Submit to Sustainability Review for Sustainability Propose a Special Issue

Journal Menu

Journal Browser

Current and Future Issues in Transportation Safety and Sustainability

Print Special Issue Flyer
Special Issue Editors
Special Issue Information
Keywords
Benefits of Publishing in a Special Issue
Published Papers

A special issue of Sustainability (ISSN 2071-1050). This special issue belongs to the section "Sustainable Transportation".

Deadline for manuscript submissions: closed (31 January 2022) | Viewed by 38973

Share This Special Issue

Special Issue Editors

Prof. Dr. Brian Fildes

E-Mail Website
Chief Guest Editor

Monash University Accident Research Centre, Monash University, Melbourne 3800, Australia
Interests: safe road; driving behaviour; vehicle safety; road behaviour; road condition and speeding

Dr. Sjaan Koppel

E-Mail Website
Assistant Guest Editor

Monash University Accident Research Centre, Monash University, Melbourne 3800, Australia
Interests: road safety; crash risk; vulnerable road users; road user behaviour; older road users; child road users; fitness to drive; child restraint systems

Dr. David Logan

E-Mail Website
Assistant Guest Editor

Monash University Accident Research Centre, Monash University, Melbourne 3800, Australia
Interests: active safety; crash; serious injury; investigation; motor vehicle; road safety; passive safety; strategy development; strategy modelling; vehicle crashworthiness

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

The topic of current and future issues in transportation safety and sustainability is extremely relevant today as the world aims to achieve a 50% reduction in death and severe injuries over the next decade (World Health Organisation’s Decade of Action for Road Safety 2021–2030). Relevant research addressing this topic in high-, middle- and low-income countries is clearly warranted to help achieve this target.

This Special Issue aims to attract scientific papers that identify key issues of important measures, policies, and strategies to help address this enormous health problem. The use of a Safe System approach is internationally acclaimed as the appropriate means, and research on this topic by governments and researchers worldwide and papers adopting this approach are particularly encouraged.

This Special Issue of the MDPI journal Sustainability aims to improve transportation and sustainability in the safe conveyance of passengers and goods in future. It will include appropriate measures that address the fundamental safety parameters as well as strategic and policy issues in the prevention of deaths and serious injuries in transportation. It will further focus on reducing risks associated with both private and public means with consideration for their ability to bring about sustained safety improvements in the years ahead.

Potential Topics could include the following:

Robust comparisons of major transportation safety issues across private and public domains;
Safe System research findings that identify behavioural, vehicle, road and speed improvements in reducing the risk of fatal and severe injuries;
Risk comparisons by mode of transport indicating priorities issues for the future;
Strategies and policies necessary to achieve major improvements in safe transportation;
Knowledge gaps and the need for future research to address these;
Differences in transportation risk across high-, middle-, and low-income countries;
Sustainability of new transportation initiatives in the years ahead;

This is not meant as an all-inclusive list of potential topics and potential authors are encouraged to consider other potential topics that address the issues raised in the background above.

Prof. Dr. Brian Fildes
Dr. Sjaan Koppel
Dr. David Logan
Guest Editors

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a single-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Sustainability is an international peer-reviewed open access semimonthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 2400 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Keywords

safe roads
safe vehicles
safe behaviour
safe speeds

Benefits of Publishing in a Special Issue

Ease of navigation: Grouping papers by topic helps scholars navigate broad scope journals more efficiently.
Greater discoverability: Special Issues support the reach and impact of scientific research. Articles in Special Issues are more discoverable and cited more frequently.
Expansion of research network: Special Issues facilitate connections among authors, fostering scientific collaborations.
External promotion: Articles in Special Issues are often promoted through the journal's social media, increasing their visibility.
e-Book format: Special Issues with more than 10 articles can be published as dedicated e-books, ensuring wide and rapid dissemination.

Further information on MDPI's Special Issue polices can be found here.

