Vehicle manufacturers respond to both government mandate and consumer demand with an ever-increasing offering of standard and optional safety features in their vehicles, both proven and unproven in effectiveness. This report uses police reported crash data from Australia and New Zealand to estimate the potential road trauma reduction benefits of fitting the heavy vehicle fleet with some emerging safety technologies in terms of savings in fatal, serious injury, minor injury and property damage only crashes. Over the period 2008-2013 in Australia, there has been greater growth in heavy vehicle registrations and exposure, than for passenger vehicles with recent rigid truck registrations growth more than double, and recent articulated truck exposure growth more than twenty times that for passenger vehicles. The proportion of crashed vehicles that are heavy has remained stable at 4% from 2000 to 2010, however, it is expected that given the exposure and registration growth, the proportions in 2011 , 2012 and 2013 have increased, particularly for articulated trucks. In fact, an Australian trend of increasing crashes over 2002-2010 was observed for some heavy vehicle classes including road trains and observed in remote regions. Analysis of the available data found that heavy vehicles were disproportionately involved in more severe crashes, with 13% of fatal crashes involving heavy vehicles compared with 3-4% of lesser severity crashes. Over 2008-2010, fatal heavy vehicle crashes were more likely to occur in rural regions (63%, Australia, 73% New Zealand). In addition, fatal and serious injury heavy vehicle crashes in rural and remote areas were more likely to involve articulated trucks and road trains. Amongst heavy vehicles, the fatalities per fatal crash were found to be greatest for these two heavy vehicle types. This does not mean that there is no heavy vehicle crash issue in metropolitan regions. It was of particular concern that the majority of non-fatal heavy vehicle collisions were occurring in population dense areas, where the collision partner is generally a smaller vehicle offering less protection with a commensurately greater severity of injury resulting than would be incurred in a light passenger vehicle to light passenger vehicle collision. Metropolitan crashes are frequently at intersections; around 40% of the non-fatal heavy vehicle crashes occurred at intersections. Metropolitan heavy vehicle crashes more frequently involved rigid trucks and buses. Bus crashes in particular were found to present a 3-8 times greater risk of a pedestrian injury crash than did other heavy vehicle types. Analysis estimated the savings that would be made if specific primary safety technology fitment were mandated for heavy vehicles including; Electronic Stability Control (ESC), Autonomous Emergency Braking Systems (AEBS), Fatigue Warning Systems (FWS) and Lane Departure Warning Systems (LDWS). The savings were estimated through considering fitment to heavy vehicles of all years of manufacture crashing from 2008 to 2010 in NZ, NSW, VIC, SA and WA and from 2007-2009 in QLD and averaged to give an annual crash reduction. Annual Australian crash cost savings were calculated using the average 2006 crash costs published by BITRE (Bureau of Infrastructure Transport and Regional Economics [BITRE] 2009) indexed via CPI to 2013 dollars (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2006). Annual New Zealand crash cost savings were similarly estimated from CPI (Statistics New Zealand) adjusted New Zealand Ministry of Transport average 2012 crash costs (Financial Economic and Statistical Analysis Team 2013). An estimation of the possible lifetime savings for a cohort of all heavy vehicles manufactured in 2010 was approximated using the cross section of crashed heavy vehicles averaged over the three years. The possible savings to society was shown without consideration of the cost involved in adding the safety technologies to the vehicles, so a Break-Even cost was provided to determine the expenditure per vehicle possible before the crash savings equal the cost of fitment. The break-even cost represents the average trauma cost savings per vehicle due to fitting the technology and was calculated for both vehicles with a 2010 year of manufacture and for vehicles across all years of manufacture. The former provides the break-even cost in the first year of a vehicle’s life and the latter approximates the break-even cost over a vehicle’s lifetime. Because of their association with the most prevalent crash types, Autonomous Emergency Braking Systems (AEBS) at all speeds, in all heavy vehicles, were estimated to produce the largest percentage reduction in fatal heavy vehicle crashes. A 25% fatal crash decrease was estimated to be valued at $62-187M for Australia and $21 -62M for New Zealand. In terms of lives saved annually, this translated to 67 in Australia and 14 in New Zealand. The Australian heavy vehicle type with the greatest estimated savings in fatal crashes associated with AEBS fitment were rigid trucks, however, monetary savings for prime movers was highest ranging from $24-73M (cf. $23-68M for rigid trucks). Australian AEBS break even costs, over all crash severities, in the first year of a new vehicle, amounted to, at most, only $200, however, over a lifetime, break-even costs were estimated at up to $10,300 per registered vehicle. With 83% of Australian heavy vehicle crashes involving another