The Effectiveness of Forward Collision Warning Systems in Detecting Real-World Passenger and Nonpassenger Vehicles Relative to a Surrogate Vehicle Target
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<div class="section abstract"><div class="htmlview paragraph">Automatic emergency braking and forward collision warning (FCW) reduce the incidence of police-reported rear-end crashes by 27% to 50%, but these systems may not be effective for preventing rear-end crashes with nonpassenger vehicles. IIHS and Transport Canada evaluated FCW performance with 12 nonpassenger and 7 passenger vehicle or surrogate vehicle targets in five 2021-2022 model year vehicles. The presence and timing of an FCW was measured as a test vehicle traveling 50, 60, or 70 km/h approached a stationary target ahead in the lane center. Equivalence testing was used to evaluate whether the proportion of trials with an FCW (within ± 0.20) and the average time-to-collision of the warning (within ± 0.23 sec) for each target was meaningfully different from a global vehicle car target (GVT). A similar approach was used to determine if FCW performance was reproducible between 3 targets tested by both IIHS and Transport Canada and was equivalent between surrogate car and motorcycle targets produced by different companies. FCW systems provided fewer and later warnings when the vehicles approached nonpassenger vehicles compared with the GVT. Results were reproducible between IIHS and Transport Canada, but FCW performance with passenger car and motorcycle surrogate targets representing the same vehicle were not always equivalent. Testing organizations should evaluate AEB and FCW systems with nonpassenger vehicle targets to ensure that AEB and FCW performance observed with passenger vehicles extends to other vehicle types, particularly motorcycles and medium or large trucks that are commonly struck in fatal rear-end crashes.</div></div>
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".