Looking back in the rearview: Insights into Queensland's rear-end crashes.

OBJECTIVE: Rear-end crashes cost the most out of any crash type to the Compulsory Third Party insurance scheme of Queensland. Rear-end crashes are also one of the most common types of crashes, peaking as the most common type of crash in Queensland in 2019. This study investigated the environmental, driver, and vehicle characteristics associated with rear-end collisions in Queensland, Australia. METHODS: A totle of 367,230 crashes in the Queensland crash database between 2001 and 2021 were used to identify crash trends in Queensland, particularly related to rear-end crashes. For crashes between 2015 and 2021, additional information was gathered and allowed further analysis of factors contributing to rear-end crashes using the quasi-induced exposure method. Two binary classification tree models were used. Model 1 investigated the environmental characteristics that predicted a crash being a rear-end or not. Model 2 investigated the controller and vehicle characteristics that predict a rear-end crash-involved vehicle to be either the striking (at-fault) or struck (not-at-fault) vehicle. RESULTS: Model 1 indicated that rear-end crashes were overrepresented in urban areas and major cities and where speed limits exceeded 50 km/h. Model 2 indicated that occupants of struck vehicles (not at-fault) were more likely to be severely injured than the striking (at-fault) vehicles in rear-end crashes. License type and vehicle type also influenced the frequency and severity of rear-end crashes. CONCLUSION: Rear-end crashes can be unjust in that the not-at-fault party is typically more severely injured. Results from the current study suggest that keeping speed limits no higher than 50 km/h could help reduce the severity of rear-end crashes. Increased enforcement of safe following distances could also assist in preventing road trauma as a result of rear-end crashes.

Is my AV crashing? An online photo-based experiment assessing whether shared intended pathway can help AV drivers anticipate silent failures.

The shared responsibility between conditional AVs drivers demands shared understanding. Thus, a shared intended pathway (SIP)-a graphical display of the AV's planned manoeuvres in a head-up display to help drivers anticipate silent failures is proposed. An online, randomised photo experiment was conducted with 394 drivers in Australia. The photos presented traffic scenarios where the SIP forecast either safe or unsafe manoeuvres (silent failures). Participants were required to respond by selecting whether driver intervention was necessary or not. Additionally, the effects of presented object recognition bounding boxes which indicated whether a road user was recognised or not were also tested in the experiment. The SIP led to correct intervention choices 87% of the time, and to calibrating self-reported trust, perceived ease of use and usefulness. The bounding boxes found no significant effects. Results suggest SIPs can assist in monitoring conditional automation. Future research in simulator studies is recommended. Practitioner summary: Conditional AV drivers are expected to take-over control during failures. However, drivers are not informed about the AV's planned manoeuvres. A visual display that presents the shared intended pathway is proposed to help drivers mitigate silent failures. This online photo experiment found the display helped anticipate failures with 87% accuracy.