Published Papers (12 papers)

Download All Papers

Order results

Result details

Show export options Show export options

Select all

Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

Jump to: Review, Other

12 pages, 949 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Understanding Current and Future Transport Needs of Older Australian Drivers to Guide Development of Sustainable and Smart Initiatives to Support Safe Mobility of Older Adults

by Jennifer Oxley, David B. Logan, Selby Coxon and Sjaan Koppel

Sustainability 2022, 14(10), 5906; https://doi.org/10.3390/su14105906 - 13 May 2022

Cited by 4 | Viewed by 1878

Abstract

Access to adequate and appropriate transport options enables older people to continue as thriving community participants, to reach services and to maintain social connections. While transport needs are diverse, and tend to change over time, there is little information on current and future transport patterns, and the awareness, acceptance and adoption of new technologies. A national online survey was administered to current drivers in Australia. A sample of 705 drivers provided information on available travel modes and use of these modes, awareness of in-vehicle technologies and future use of vehicle technologies. The findings revealed high use of private vehicles, walking and taxis but little use of other travel modes (bicycles, motorcycles, rideshare, community services and public transport). Age, gender and residential location influenced the availability and use/potential use of some transport options. Overall awareness of in-vehicle technologies was generally low and particularly so amongst older and female participants. There was some appetite to use emerging technologies in the future. The findings inform the development of effective strategies and initiatives aligned with healthy ageing and wellbeing targets, increased sustainability, resilience and connectedness, creation of healthier travel choices and healthier environments to promote acceptance and use of a range of transport options and uptake of safer vehicles equipped with in-vehicle technologies to ultimately enhance safe and sustainable mobility of older road users. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Current and Future Issues in Transportation Safety and Sustainability)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

22 pages, 320 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Road Safety Policy in Addis Ababa: A Vision Zero Perspective

by Henok Girma Abebe

Sustainability 2022, 14(9), 5318; https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095318 - 28 Apr 2022

Cited by 6 | Viewed by 3440

Abstract

In this article, the Addis Ababa city road safety policies are examined and analysed based on the Vision Zero approach to road safety work. Three major policy documents are explored and assessed in terms of how they compare with Vision Zero policy in Sweden, concerning how road safety problems are conceptualised, the responsibility ascriptions promoted, the nature of goal setting concerning road safety objectives, and the specific road safety interventions promoted. It is concluded that there is a big difference between the Swedish Vision Zero approach to road safety work and the Addis Ababa road safety approach in terms of how road safety problems are framed and how responsibility ascriptions are made. In Addis Ababa, policy documents primarily frame road safety problems as individual road user problems and, hence, the responsibility for traffic safety is mainly left to the individual road users. The responsibility extended to other system components such as the vehicles, road design, and the operation of the traffic is growing but still very limited. It is argued that in order to find and secure long-term solutions for traffic safety in the city, a paradigm shift is needed, both regarding what are perceived to be the main causes of road safety problems in the city and who should be responsible for ensuring that road fatalities and injuries are prevented. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Current and Future Issues in Transportation Safety and Sustainability)

20 pages, 2849 KiB

Open AccessArticle

A Path towards Sustainable Vehicle Automation: Willingness to Engage in Level 3 Automated Driving

by Nebojsa Tomasevic, Kristie L. Young, Tim Horberry and Brian Fildes

Sustainability 2022, 14(8), 4602; https://doi.org/10.3390/su14084602 - 12 Apr 2022

Cited by 9 | Viewed by 2065

Abstract

This paper describes a driving simulator study exploring driver willingness to engage in automated driving. The study aimed to explore factors that may influence willingness to engage (WTE) in automated driving and willingness to resume control (WTRC) in Level 3 automated vehicles during everyday driving. Automated driving is an emerging technology that promises a range of benefits. The first step towards sustainable automated driving is the successful introduction of Level 3 automated vehicles. This study investigates key factors that influence the driver’s willingness to engage in automated driving in a Level 3 automated vehicle. A purpose-built driving simulator was used. Forty participants were exposed to driving situations of differing complexity in both manual and automated driving modes, and their willingness to engage or disengage automated driving and perception of safety were recorded. Results demonstrated a strong negative effect of perceived situation complexity on willingness to engage in automated driving. Other significant factors that determine drivers’ willingness to engage in automated driving were trust in automation and driving enjoyment. The identification of perceived situation complexity as a significant factor in drivers’ willingness to engage the automated driving vehicle control mode was the major finding of this research. This finding suggests that it is possible to improve the rate of uptake and sustainability of automated driving with external interventions (technological, regulatory and publicity). Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Current and Future Issues in Transportation Safety and Sustainability)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

