Frequency of target crashes for IntelliDrive safety systems

Najm, Wassim G; Koopmann, Jonathan; Smith, John D; Brewer, John · 2010 · ROSA P / United States. Department of Transportation. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

archive: archived pipeline: cataloged verified

Get this paper ↗ (full text — opens at the source; we link to it, we don't host it)

Summary

This report estimates the annual frequency of crashes that could potentially be addressed by IntelliDrive safety systems, specifically focusing on vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) and vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I) communication technologies. The study aims to establish an upper limit for crash reduction potential to support the development of these systems and estimate their safety benefits. The analysis focuses on crash avoidance applications that assist unimpaired drivers in preventing imminent crashes, excluding incidents involving alcohol or drowsiness, which are considered better suited for autonomous vehicle-based countermeasures. The methodology utilizes data from the National Automotive Sampling System’s General Estimates System (GES) crash databases from 2005 to 2008. Researchers analyzed weighted samples of approximately 55,000 police-reported crashes annually to derive national estimates. The study categorizes crashes into three types: light-vehicle (gross vehicle weight rating ≤10,000 lbs), heavy-truck (>10,000 lbs), and all-vehicle crashes. To determine applicability, the authors mapped pre-crash scenarios—describing vehicle movements and critical events prior to impact—to specific system categories. To avoid double-counting, crashes were assigned to a primary system category (V2V, V2I, or combined), with remaining crashes assigned to secondary categories or autonomous systems. The results indicate that V2V systems are the most effective primary countermeasure, potentially addressing 79% of all-vehicle target crashes involving unimpaired drivers (approximately 4.4 million annually). For light-vehicle crashes, V2V systems address 81%, while for heavy-truck crashes, they address 71%. In contrast, V2I systems address a smaller portion: 26% of all-vehicle crashes, 27% of light-vehicle crashes, and only 15% of heavy-truck crashes. When V2V and V2I systems are combined, they potentially address 81% of all-vehicle crashes, 83% of light-vehicle crashes, and 72% of heavy-truck crashes. A small percentage of crashes (3–5%) were classified as "Not Addressed" by any of these communication-based systems. These findings provide a foundational estimate for the potential safety benefits of cooperative intelligent transportation systems. By quantifying the proportion of crashes amenable to V2V and V2I interventions, the report supports the prioritization of research and development efforts within the IntelliDrive program. The analysis highlights that while V2I systems offer significant benefits, particularly for intersection-related crashes, V2V communications address the majority of crash scenarios involving unimpaired drivers. This data serves as a baseline for subsequent detailed analyses regarding crash severity and specific functional requirements for safety applications.

Key finding

Combined V2V and V2I systems potentially address 81 percent of all-vehicle target crashes involving unimpaired drivers, with V2V systems alone addressing 79 percent and V2I systems addressing 26 percent.

Methodology

dataset

Provenance

The full processing record for this entry. Every stage of this paper's journey through the pipeline is logged — what ran, with which tool and model, how many attempts it took, and when it last completed. Discovered via bulk_ingest_rosap on 2026-05-23 (6 acquisition events logged).

Summary generated by qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant on 2026-06-10; verification: verified.

Topics

Ranked by relevance to this paper. Hover a topic for its definition.

• incidence prevalence
• crash typology
• naturalistic crash near crash
• adas effectiveness
• vru crash typology
• pre crash contributing factors

Information type

What kind of knowledge this paper contributes, grouped by family — independent of topic (what it is about) and method (how it was studied).

• Empirical Findings: crash risk outcomes, observational prevalence
• Methodological Resource: dataset resource