AEBS and LDWS Exemptions Feasibility Study: 2011 Update MVWG Meeting, Brussels, 6 th July 2011
Contents Background Method and assumptions Effectiveness estimates Cost estimates Cost Benefit Analyses Results Conclusions and limitations Page 2
Background General Safety Regulation aims to mandate AEBS and LDWS for all N2, N3, M2 and M3 vehicles; Exemptions permitted if cost/benefit analysis and/or other vehicle-specific safety aspects show fitment to be inappropriate; TRL completed a detailed cost-benefit analysis of various specific N2/N3 and M2/M3 vehicle types in 2010. This update project was to repeat that analysis but to consider the effects of: - Any new evidence on system costs and effectiveness. - Phased implementation proposals for AEBS: FCW/AEBS-M & then AEBS-A. - Draft UNECE performance requirements for LDWS. Page 3
Method & Assumptions Short, desk-based study; Information gathered from published literature and stakeholders (email sent to various system suppliers and OEMs), on costs and effectiveness part costs and development costs, and likely changes over time; No updating of EU-27 casualty estimates or vehicle stock/new registration data 2010 study data used; Main analysis limited to N3, N2>7.5t, N2<=7.5t, M3 and M2; LDWS assumed fitted to all new vehicles from Year 1; FCW assumed to be fitted to N2<=7.5t & M2 vehicles, and AEBS-M to N3, N2>7.5t & M3 for Years 1-5. AEBS-A to all vehicles from Year 6 onwards; Cost-benefit calculations based on simple 15 year evaluation period. Page 4
Effectiveness estimates LDWS - Draft technical requirements do not require alterations to earlier assumptions about effectiveness; - Stakeholders agreed that, in general, systems conforming to the draft requirements would be similar to existing systems; - No significant differences with capability assumptions used in 2010 study; - Some new evidence on real-world effectiveness, e.g. small field operational trial in USA (overall effectiveness estimate of 26-47%), and a US accident study (relevance in 35-55% of lane departure accidents); - 2010 study used range of 20-60%, based on various other studies published up to that time. New data suggests a range of 30-50% is now more appropriate. Page 5
Effectiveness estimates FCW/AEBS-M/AEBS-A - Stakeholders agreed that FCW systems would be essentially the same as AEBS-M, just without the autonomous braking. Sensors and detection algorithms basically the same; - Stakeholders also suggested that FCW would provide the bulk of the casualty benefit, with AEBS-M and then AEBS-A providing progressively less additional benefit; - Stakeholders and the literature support the view that systems would be more effective with moving targets than with stationary targets; - Literature suggests FCW would prevent 15-25% of all rear shunts. Assumption made that this is equivalent to saving 25-40% of moving target casualties and 5-10% of stationary target; - Model further assumes that AEBS-M adds 10% to these figures, and AEBS-A another 5%. Page 6
Effectiveness estimates System Moving target effectiveness Stationary target effectiveness Overall effectiveness FCW 25-40% 5-10% 15-25% AEBS-M 35-45% 15-20% 25-32.5% AEBS-A 40-50% 20-25% 30-37.5% 2010 study used range of 20-50% for both moving target and stationary targets, based on literature available at the time (for moving targets); Stationary target analysis in 2010 assumed a hypothetical future system; 2011 update gives more realistic combined estimates for likely systems. Page 7
