based on the kinematic data extracted from 107 cases. The JHU APL algorithm developed by NHTSA and John Hopkins showed the best performance |
| Sugimoto and Sauer [11] | Simulation | FCW | ES (safety) | 38% reduction in the total number of crashes and 44% reduction in fatal injuries |
| Najm and Stearns [12] | Field operational test | FCW + adaptive cruise control | ES (safety + driver acceptance) | 8–23% crash reduction for speed <35 mph and 11–26% reduction for the vehicle’s speed >35. Overall, this system can reduce all rear-end crashes by 10%, and the acceptance of FCW was mixed due to the false alerts |
| Breuer and Faulhaber [13] | Driving simulator | Braking assistant system | ES (safety) | 44% rear-end crash reduction |
| Jamson and Lai [14] | Driving simulator | FCW | AS | Introduced the adaptive FCW system based on driver style |
| Kullgren [15] | Field data and simulation | AEB | ES (safety) | 44% reduction of MAIS 2+ injuries in rear-end collisions for a reduced delta-v with 10 kmph |
| Georgi and Zimmermann [16] | Field data analysis | FCW + AEB | ES (safety) | Quantify the driver reaction based on three types of drivers: realistic, best, and lethargic. For the realistic driver, the AEB decreased the rear-end crashes by 72% |
| Kuehn and Hummel [17] | Field data analysis | FCW + AEB | ES (safety) | 5.7%–40.8% reduction of all car crash types based on a combination of active safety systems |
| Mohebbi and Gray [2] | Driving simulator | FCW | ES (driver acceptance) | Evaluated the effectiveness of different warning systems including tactile and auditory on the distracted driver. They found that the tactile warning is more effective |
| Coelingh and Eidehall [18] | Field operational test | FCW + AEB | ES (safety) | Evaluate the effectiveness of the systems in velocity reduction and stopping distance for the pedestrian crash scenarios based on NHTSA test procedures |
| Kusano and Gabler [19] | Field data + analytical analysis | AEB | ES (safety) | 12%–50% reduction of delta-v for the subject vehicle |
| Up to 14% reduction of collisions |
| 19%–57% reduction of injury |
| Jermakian [5] | Field data analysis | FCW | ES (safety) | FCW had the greatest potential to prevent all crash types among other systems including side view assist, lane departure warning, and adaptive headlights |
| Bella and Russo [20] | Driving simulator | FCW | AS | Evaluated different warning algorithms and developed a new warning algorithm |
| Kusano and Gabler [21] | Field data analysis | FCW | AS | Data from EDR system of 47 rear-end crashes were extracted to quantify the driving reaction. The average brake level was 0.52 g in 1.1 to 1.4 s before the crash |
| Kusano and Gabler [22] | Field data + analytical analysis | FCW + AEB | ES (safety) | Reduce the ∆V 14%–34% |
| Up to 50% reduction of fatal injuries |
| Up to 7.7% reduction of crash numbers |
| Isaksson-Hellman and Lindman [23] | Field data analysis | FCW + AEB | ES (safety) | They used insurance data for specific car models and found 23% rear-end crash reduction |
| Anderson and Doecke [24] | Simulation | AEB | ES (safety) | Predicted the AEB system is highly effective to reduce the risk of pedestrian crashes |
| Chauvel and Page [25] | Field data analysis | AEB | ES (safety) | Up to 15.3% reduction of fatal pedestrian crashes |
| Rosen [26] | Field data analysis | AEB | ES (safety) | Up to 40% reduction of injury severity for the vulnerable road users |
| Rizzi and Kullgren [27] | Field data analysis | FCW + AEB | ES (safety) | The low-speed AEB reduces the striking rear-end crashes (speed area of 50 km/h) by 54–57% |
| The overall reduction regardless of the speed was 35%–41% |
| Doyle and Edwards [28] | Field data analysis | AEB | ES (safety) | Substantial claim prevention of the third party |
| 8% lower for own damage |
| 21% lower third party injury |
| Fildes and Keall [29] | Field data analysis | AEB | ES (safety) | 38% reduction of rear-end crashes |
| No differences in effectiveness between various speeds |
| Flannagan and LeBlanc [30] | Naturalistic driving data | FCW | AS (system performance) | Provided detailed information about alert events and driving exposure of 1985 vehicles over a year. The most common type scenarios that FCW was activated were approaching slower or accelerating vehicle |
| Grove and Atwood [31] | Naturalistic driving data | FCW + AEB | AS (system performance) + ES (driver acceptance) | Studied the AEB performance of 150 heavy vehicles and its effects on diver behavior and quantified the situations for false AEB activation |