32 pages, 1011 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Utilising Human Crash Tolerance to Design an Interim and Ultimate Safe System for Road Safety

by Jessica Truong, Johan Strandroth, David B. Logan, R. F. Soames Job and Stuart Newstead

Sustainability 2022, 14(6), 3491; https://doi.org/10.3390/su14063491 - 16 Mar 2022

Cited by 4 | Viewed by 2893

Abstract

Many jurisdictions globally have adopted a zero road trauma target by 2050 and an interim target of a 50% reduction by 2030. The objective of this study was to investigate what the road system will need to look like in order to achieve these respective targets. Utilising human tolerance to injury as the key design factor, this study defined the combination of vehicle, infrastructure, and travel speed requirements to manage crash energy in order to: 1. prevent all fatalities and serious injuries by 2050 in an Ultimate Safe System scenario; and 2. significantly reduce fatalities and severe injuries by 2030 in an Interim Safe System scenario. Victoria, Australia and its Movement and Place (M&P) framework was employed as a case study. With the vehicle and infrastructure countermeasures currently available coupled with appropriate travel speeds it is possible to construct an Ultimate Safe System that can manage crash forces to achieve zero trauma and an Interim Safe System that can significantly reduce the most severe injuries in Victoria. This study has demonstrated a potential pathway from the current situation to 2030 and then 2050 that can achieve safety targets while meeting the core objectives of the transport system. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Current and Future Issues in Transportation Safety and Sustainability)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

11 pages, 233 KiB

Open AccessArticle

The Ultimate Safe System: Redefining the Safe System Approach for Road Safety

by R. F. Soames Job, Jessica Truong and Chika Sakashita

Sustainability 2022, 14(5), 2978; https://doi.org/10.3390/su14052978 - 3 Mar 2022

Cited by 14 | Viewed by 4868

Abstract

The Safe System approach to road safety has been adopted in many countries, but it has been adopted pervasively to a substantially constrained extent. This paper argues that effective adoption is hampered by two weaknesses in strategies for the implementation of Safe System: (1) interpretations of the shared responsibility principle and (2) Safe System adoption presented as simply requiring the use of multiple pillars of action. The typical description of shared responsibility includes responsibility by road users to obey the rules. This absolves accountability for road safety by the system owners and operators, facilitating victim blaming and reliance on road users who are acknowledged to be fallible. Thus, the system cannot be fully safe, and the vision of zero road trauma cannot be achieved. The extent to which road users are responsible for road safety via their actions is precisely the extent to which those responsible for the system have failed to deliver a safe road system. The assessment of road safety plans as Safe System because it includes multiple pillars of action fails to distinguish a system approach from a Safe System approach. Through these inclusions and interpretations, road safety advocates inadvertently obviate the responsibility of system owners and operators to provide a safe road system and prevent the achievement of zero road trauma, which nonetheless remains the vision described in Safe System strategies and plans. The Ultimate Safe System approach is proposed with a definition that genuinely drives the delivery of a truly Safe System and thus zero road trauma. Practical implications are considered. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Current and Future Issues in Transportation Safety and Sustainability)

15 pages, 681 KiB

Open AccessArticle

The Importance of Adopting a Safe System Approach—Translation of Principles into Practical Solutions

by Bruce Corben, Sujanie Peiris and Suryaprakash Mishra

Sustainability 2022, 14(5), 2559; https://doi.org/10.3390/su14052559 - 23 Feb 2022