Cost estimates LDWS - Stakeholders provided initial costs of 300-400 (range used in 2010 was 200-600); - Range of views on how fast these might change (reduce) over time from no reduction in short term to 20% per annum falls over next five years, due both to higher volumes and innovation; - Other vehicle technologies (e.g. ESC and ABS) were reported to have reduced in cost by 3-12% per annum; - Literature review suggests as a general rule that costs fall by about 20% for every doubling of production volumes; - Information used to define high cost and low cost scenario assumptions. Page 8
Cost estimates (LDWS) High scenario 400 Year 1, 3% per annum fall; Low scenario 300 Year 1, 20% per annum fall to Year 5, then no change. Page 9
Cost estimates FCW/AEBS - Stakeholders provided initial costs of 400-600 for moving target systems, assumed to be equivalent to AEBS-M (range used in 2010 was 150-1,000); A supplier suggested 105-125. - Suggested additional costs of 500-600 per vehicle for nonpneumatic braking systems and/or non-pneumatic rear suspensions; - Agreed that AEBS-M and FCW would be same costs; - Divergence of views on AEBS-A: some thought same as AEBS-M, others thought more expensive for extra system reliability and complexity; - Divergence also on likely cost reductions, from no change in short term to 30% over next five years (equivalent to 7% per annum); - Suggestion also that sensor fusion would mean some LDWS costs would off-set some FCW/AEBS costs; - Agreement that capability more likely to improve, e.g. pedestrians, junctions, for same cost. Page 10
Cost estimates FCW/AEBS - Main extra costs (for non-pneumatic vehicles) suggested to be oneoff rather than on-going, e.g: - Real-world driver/braking characteristics data gathering; - Development of a suitable energy reservoir and autonomous brake actuation mechanism. - Other costs for self-levelling device for sensors (vehicles with steel rear suspensions) and possible fitment of full EBS. - Complex set of conditions to factor in, e.g. additional benefits of EBS, proportion of vehicles affected, years to spread development costs; - High scenario assumes 575 Year 1 for FCW/AEBS-M (allowing 25 for sensor fusion), then 3% per annum fall, but back up to 575 in Year 6 for start of AEBS-A; - High also allows 600 per vehicle development costs for 4 years for M2, 300 per vehicle for 4 years for more numerous N2 <=7.5t (assumed to be mostly non-pneumatic braking). Page 11
Cost estimates FCW/AEBS - Low scenario assumes 225 Year 1 for FCW/AEBS-M (allowing 50 for sensor fusion), then 7% per annum fall, with AEBS-A costing same as FCW and AEBS-M in Year 6; - Low also allows 500 per vehicle development costs for 2 years for M2, 250 per vehicle for 2 years for more numerous N2 <=7.5t; - Development costs add up to 61million - 146million for M2 and N2<=7.5t; - Costs of self-levelling systems thought by stakeholders to be c. 50 initially, but only applies to small number of vehicles so likely to be already within low-high range used. - Vehicle sub-types use same cost assumptions as relevant major group. N2 categories not split by GVW, e.g. N2 off road, use N2<=7.5t cost model. Page 12
Cost Benefit Analyses Phased analysis allowing for effectiveness and gradual introduction into vehicle fleet over 15 year evaluation period (via mandatory fitment to all new vehicles). Results in form of break-even costs (maximum average cost of systems per vehicle to provide a benefit-cost ratio > 1) and benefit:cost ratios (based on estimated system cost ranges). Page 13
