4.6 Review

Road Trauma in Regional and Remote Australia and New Zealand in Preparedness for ADAS Technologies and Autonomous Vehicles

期刊

SUSTAINABILITY
卷 12, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/su12114347

关键词

major cities; regional; remote; rural; urban; fatalities; ADAS

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Achieving remote and rural road safety is a global challenge, exacerbated in Australia and New Zealand by expansive geographical variations and inconsistent population density. Consequently, there exists a rural-urban differential in road crash involvement in Australasia. New vehicle technologies are expected to minimise road trauma globally by performing optimally on high quality roads with predictable infrastructure. Anecdotally, however, Australasia's regional and remote areas do not fit this profile. The aim of this study was to determine if new vehicle technologies are likely to reduce road trauma, particularly in regional and remote Australia and New Zealand. An extensive review was performed using publicly available data. Road trauma in regional and remote Australasia was found to be double that of urban regions, despite the population being approximately one third of that in urban areas. Fatalities in 100 km/h + speed zones were overrepresented, suggestive of poor speed limit settings. Despite new vehicle ownership in regional and remote Australasia being comparable to major cities, road infrastructure supportive of new vehicle technologies appear lacking, with only 1.3-42% of all Australian roads, and 67% of all New Zealand roads being fully sealed. With road quality in regional and remote areas being poorly mapped, the benefits of Advanced Driver-Assistance Systems (ADAS) technologies cannot be realised despite the fact new vehicles with these technologies are penetrating the fleet. Investments should be made into sealing and separating roads but more importantly, for mapping the road network to create a unified tracking system which quantifies readiness at a national level.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据