目标:电子稳定控制系统(ESC)被认为是最有效的车辆安全干预措施之一,据报道,对致命的单次和翻车事故的影响约为50%。然而,这样的估计使用了样本数据,没有控制自我选择的可能性,行为适应,安全性较低的驾驶员增加了对该技术的访问,以及对非常特定类别的碰撞的影响的计算。因此,预期ESC在群体中的影响比目前认为的要小。
方法:美国全国致命车祸数据,驾驶暴露和其他控制因素,和ESC在1991-2021年的市场渗透率被用来计算单身人士撞车率随时间的死亡趋势,侧翻,和致命的崩溃通常与有效性估计的预测相匹配。
结果:发现在引入ESC之前,相关碰撞类型的下降趋势普遍存在,此后的趋势较弱。尽管一些趋势与ESC的影响一致,它们明显比预计的小,可以用其他因素来解释,例如人均车辆数量。充其量,展期的影响可能高达先前估计的三分之二,单身人士没有检测到效果,而对于所有致命的崩溃结果取决于所执行的分析类型。这些结果与所有已发表的ESC碰撞样本研究的结论相冲突,比较了有和没有ESC的车辆。这种差异可以通过先前使用诱导暴露方法和自我选择样品的研究中的方法学错误来解释。
结论:技术干预可能不会像人们认为的那样大大改善交通安全。交通安全需要替代方法,不依赖于干扰驾驶员行为的技术。
OBJECTIVE: Electronic Stability Control (
ESC) is believed to be among the most efficient vehicle safety interventions with reported effects around 50% for fatal single and rollover crashes. However, such estimates have used sample data, which have not controlled for the possibilities of self-selection, behavioral adaptation, increased access to the technology by less safe drivers, and the calculation of effects on very specific categories of crashes. Effects of
ESC in the population can therefore be expected to be smaller than is currently believed.
METHODS: National U.S. data for fatal crashes, driving exposure and other control factors, and market penetration of
ESC over 1991-2021 were used to calculate whether the trends in fatalities over time in crash rates for singles, rollovers, and fatal crashes in general matched projections from estimates of effectiveness.
RESULTS: It was found that downward trends in the relevant crash types were generally present before ESC was introduced, and that the trends thereafter were weaker. Although some trends were consistent with effects of
ESC, they were markedly smaller than the projected ones, and could be explained by other factors such as the number of vehicles per capita. At best, the effect for rollovers could be up to two-thirds of previous estimates, no effect was detected for singles, while for all fatal crashes results depended upon the type of analysis performed. These results conflict with conclusions in all published ESC crash sample studies, which have compared vehicles with and without
ESC. This discrepancy can be explained by methodological errors in the previous studies using induced exposure methods and self-selected samples.
CONCLUSIONS: Traffic safety may not be as much improved by technological interventions as believed. Alternative approaches to traffic safety are needed, which do not rely on technology that interferes with driver behavior.