Results major vehicle types, LDWS LDWS Vehicle Stock (1000s) New reg per year (1000s) Casualty values ( m) Totals BCRs Scenario Lower Mid Upper Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 High per vehicle costs ( ) 400 388 376 365 354 343 333 323 313 304 295 286 278 269 261 All data in this section below taken from 3% reduction per year TRL 2010 Study (Robinson et al, 2010) Low per vehicle costs ( ) 300 240 192 154 123 123 123 123 123 123 123 123 123 123 123 20% reduction per year for Years 2-5, then costs stabilise Low Mid High System effectiveness 30% 40% 50% Total vehicles fitted (1000s) 317 634 950 1267 1584 1901 2218 2535 2851 3168 3192 3192 3192 3192 3192 N3 3192 317 1145 1465 1754 High costs ( m) 127 123 119 116 112 109 106 102 99 96 93 91 88 85 83 1549 2.3 Low Low costs ( m) 95 76 61 49 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 709 5.4 Mid High benefits ( m) 87 174 261 348 435 522 609 696 783 870 877 877 877 877 877 9172 12.9 High Low benefits ( m) 34 68 102 136 170 205 239 273 307 341 344 344 344 344 344 3593 Mid costs ( m) 111 99 90 82 76 74 72 71 69 68 66 65 63 62 61 1129 Mid benefits ( m) 58 116 174 233 291 349 407 465 523 581 586 586 586 586 586 6127 Total vehicles fitted (1000s) 12 24 35 47 59 71 83 94 106 118 130 142 154 165 177 N2>7.5t 333 12 103 128 150 High costs ( m) 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 58 2.3 Low Low costs ( m) 4 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 26 5.2 Mid High benefits ( m) 3 5 8 11 13 16 19 21 24 27 29 32 35 37 40 320 12.1 High Low benefits ( m) 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 132 Mid costs ( m) 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 42 Mid benefits ( m) 2 4 5 7 9 11 13 15 16 18 20 22 24 25 27 218 Total vehicles fitted (1000s) 94 189 283 377 472 566 661 755 849 944 1038 1132 1227 1321 1416 N2<=7.5t 2175 94 372 460 539 High costs ( m) 38 37 36 34 33 32 31 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 25 461 1.3 Low Low costs ( m) 28 23 18 14 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 211 2.8 Mid High benefits ( m) 12 23 35 47 58 70 82 94 105 117 129 140 152 164 175 1403 6.6 High Low benefits ( m) 5 10 15 19 24 29 34 39 44 48 53 58 63 68 73 581 Mid costs ( m) 33 30 27 24 23 22 22 21 21 20 20 19 19 19 18 336 Mid benefits ( m) 8 16 24 32 40 48 56 64 72 80 88 96 104 112 120 958 Total vehicles fitted (1000s) 43 86 128 171 214 257 299 342 385 428 470 513 556 599 641 M3 662 43 503 618 720 High costs ( m) 17 17 16 16 15 15 14 14 13 13 13 12 12 12 11 209 5.6 Low Low costs ( m) 13 10 8 7 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 96 12.6 Mid High benefits ( m) 23 46 70 93 116 139 163 186 209 232 256 279 302 325 349 2789 29.2 High Low benefits ( m) 10 19 29 39 49 58 68 78 88 97 107 117 127 136 146 1169 Mid costs ( m) 15 13 12 11 10 10 10 10 9 9 9 9 9 8 8 152 Mid benefits ( m) 16 32 48 64 80 96 112 128 144 160 176 192 208 224 240 1916 Total vehicles fitted (1000s) 14 29 43 57 71 86 100 114 128 143 157 171 185 200 214 M2 221 14 30 37 43 High costs ( m) 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 70 1.0 Low Low costs ( m) 4 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 32 2.3 Mid High benefits ( m) 1 3 4 6 7 8 10 11 12 14 15 17 18 19 21 167 5.2 High Low benefits ( m) 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 5 5 6 6 7 8 8 9 70 Mid costs ( m) 5 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 51 Mid benefits ( m) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 12 13 14 115 Page 14