Cited by 6 | Viewed by 2789

Abstract

The 1990s saw the emergence of the Swedish Vision Zero and the Dutch Sustainable Safety philosophies on road safety. At the time, both were considered somewhat radical and ambitious departures from the status quo. The principles that underpinned both the Dutch and Swedish philosophies were combined into an internationalized form, now known more widely as the Safe System. The Safe System came to attention early in the 2000s, when formally adopted by a number of countries committed to preventing severe road trauma. The Safe System defines a new way of thinking about road safety compared with what had commonly been used around the world in the decades before its conception. The Safe System strives to eliminate death and severe injury from the world’s roads. It also underlines the importance of the safe management of kinetic energy and system-based design that seeks to ensure that crashes are prevented or, at worst, crash forces fall within the threshold of human tolerance to severe injury. Once this thinking is embraced by the system designer, new solutions begin to emerge, and existing designs can be seen in a different, more insightful light. The process of transitioning to the ambitious, ethically based philosophy of the Safe System, as a means of addressing the risks of using our roads, has not happened smoothly or quickly. Practitioners have had difficulty in translating the philosophy and principles of the Safe System into practice. It is hoped that by providing examples of the differences in decisions made under Safe System principles when designing and operating roads, large gains will be made toward the lasting elimination of road trauma. A major focus of the discussion is on the Safe System-aligned design of infrastructure, coupled with vehicle operating speeds, while also recognizing the contributions to risk reduction that can come from improved human performance and the evolving safety features and technologies of modern vehicles. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Current and Future Issues in Transportation Safety and Sustainability)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

23 pages, 898 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Quantifying the Lost Safety Benefits of ADAS Technologies Due to Inadequate Supporting Road Infrastructure

by Sujanie Peiris, Stuart Newstead, Janneke Berecki-Gisolf, Bernard Chen and Brian Fildes

Sustainability 2022, 14(4), 2234; https://doi.org/10.3390/su14042234 - 16 Feb 2022

Cited by 8 | Viewed by 2703

Abstract

Advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) provide warnings to drivers and, if applicable, intervene to mitigate a collision if one is imminent. Autonomous emergency brakes (AEB) and lane keep assistance (LKA) systems are mandated in several new vehicles, given their predicted injury and fatality reduction benefits. These predicted benefits are based on the assumption that roads are always entirely supportive of ADAS technologies. Little research, however, has been conducted regarding the preparedness of the road network to support these technologies in Australia, given its vastly expansive terrain and varying road quality. The objective of this study was to estimate what proportion of crashes that are sensitive to AEB and LKA, would not be mitigated due to unsupportive road infrastructure, and therefore, the lost benefits of the technologies due to inadequate road infrastructure. To do this, previously identified technology effectiveness estimates and a published methodology for identifying ADAS-supportive infrastructure availability was applied to an estimated AEB and LKA-sensitive crash subset (using crash data from Victoria, South Australia and Queensland, 2013–2018 inclusive). Findings demonstrate that while the road networks across the three states appeared largely supportive of AEB technology, the lack of delineation across arterial and sub-arterial (or equivalent) roads is likely to have serious implications on road safety, given 13–23% of all fatal and serious injury (FSI) crashes that occurred on these road classes were LKA-sensitive. Based on historical crash data, over 37 fatalities and 357 serious injuries may not be avoided annually across the three Australian states based on the lack of satisfactory road delineation on arterial and sub-arterial (or equivalent) roads alone. Further, almost 24% of fatalities in Victoria, 24% of fatalities in Queensland and 21% of fatalities in South Australia (that are AEB- or LKA-sensitive) are unlikely to be prevented, given existing road infrastructure. These figures are conservative estimates of the lost benefits of the technologies as they only consider fatal and serious injury crashes and do not include minor injury or property damage crashes, the benefits of pedestrian-sensitive AEB crashes in high-speed zones or AEB fitted to heavy vehicles. It is timely for road investments to be considered, prioritised and allocated, given the anticipated penetration of the new technologies into the fleet, to ensure that the road infrastructure is capable of supporting the upcoming fleet safety improvements. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Current and Future Issues in Transportation Safety and Sustainability)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

13 pages, 919 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Fatal and Serious Injury Rates for Different Travel Modes in Victoria, Australia

by Mohammad Nabil Ibrahim, David B. Logan, Sjaan Koppel and Brian Fildes

Sustainability 2022, 14(3), 1924; https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031924 - 8 Feb 2022

