Comparability of Automated Vehicle Crash Databases
Noah Goodall

TL;DR
This paper reviews and compares automated vehicle crash databases, highlighting inconsistencies and proposing improvements for data collection and standardization to enable more accurate crash rate assessments.
Contribution
It provides a comprehensive comparison of existing automated and human-driven crash databases and suggests methods to improve data consistency and collection practices.
Findings
Crash databases use incompatible severity thresholds.
Automated vehicle crash data often lack low-damage crash reports.
Standardization and electronic data recorders can improve data quality.
Abstract
Introduction: This paper reviewed current driving automation (DA) and baseline human-driven crash databases and evaluated their comparability. Method: Five sources of DA crash data and three sources of human-driven crash data were reviewed for consistency of inclusion criteria, scope of coverage, and potential sources of bias. Alternative methods to determine vehicle automation capability using vehicle identification number (VIN) from state-maintained crash records were also explored. Conclusions: Evaluated data sets used incompatible or nonstandard minimum crash severity thresholds, complicating crash rate comparisons. The most widely-used standard was "police-reportable crash," which itself has different reporting thresholds among jurisdictions. Although low- and no-damage crashes occur at greater frequencies and have more statistical power, they were not consistently reported for…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsAutonomous Vehicle Technology and Safety · Human-Automation Interaction and Safety · Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks (VANETs)