Results major vehicle types, AEBS AEBS Vehicle Stock (1000s) New reg per year (1000s) Casualty values ( m) Totals BCRs Scenario Lower Mid Upper Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 High per vehicle costs ( ) 575 558 541 525 509 575 558 541 525 509 494 479 465 451 437 All data in this section below taken from 3% reduction per year FCW/AEBS-M AEBS-A TRL 2010 Study (Robinson et al, 2010) Low per vehicle costs ( ) 225 209 195 181 168 157 146 135 126 117 109 101 94 88 81 7% reduction per year FCW, AEBS-M & AEBS-A all at same cost FCW Low Mid High AEBS-M Low Mid High AEBS-A Low Mid High Effectiveness - moving 25% 32.5% 40% 35% 40% 45% 40% 45% 50% Effectiveness - stationary 5% 7.5% 10% 15% 17.5% 20% 20% 22.5% 25% Total vehicles fitted (1000s) 317 634 950 1267 1584 1901 2218 2535 2851 3168 3192 3192 3192 3192 3192 High per vehicle cost supplement ( ) Low per vehicle cost supplement ( ) N3 3192 317 Moving 919 1235 1561 High costs ( m) 182 177 171 166 161 182 177 171 166 161 156 152 147 143 138 2452 2.2 Low Stationary 971 1241 1541 Low costs ( m) 71 66 62 57 53 50 46 43 40 37 34 32 30 28 26 675 5.2 Mid High benefits ( m) 100 201 301 401 502 617 733 849 964 1080 1104 1120 1135 1150 1166 11423 16.9 High Low benefits ( m) 46 93 139 186 232 288 343 399 455 511 524 534 543 552 562 5407 Mid costs ( m) 127 121 117 112 107 116 111 107 103 99 95 92 89 85 82 1564 Mid benefits ( m) 71 141 212 282 353 436 519 602 684 767 786 798 810 823 835 8119 AEBS-M AEBS-A Total vehicles fitted (1000s) 12 24 35 47 59 71 83 94 106 118 130 142 154 165 177 High per vehicle cost supplement ( ) Low per vehicle cost supplement ( ) N2>7.5t 333 12 Moving 36 50 64 High costs ( m) 7 7 6 6 6 7 7 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 91 0.9 Low Stationary 36 63 91 Low costs ( m) 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 25 2.5 Mid High benefits ( m) 2 3 5 7 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 215 8.6 High Low benefits ( m) 1 1 2 3 3 4 5 5 6 7 8 9 9 10 11 84 Mid costs ( m) 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 58 Mid benefits ( m) 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 11 12 13 15 16 17 19 143 AEBS-M AEBS-A Total vehicles fitted (1000s) 94 189 283 377 472 566 661 755 849 944 1038 1132 1227 1321 1416 High per vehicle cost supplement ( ) 300 300 300 300 Low per vehicle cost supplement ( ) 250 250 N2<=7.5t 2175 94 Moving 196 278 351 High costs ( m) 54 81 79 78 76 54 53 51 50 48 47 45 44 43 41 844 0.5 Low Stationary 105 197 300 Low costs ( m) 21 20 18 41 39 15 14 13 12 11 10 10 9 8 8 248 1.3 Mid High benefits ( m) 7 15 22 30 37 48 59 70 80 91 102 113 124 135 146 1078 4.3 High Low benefits ( m) 2 5 7 9 12 16 20 25 29 33 38 42 46 51 55 390 Mid costs ( m) 38 50 49 59 58 35 33 32 31 30 28 27 26 25 24 546 Mid benefits ( m) 5 9 14 18 23 30 38 45 52 60 67 74 82 89 96 701 FCW AEBS-A Total vehicles fitted (1000s) 43 86 128 171 214 257 299 342 385 428 470 513 556 599 641 High per vehicle cost supplement ( ) Low per vehicle cost supplement ( ) M3 662 43 Moving 121 165 209 High costs ( m) 25 24 23 22 22 25 24 23 22 22 21 20 20 19 19 331 1.4 Low Stationary 91 181 278 Low costs ( m) 10 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 5 4 4 4 3 91 3.9 Mid High benefits ( m) 10 19 29 39 48 60 71 82 93 104 116 127 138 149 161 1246 13.7 High Low benefits ( m) 4 7 11 14 18 22 27 31 35 40 44 48 52 57 61 471 Mid costs ( m) 17 16 16 15 14 16 15 14 14 13 13 12 12 12 11 211 Mid benefits ( m) 6 13 19 25 32 39 46 54 61 69 76 83 91 98 106 818 AEBS-M AEBS-A Total vehicles fitted (1000s) 14 29 43 57 71 86 100 114 128 143 157 171 185 200 214 High per vehicle cost supplement ( ) 600 600 600 600 Low per vehicle cost supplement ( ) 500 500 M2 221 14 Moving 16 21 27 High costs ( m) 8 16 16 16 16 8 8 8 7 7 7 7 7 6 6 144 0.3 Low Stationary 3 10 17 Low costs ( m) 3 3 3 10 10 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 45 0.8 Mid High benefits ( m) 1 2 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 115 2.6 High Low benefits ( m) 0 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 5 6 42 Page 15 Mid costs ( m) 6 10 10 13 13 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 95 Mid benefits ( m) 0 1 1 2 2 3 4 5 5 6 7 8 8 9 10 73 FCW AEBS-A
