Skip to main content

NTSB calls for immediate action on collision avoidance systems for vehicles

A report by the US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) outlines the life-saving benefits of currently available collision avoidance systems and recommends that the technology become standard on all new passenger and commercial vehicles. The report, The Use of Forward Collision Avoidance Systems to Prevent and Mitigate Rear-End Crashes, stresses that collision avoidance systems can prevent or lessen the severity of rear-end crashes, thus saving lives and reducing injuries. According to statistics fro
June 12, 2015 Read time: 3 mins

A report by the US 5628 National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) outlines the life-saving benefits of currently available collision avoidance systems and recommends that the technology become standard on all new passenger and commercial vehicles.

The report, The Use of Forward Collision Avoidance Systems to Prevent and Mitigate Rear-End Crashes, stresses that collision avoidance systems can prevent or lessen the severity of rear-end crashes, thus saving lives and reducing injuries.

According to statistics from the 834 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), rear-end crashes kill about 1,700 people every year and injure half a million more. More than 80 per cent of these deaths and injuries might have been mitigated had the vehicles been equipped with a collision avoidance system.

The NTSB has made 12 recommendations over 20 years in favour of forward collision avoidance technologies, including 10 recommendations resulting from an earlier Special Investigation Report in 2001.

The progress on these recommendations, however, has been very limited. The report notes that a lack of incentives and limited public awareness has stunted the wide adoption of collision avoidance technology.

Only four out of 684 passenger vehicle models in 2014 included a complete forward collision avoidance system as a standard feature. When these systems are offered as options, they are often bundled with other non-safety features, making the overall package more expensive.

“You don’t pay extra for your seatbelt,” said Chairman Christopher A. Hart. “And you shouldn’t have to pay extra for technology that can help prevent a collision altogether.

“The promise of a next generation of safety improvements has been used too often to justify inaction,” Hart said. "Because there will always be better technologies over the horizon, we must be careful to avoid letting perfection become the enemy of the good."

In the report, the NTSB recommends that manufacturers make collision avoidance systems standard equipment in newly manufactured vehicles, beginning with collision warning systems, and adding autonomous emergency braking once NHTSA completes standards for such braking systems.

Furthermore, the NTSB recommends that NHTSA develop tests and standards in order to rate the performance of each vehicle’s collision avoidance systems and to incorporate those results into an expanded NCAP 5-star safety rating scale.

The NTSB is also issuing a companion Safety Alert for consumers and commercial fleet owners that urges them to consider vehicles with collision warning and autonomous emergency braking functions.

Related Content

  • Drivers wary of safety benefits of EU vehicle control
    October 29, 2013
    Research by the UK’s Institute of Advanced Motorists (IAM) has found that three quarters of drivers are concerned that the use of intelligent speed adaptations (ISAs) will compromise safety. Last month, the EU announced that it was considering rules for new cars to be installed with ISA technology, which would be capable of detecting speed limits through cameras or satellites and automatically applying the brakes. Existing vehicles could be forced to be retrofitted with the devices.
  • Assessing the potential of in-vehicle enforcement systems
    December 4, 2012
    Jason Barnes considers the social and ethical ramifications of using in-vehicle safety technologies to fulfil enforcement functions. Although policy documents often imply close correlation between enforcement, compliance and safety – in part, as a counter to accusations that enforcement is rather more concerned with revenue generation – there is a noticeable reluctance among policy makers and auto manufacturers to exploit in-vehicle safety systems for enforcement applications. From a technical perspective t
  • A global standard for enforcement systems – is it necessary?
    May 30, 2013
    Jason Barnes speaks to leading figures from the automated enforcement sector about whether a truly international standard for automated enforcement systems is necessary or can ever be achieved. Recent reports of further press controversy in the US over automated enforcement (see ‘Focusing on accuracy?’, ITS International raise again the issue of standards and what constitutes ‘good enough’ in terms of system accuracy and overall solution effectiveness. Comparatively, automated enforcement has always expe
  • Need to analyse risks of 5.9GHz spectrum sharing
    February 27, 2013
    Scott Belcher of ITS America explains why moves towards spectrum sharing in the 5.9GHz band should not be allowed to proceed until further analysis of the risks to road safety has been undertaken. The ability to move people and goods safely and efficiently has always had a direct impact on a country’s economic advantage and its citizens’ quality of life. It is estimated that by 2050, the number of vehicles around the world is set to double to two billion, placing enormous demands on the global transport