| Han and Heo [32] | Analytical analysis | AEB + FCW | AS | Improved the robustness of object detection using the vehicle’s kinematics |
| Isaksson-Hellman and Lindman [33] | Field data analysis | AEB + FCW | ES (safety) | 47% reduction for occupant injuries of the struck vehicle |
| Rosado and Chien [34] | Analytical analysis | AEB | AS | Suggested the safety margin in terms of time and distance for AEB |
| Wang and Chen [35] | Driving simulator | FCW | AS | Developed the kinematic-based algorithm |
| Cicchino [36] | Field data analysis | FCW + AEB | ES (safety) | The FCW + AEB reduced the rear-end crashes by 50%. The rates of rear-end crashes with injuries were reduced by 56% and 59% for striking and struck vehicles, respectively |
| Li and Xing [37] | Simulation | FCW + AEB | ES (safety) | Analyzed the adverse weather on multirear-end crashes found that the AEB is the most effective safety system to reduce these types of crashes |
| Lubbe [38] | Driving simulator | FCW | AS (vehicle performance) + ES (driver acceptance) | Quantified the brake reaction time and brake behavior and found the reaction time for a heavily distracted driver is 1 s |
| Scanlon and Sherony [39] | Field data analysis + simulation | FCW + AEB | ES (safety) | The crash reduction in the intersection with FCW was 0–23% and with AEB was 25–59%. Injury reductions were 0–25% for FCW and 38–79% for the AEB system |
| Jermakian and Bao [40] | Naturalistic driving data | FCW | ES (driving behavior) | Waring can improve the lane-keeping and turn-signal behaviors of teenage drivers but may result in more close-following behaviors |
| Flannagan and LeBlanc [41] | Naturalistic driving data | FCW + AEB | AS (system performance) | They studied data from 1021 specific vehicle models over a year to quantify the AEB performance such as the distribution of initial velocities where the system was activated. Their indirect safety assessment showed 45% reduction of rear-end crashes |
| Sander and Lubbe [42] | Field data analysis + simulation | AEB | ES (safety) | Evaluated field intersection crash data to provide a set of scenarios that can be used to assess the performance of AEB systems |
| Wang and Xi [43] | Naturalistic driving data + analytical analysis | FCW + AEB | AS | Developed a method to formulate the driver’s braking behavior from a perception decision action perspective |
| Yue and Abdel-Aty [44] | Driving simulator | FCW | AS | They provided a comprehensive overview of the research that has been conducted on crash avoidance effectiveness and also found that the FCW under the fog condition can reduce 35% of near-crash events |
| Wu and Abdel-Aty [45] | Driving simulator | FCW | ES (driver behavior) | Quantified the effects of fog conditions on driver reaction and braking behavior with the existence of the FCW system |
| Lee and Jeong [46] | Field data analysis | AEB | ES (safety) | 25% injury reduction |
| Zhao and Ito [47] | Simulation | AEB | AS + ES (safety) | Conducted a series of simulations with different AEB algorithm’s parameters and found the sensor angle is highly effective to reduce the car-to-bicyclist crashes |
| Arbabzadeh and Jafari [48] | Naturalistic driving data | FCW | AS | Estimate the driver reaction time based on driver’s characteristics to improve the warning time |
| Flannagan and Leslie [49] | Field data analysis | FCW + AEB | ES (safety) | They linked the police-reported crash data with a vehicle identification number and found that only FCW can reduce 16% reduction of rear-end crashes and AEB (with ACC) can reduce the same crash type by 45% |
| Lei and Qin [50] | Simulation | FCW + AEB | AS | Developed a new algorithm to meet the requirements of automobile safety and comfort |
| Newstead and Budd [51] | Field data analysis | AEB | ES (safety) | 36% reduction of fatal crashes for the speed less than 60 km/h and 45% for speed above 60 km/h |
| Salaani and Elsasser [52] | Field operational test | FCW + AEB | AS (system performance) | Conducted test performance for heavy vehicles |
| Wang and Zhong [53] | Field data analysis | All types of ADAS technologies | ES (safety) | Provide recommendations for what kind of ADAS technology should be prioritized based on countries crash data |
| Zhu and Wang [54] | Naturalistic driving data | FCW | ES (driver behavior + traffic conditions) | Quantify the driver reaction when the FCW activated and the traffic conditions (1.3 s was the mean value for driver reaction time). The FCW can potentially increase traffic efficiency |
|
