Implications of Crashes Involving Roadway Objects for Machine Vision-Based Driving Systems

Abstract

Crashes involving roadway objects can cause severe injuries and property damage. Utilizing data from the Second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP 2) naturalistic driving study (NDS), this study investigated crashes involving roadway objects and their implications for the potential of machine vision-based driving systems in preventing such crashes. A comprehensive statistical and machine learning analysis was first conducted to identify major factors affecting the occurrence and severity of such events. Machine vision performance metrics (based on the SHRP 2 NDS cameras) and human driving decisions were then analyzed to identify opportunities where machine vision systems could particularly mitigate risk factors. The results suggest that driver behaviors/errors, speed, reaction time, and object characteristics played the most significant role in the occurrence and severity outcome of the SHRP 2 events. The average object detection distance based on the SHRP 2 cameras was approximately 20 m for all objects. The average reaction time provided by the SHRP 2 cameras was 1.5 s for all events but 1.1 s for events involving animals and roadway debris. In general, the machine vision reaction time was longer than the driver reaction time for approximately 95% of all analyzed events and 75% of the events in which drivers reacted before collisions. Drivers were able to make safe evasive maneuvers in 56% of all analyzed events and 72% events involving roadway debris and animals. Based on these results, the paper discusses in detail when and how machine vision systems could assist in preventing crashes involving roadway objects.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Traffic Safety Facts 2015. Publication DOT HS 812 384. https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/Publication/812384. Accessed December 7, 2017.

Lambert

Understanding the Fatal Tesla Accident on Autopilot and the NHTSA Probe. 2016. https://youtube.com/c/electrekco. Accessed February 28, 2019.

Beene

Levin

Newcomer

Human Driver Could Have Avoided Fatal Uber Crash, Experts Say. 2018. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-22/video-said-to-show-failure-of-uber-s-tech-in-fatal-arizona-crash. Accessed February 28, 2019.

Favarò

F. M.

Nader

Eurich

S. O.

Tripp

Varadaraju

Examining Accident Reports Involving Autonomous Vehicles in California. PLoS One, Vol. 12, No. 9, 2017, p. e0184952.

Favarò

F. M.

Eurich

S. O.

Nader

Autonomous Vehicles’ Disengagements: Trends, Triggers, and Regulatory Limitations. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 110, 2017, pp. 136–148.

Ranft

Stiller

The Role of Machine Vision for Intelligent Vehicles. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles, Vol. 1, No. 1, 2016, pp. 8–19.

Elkerdawi

S. M.

Sayed

ElHelw

Real-Time Vehicle Detection and Tracking Using Haar-Like Features and Compressive Tracking. In OBOT2013: First Iberian Robotics Conference. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing ( Armada

Sanfeliu

Ferre

, eds.), Springer, Cham, 2014.

Shustanov

Yakimov

CNN Design for Real-Time Traffic Sign Recognition. Procedia Engineering, Vol. 201, 2017, pp. 718–725.

Chen

Vehicle and Pedestrian Detection using Support Vector Machine and Histogram of Oriented Gradients Features. Presented at 2013 International Conference on Computer Sciences and Applications, Wuhan, 2013.

10.

Campbell

The SHRP 2 Naturalistic Driving Study: Addressing Driver Performance and Behavior in Traffic Safety. TR News, Vol. 282, 2012, pp. 30–35.

11.

Hankey

J. M.

Perez

M. A.

McClafferty

J. A.

Description of the SHRP 2 Naturalistic Database and the Crash, Near-Crash, and Baseline Data Sets. Virginia Tech Transportation Institute, Blacksburg, Va., 2016.

12.

Y. E.

Hao

Gibbons

R. B.

Medina

Understanding Crashes Involving Roadway Objects with SHRP 2 Naturalistic Driving Study Data. Journal of Safety Research, Vol. 73, 2020, pp. 199–209.

13.

Liu

Wang

Using Support Vector Machine Models for Crash Injury Severity Analysis. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 45, 2012, pp. 478–486.

14.

Lord

Zhang

Xie

Predicting Motor Vehicle Crashes using Support Vector Machine Models. Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol. 40, No. 4, 2008, pp. 1611–1618.

15.

SAS/STAT 9.2 User’s Guide, Second Edition. SAS Institute Inc. https://support.sas.com/documentation/cdl/en/statug/63033/HTML/default/viewer.htm#statug_reg_sect038.htm. Accessed April 20, 2018.

16.

Hosmer

D. W.

Lemeshow

Applied Logistic Regression, 3rd ed. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 2013.

17.

Cortes

Vapnik

Support-Vector Networks. Machine Learning, Vol. 20, No. 3, 1995, pp. 273–297.

18.

Hsu

C. W.

Lin

C. J.

A Comparison of Methods for Multiclass Support Vector Machines. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, Vol. 13, No. 2, 2002, pp. 415–425.

19.

Fish

K. E.

Blodgett

J. G.

A Visual Method for Determining Variable Importance in an Artificial Neural Network Model: An Empirical Benchmark Study. Journal of Targeting Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, Vol. 11, No. 3, 2013, pp. 244–254.

20.

Tomak

Topuz

Eryarsoy

Investigating Injury Severity Risk Factors in Automobile Crashes with Predictive Analytics and Sensitivity Analysis Methods. Journal of Transport & Health, Vol. 4, 2017, pp. 118–131.

21.

Sharda

Bessonov

Identifying Significant Predictors of Injury Severity in Traffic Accidents using a Series of Artificial Neural Networks. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 38, No. 3, 2006, pp. 434–444.