Results - LDWS Vehicle Type Page 16 Stock (1000s) New registrations per annum (1000s) Effectiveness System costs (Year 1) EU-27 annual estimates LDWS Target population (Casualties) Phased Break-Even Costs ( ) (15 Yrs, fit to all new vehicles) Note 1 Updated Phased Benefit:Cost Ratios (15 Yrs, fit to all new vehicles) 2010 Benefit-Cost Ratios (from Robinson et al, 2010) Lower Mid Upper Lower Mid Upper Lower Mid Upper Lower Mid Upper 30% 40% 50% 400 350 300 N3 3192 317 5751 12641 20697 756 1,289 1,930 2.3 5.4 12.9 0.8 3.2 11.6 N3 >16t 2987 307 5511 12112 19832 759 1,295 1,939 2.3 5.5 13.0 0.8 3.2 11.6 N3 >16t Rigid (not towing) 1618 146 1617 3554 5819 439 749 1,121 1.3 3.2 7.5 0.5 1.9 6.7 N2<=7.5t 2175 94 1528 3281 5313 410 677 991 1.3 2.8 6.6 Not calculated N2 >5 <=7.5t 1796 73 1254 2693 4361 408 673 986 1.2 2.8 6.6 0.5 1.7 5.9 N2 >7.5t 333 12 424 912 1476 745 1,230 1,806 2.3 5.2 12.1 0.8 3.1 10.8 N3 >16t Off Road 365 35 292 643 1052 343 586 876 1.1 2.5 5.9 0.4 1.5 5.3 N2 <=5t 379 22 274 588 952 425 696 1,023 1.3 2.9 6.9 0.5 1.7 6.1 N2 Off Road 264 13 261 560 907 574 953 1,393 1.8 4.0 9.4 0.6 2.4 8.4 N3 >16t >3 axles 334 40 250 550 900 282 481 716 0.9 2.0 4.8 0.3 1.2 4.3 N3 <=16t 205 10 241 529 866 564 955 1,420 1.7 4.0 9.5 0.6 2.4 8.6 N3 <=16t Rigid (not towing) 202 10 225 496 811 532 910 1,364 1.6 3.8 9.2 0.6 2.3 8.2 N3 >16t Special Purpose 286 30 197 433 709 278 478 715 0.9 2.0 4.8 0.3 1.2 4.3 N2 Special Purpose 163 10 105 225 364 371 620 912 1.1 2.6 6.1 0.4 1.6 5.5 N3 <=16t Special Purpose 14 0.9 45 99 161 1,534 2,617 4,016 4.7 11.0 26.9 1.7 6.5 23.5 N3 <=16t Off Road 14 0.3 15 70 115 509 1,906 2,846 1.6 8.0 19.1 0.6 4.8 17.1 N2 >3 axles * 1.9 0.2 11 23 37 3,155 4,981 7,205 9.7 21.0 48.3 3.6 12.5 43.8 N3 <=16t >3 axles * 0.46 0.01 0 5 8 0 3,833 5,690 0 16.2 38.3 0 9.6 34.5 N2 Tractor unit <=7.5t * 7 0.6 0 4 6 0 215 313 0 0.9 2.1 0 0.5 1.9 M3 662 43 2246 4786 7898 1,823 2,988 4,349 5.6 12.6 29.2 2.0 7.5 26.1 M3 Class I/II/III 591 38 2206 4702 7759 2,005 3,288 4,790 6.2 13.8 32.1 2.2 8.2 28.7 M2 221 14 135 288 475 327 539 781 1.0 2.3 5.2 0.4 1.3 4.7 M3 articulated * 5 0.4 10 116 191 1,007 9,868 13,937 3.3 41.5 93.9 1.2 24.7 86.3 M3 Class A 71 5 39 84 139 297 489 736 0.9 2.1 4.9 0.3 1.2 4.3 M3 >3 axles * 0.58 0.10 0 72 118 0 30,588 45,488 0.0 128.7 305.0 0 76.5 267.5 * NB. The numbers of these vehicles in use in GB are very low (data from other countries not available), so very low numbers of casualties are to be expected - EU- 27 estimates are thus subject to significant uncertainty. Note 1 Phased break-even costs here are equivalent to the average per vehicle cost over the 15 year period.
Results AEBS Vehicle Type Years 1-5 system Stock (1000s) New registrations per annum (1000s) Effectiveness System costs (Year 1) EU-27 annual estimates AEBS Target population (Casualties) Phased Break-Even Costs ( ) Phased Benefit:Cost Ratios (All Rear Shunts) (15 Yrs, fit to all new vehicles) Note 1 (15 Yrs, fit to all new vehicles) Lower Mid Upper Lower Mid Upper Lower Mid Upper Lower Mid Upper FCW Moving/Stationary 25%/5% 32.5%/7.5% 40%/10% AEBS-M Moving/Stationary 35%/15% 40%/17.5% 45%/20% AEBS-A Moving/Stationary 40%/20% 45%/22.5% 50%/25% 575 400 225 2010 Benefit-Cost Ratios (from Robinson et al, 2010) (Non-Stationary Targets) N3 AEBS-M 3192 317 15337 36317 61879 1,138 1,708 2,404 2.2 