vehicle which in 89% of cases was a light passenger vehicle, analysis estimated that more than half of all heavy vehicle crashes were considered sensitive to (possibly prevented by) AEBS technology; 70% for Australian fatal, 77% for New Zealand fatal and 65% for serious injury crashes. Rigid trucks were the heavy vehicle type estimated to have the greatest potential crash saving benefits from AEBS and were the most prevalent heavy vehicle type in metropolitan crashes. Growth in some of the already substantial proportions of AEBS sensitive crashes heavy vehicle crashes was also observed. In Australia this included fatal and serious injury multi-vehicle bus and road-train crashes and collisions with unprotected vehicles (bicycles and motorcycles) of all severities. When considering this growth in conjunction with the demonstrated heavy vehicle crash problem in metropolitan areas and the estimated benefits of AEBS, particularly for rigid trucks, there is a strong case for mandating AEBS in an attempt to reduce metropolitan heavy vehicle crashes and in particular, those involving more vulnerable road users. Lane Departure Warning Systems, Electronic Stability Control and Fatigue Warning Systems if fitted to all heavy vehicles were estimated to potentially save 16, 11 and 10 and 10, 5 and 4 fatalities per year in Australia and New Zealand respectively. Each of these technologies were estimated to be able to prevent approximately 4-6% of Australian fatal heavy vehicle crashes, saving society a possible $45, $31 and $28 million respectively if mandated in all heavy vehicles. The proportion of New Zealand fatal heavy vehicle crashes that could be prevented by these technologies was higher than in Australia. Combined with higher New Zealand Crash costs, similar cost savings associated with each technology were estimated for New Zealand of $45M, 24M and $16M respectively. Australian Break-Even costs, over crashes of all severities, for each of these technologies in the first year amounted to less than $60. However, over a lifetime, the break-even costs ranged from $2,000 to $3,000 per registered vehicle. Heavy vehicle crash data over 2002-2010 showed growth in road train crashes, in heavy vehicle exposure, in proportions of fatal heavy vehicle crashes in rural areas, and crash types potentially prevented by ESC, LDWS and FWS. It also showed large proportions of more serious crashes to be sensitive to these technologies, and particularly so for articulated trucks and road trains. Observed crash growth and relevance of each technology in preventing serious crashes suggests encouraging and ultimately mandating these technologies will assist in reducing deaths and serious injuries from crashes involving heavy vehicles.. It should be noted that the crash savings attributable to these technologies are not mutually exclusive although there is some potential synergistic benefits from combinations of the technology. Although LDWS, ESC and FWS are targeted to essentially loss of control crashes, they have different mechanisms and limitations so will act on different crashes within this general loss of control crash type. ESC is the only system that responds to yaw instability and is most efficient in low friction situations. LDWS will be most effective in higher friction situations on edge marked roads in fine conditions and at higher speeds. FWS will address some instances of lane departure in addition to those detected by LDWS, but will add detection of other fatigue related crash types not involving lane departure or prevent lane departure crashes where the LDWS may be unable to get the driver’s attention in time. AEBS is effective on crashes that are generally not prevented by LDWS, ESC and FWS, and the AEBS relevant crashes are more frequently found in in areas (metropolitan) where the other technologies are less effective. Analysis did not find LDWS, ESC and FWS to be highly cost effective over the first year of vehicle ownership although these technologies are generally installed in the vehicle for their lifetime so the lifetime cost effectiveness estimates are most relevant. It is possible crash savings estimated were conservative since the crash costs used were an average across all vehicle types. Crashes involving trucks are potentially higher cost than average due to expenses incurred to freight carriers from damaged loads and timetable disruptions which are specific to this vehicle type. With the expected growth in heavy vehicle exposure on Australian and New Zealand roads, and expected decreases in the cost of the technology as the market responds to European mandates and uptake increases, these technologies may become more cost effective. Each of AEBS, LDWS and ESC have been shown in previous heavy vehicle studies to reduce heavy vehicle crashes of all severities, to be cost effective and to be accepted by drivers, which has led to AEBS and LDWS fitment mandates in Europe in N2, N3, M2 and M3 vehicles. This background in combination with the potential crash reduction benefits estimated in fitting these technologies to heavy vehicles in Australia and New Zealand established in this study point to a need to promote the uptake and eventual mandate of these technologies in Australasia. Results also point to the need to continue to evaluate the effectiveness of these technologies in real world application in Australasia as they become more prevalent in the fleet. (Author/publisher)
Samenvatting