Cited by 4 | Viewed by 2862

Abstract

While absolute injury numbers are widely used as a road safety indicator, they do not fully account for the likelihood of an injury given a certain level of exposure. Adjusting crash and injury rates for travel exposure can measure the magnitude of travel activity leading to crash outcomes and provide a more comprehensive indicator of safety. Fatal and serious injury (FSI) numbers were adjusted by three measures of travel exposure to estimate crash and injury rates across nine travel modes in the Australian state of Victoria. While car drivers accounted for the highest number of injuries across the three modes, their likelihood of being killed or seriously injured was substantially lower than that of motorcyclists across all exposure measures. Cyclists accounted for fewer injuries than car passengers and pedestrians but had a higher risk per exposure. The results varied by both injury severity and exposure measure. The results of this study will assist with high level transport planning by allowing for the investigation of the changes in travel-related FSI resulting from proposed travel mode shifts driven by safety, environmental reasons or other reasons as part of the holistic goal of transforming the transport system to full compliance with Safe System principles. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Current and Future Issues in Transportation Safety and Sustainability)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

23 pages, 306 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Parents’ Willingness to Allow Their Unaccompanied Children to Use Emerging and Future Travel Modes

by Sjaan Koppel, Hayley McDonald, Sujanie Peiris, Xin Zou and David B. Logan

Sustainability 2022, 14(3), 1585; https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031585 - 29 Jan 2022

Cited by 4 | Viewed by 1961

Abstract

This study investigated parents’ willingness to allow their unaccompanied child(ren) to use emerging and future travel modes (e.g., rideshare vehicles and automated vehicles). An online survey was completed by 631 Australian respondents (M = 39.2 years, SD = 10.5 years, Male: 36.6%) who reported that they currently lived with one or more children (17 or below). Approximately one-third (37.9%) of the respondents reported a willingness to allow their child to use a rideshare vehicle alone and more than half of the respondents (57.2%) reported a willingness to allow their child to use an automated vehicle alone. Respondents who expressed willingness to allow their child to use a rideshare vehicle alone were more likely to express a willingness to use an automated vehicle alone (79.1%) compared to respondents who were unwilling to use a rideshare vehicle (43.9%), χ²(1) = 75.158, p < 0.001, Phi = 0.345. Two separate logistic regression models revealed key similarities and differences related to respondents’ willingness to allow their unaccompanied child to use both transport modes. Respondents’ willingness to allow their unaccompanied child to use a rideshare vehicle was significantly related to their previous use of a rideshare vehicle with their child, having an optimistic view of technology, annual mileage, their aberrant driving behaviours, and their desire for route-control and assurance features within the rideshare vehicle, χ²(7) = 159.594, p < 0.001. Respondents’ willingness to allow their child to use an automated vehicle alone was significantly related to awareness of automated vehicles, education level, positive views towards technology, seeing technology to be innovative, and requirements for route control features within the automated vehicle, χ²(6) = 113.325, p < 0.001. Despite the potential for emerging or future travel modes to provide additional personal transportation options, these results suggest that Australian parents are unwilling to allow their unaccompanied child to use these modes of transport. These findings will have significant implications for transport planning, particularly in growing communities where pressures on parents to transport their child(ren) to activities and events with minimal adult supervision is increasing. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Current and Future Issues in Transportation Safety and Sustainability)

13 pages, 1613 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Evaluation of Raised Safety Platforms (RSP) On-Road Safety Performance

by Brendan Lawrence, Brian Fildes, Peter Cairney, Stephanie Davy and Amir Sobhani

Sustainability 2022, 14(1), 138; https://doi.org/10.3390/su14010138 - 23 Dec 2021

Cited by 7 | Viewed by 3340

Abstract

A Raised Safety Platform (RSP) is a relatively new physical road safety intervention at major intersections. They aim to enhance road user safety by reducing vehicle speeds at intersections using an acute vertical deflection to the vehicle path. This study measured the change in speed at selected high-volume intersections treated with an RSP. It was a 12-month study based on a controlled before-and-after-treatment design, with speed and other measures assessed at six treated and five control intersections. Statistically significant and meaningful reductions in speeds were observed given the treatment and adjusted for the control group. A 15.6% reduction in the central tendency of speed was found overall. The odds of a vehicle exceeding nominal Safe System speeds of 30 km/h, 40 km/h, and 50 km/h also reduced markedly, with greater reductions observed at the higher speed thresholds (46%, 69%, and 80%, respectively). The change in speed corresponded to an estimated aggregate-level injurious crash-reduction benefit of around 26% and a reduction in the likelihood of a serious injury given a crash of between 38% to 57% depending on the crash type. It was concluded that RSP is an effective Safe System treatment to reduce speeds at major intersections to levels similar that at roundabouts. The results suggest that well designed RSPs at signalised intersections are an effective and sustainable Safe System treatment. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Current and Future Issues in Transportation Safety and Sustainability)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