5.2 16.9 0.4 1.9 11.5 N3 >16t AEBS-M 2987 307 13953 33040 56296 1,110 1,666 2,342 2.2 5.1 16.5 0.4 1.9 11.4 N3 >16t Rigid (not towing) AEBS-M 1618 146 4902 11607 19776 707 1,062 1,495 1.4 3.2 10.5 0.2 1.1 6.4 N2<=7.5t FCW 2175 94 4179 9974 16998 276 495 762 0.5 1.3 4.3 Not calculated N2 >5 <=7.5t FCW 1796 73 3517 8394 14305 407 673 986 1.2 2.8 6.6 0.2 0.7 4.5 N3 >16t >3 axles AEBS-M 334 40 2036 4822 8216 1,292 1,940 2,726 2.5 5.9 19.2 0.4 2.1 12.7 N3 >16t Off Road AEBS-M 365 35 1785 4226 7201 1,117 1,677 2,360 2.2 5.1 16.6 0.4 1.7 10.0 N3 <=16t AEBS-M 205 10 1384 3277 5583 1,501 2,255 3,186 2.9 6.9 22.4 0.4 1.7 10.1 N3 <=16t Rigid (not towing) AEBS-M 202 10 1274 3017 5140 1,392 2,085 2,938 2.7 6.3 20.7 0.3 1.5 8.9 N2 >7.5t AEBS-M 333 12 996 2378 4053 474 807 1,214 0.9 2.5 8.6 0.2 0.8 5.1 N2 <=5t FCW 379 22 662 1580 2693 234 419 647 0.4 1.1 3.7 0.1 0.6 3.4 N3 >16t Special Purpose AEBS-M 286 30 568 1346 2293 444 671 939 0.9 2.0 6.6 0.1 0.7 4.2 N2 Special Purpose FCW 163 10 406 970 1652 365 655 1,013 0.6 1.7 5.8 0.2 1.0 5.9 N2 Off Road FCW 264 13 297 709 1209 155 285 439 0.3 0.7 2.5 0.1 0.4 2.4 N3 <=16t Special Purpose AEBS-M 14 0.9 174 411 701 2,848 4,308 6,207 5.6 13.2 43.5 0.8 3.7 22.1 N3 <=16t Off Road AEBS-M 14 0.3 15 112 190 374 1,285 1,799 0.7 3.9 12.6 0.2 1.2 7.3 N2 >3 axles * FCW 1.9 0.2 0 15 26 0 1,013 1,519 0 2.6 8.8 0 1.7 10.1 N3 <=16t >3 axles * AEBS-M 0.46 0.01 0 8 13 0 2,540 3,607 0 7.8 25.6 0 2.5 14.8 N2 Tractor unit <=7.5t * FCW 7 0.6 0 2 4 0 44 64 0 0.1 0.4 0 0.1 0.4 M3 AEBS-M 662 43 3866 8783 15120 735 1,276 1,943 1.4 3.9 13.7 0.3 1.4 8.4 M3 Class I/II/III AEBS-M 591 38 3798 8629 14855 808 1,407 2,138 1.6 4.3 15.0 0.3 1.5 9.3 M2 FCW 221 14 351 797 1372 196 342 538 0.3 0.8 2.6 0.1 0.5 3.2 M3 Class A AEBS-M 71 5 68 154 265 113 198 297 0.2 0.6 2.1 0 0.2 1.2 M3 articulated * AEBS-M 5 0.4 7 25 44 218 588 890 0.4 1.8 6.2 0.2 0.8 4.9 M3 >3 axles * AEBS-M 0.58 0.10 7 16 27 591 1,575 2,363 1.1 4.8 16.7 0 1.6 9.4 * NB. The numbers of these vehicles in use in GB are very low (data from other countries not available), so very low numbers of casualties are to be expected - EU-27 estimates are thus subject to significant uncertainty. Note 1 Phased break-even costs here are equivalent to the average per vehicle cost over the 15 year period. Page 17
Conclusions & Limitations Decisions regarding the applicability of the cost-benefit analysis and technical evaluations to questions of possible exemption for specific vehicle types are a political matter for stakeholders and legislators to debate and decide upon; Important, though, to remember that the technical assessments, benefit-cost ratios and break-even costs presented in this report are all based on a wide variety of assumptions and subject to limitations, e.g: - Past accident/casualty statistics are imperfect predictors of future patterns. - Accident analyses based on samples of data from, at best, 3 Member States and often only 1 or 2, giving a high level of uncertainty when making EU27 estimates, particular where low numbers of vehicles and accidents combine. - The vehicle types assessed within the accident databases are, generally speaking, not exact matches to the vehicle types proposed by stakeholders for exemptions. - Different AEBS and LDWS architectures will have different operational characteristics, costs and effectiveness in differing applications and accident scenarios. The analyses presented here are entirely generic and can only attempt to allow for these variations by using quite wide ranges of likely effectiveness and costs. Page 18
THANK YOU! Brian Robinson, brobinson@trl.co.uk Safety Division Page 19