Review

Jump to: Research, Other

11 pages, 594 KiB

Open AccessReview

Evaluations of Speed Camera Interventions Can Deliver a Wide Range of Outcomes: Causes and Policy Implications

by R. F. Soames Job

Sustainability 2022, 14(3), 1765; https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031765 - 3 Feb 2022

Cited by 6 | Viewed by 5471

Abstract

Speeding (travelling at speeds above the speed limit) is proven to be a major contributor to serious crashes, and speed management interventions including speed cameras are shown to reduce speeds, crashes, and trauma. However, the present review identifies that the range of outcomes reported in evaluations of speed cameras is large, complicating the understanding of effects, and inviting scepticism about the value of speed cameras despite the large numbers of reported successes, as well as systematic reviews and meta-analyses that demonstrate their life- and injury-saving value. Therefore, this review is focused on the factors that contribute to the large range of findings, including reasons for genuine differences in the outcomes delivered by different camera programs and variations in evaluation methodology that influence the extent to which real benefits are detected. Finally, recommendations are offered to maximise the safety benefits of speed-camera programs (including ensuring the full chain of requirements for general deterrence is met; strong communications about new programs and expansions at least several weeks in advance of implementation; and unpredictability of enforcement versus signposted cameras) and to improve evaluation methods (especially around determining the road lengths/locations assumed to be treated by the cameras and use of control locations). Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Current and Future Issues in Transportation Safety and Sustainability)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

Other

Jump to: Research, Review

16 pages, 3925 KiB

Open AccessConcept Paper

Vulnerable Road User Protection from Heavy Goods Vehicles Using Direct and Indirect Vision Aids

by Richard J. Frampton and Jack E. Millington

Sustainability 2022, 14(6), 3317; https://doi.org/10.3390/su14063317 - 11 Mar 2022

Cited by 3 | Viewed by 2570

Abstract

In Europe, heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) are disproportionately involved in serious and fatal collisions with vulnerable road users (VRUs). An interrogation of 2019 national crash data for Great Britain (Stats19) suggested that detection of cyclists and pedestrians in the nearside and front blind spots of HGVs is still a significant problem during forward or left-turn manoeuvres of the HGV. To improve detection, Transport for London introduced Direct Vision and Safe System Standards in 2021 for HGVs entering the Greater London area. This research assessed the efficacy of one of the Safe System requirements—the fitment of sensors to detect vulnerable road users on the nearside of the vehicle. A physical testing procedure was developed to determine the performance of a sensor system meeting the Transport for London Safe System requirements. Overall, the Safe System compliant sensor system missed 52% of expected detection nodes on the nearside of the vehicle. A total of 56% of the “stop vehicle” nodes, 45% of the “slow down” and 48% of the “proceed with caution” nodes were not recognised. The most forward sensor did not fully cover the front-left corner blind spot, missing 70% of the desired detection nodes. Nearside sensor systems fitted to Safe System requirements may cover a reasonable area but could still leave many undetected zones to the left and front of the vehicle. Standardising sensor range and location could help to eliminate sensor blind spots. Mandating additional front sensors would help cover the blind spot at the front-left corner of the HGV. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Current and Future Issues in Transportation Safety and Sustainability)

► Show Figures

Journal Menu

Journal Browser

Current and Future Issues in Transportation Safety and Sustainability

Share This Special Issue

Special Issue Editors

Special Issue Information

Keywords

Benefits of Publishing in a Special Issue

Published Papers (12 papers)

Research

Review

Other

Further Information

Guidelines

MDPI Initiatives

Follow MDPI