Federal Register of Legislation - Australian Government

Primary content

ADR 97/00 Standards/Australian Design Rules for Vehicles as made
This instrument specifies requirements for Advanced Emergency Braking systems for new omnibuses (ADR category MD and ME vehicles) and new goods vehicles greater than 3.5 tonnes Gross Vehicle Mass (GVM) (ADR category NB and NC vehicles), to avoid or mitigate the severity of rear-end in lane collisions.
Administered by: Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts
Exempt from sunsetting by the Legislation (Exemptions and Other Matters) Regulation 2015 s12 item 56C
Registered 01 Mar 2022
Tabling HistoryDate
Tabled Senate28-Mar-2022
Tabled HR29-Mar-2022

 

 

Regulation Impact Statement

 

Autonomous Emergency Braking
for Reducing Heavy Vehicle
Rear Impact Crashes[1]

 

t

 

July 2020

Report Documentation Page

Report No.

Report Date

File No.

OBPR Reference No.

INFRA/VSS02/2019

July 2020

19/684

25313

Title and Subtitle

Regulation Impact Statement

Autonomous Emergency Braking for Reducing Heavy Vehicle Rear Impact Crashes

Organisation Performing Analysis

Standards Development and International
Vehicle Safety Standards Branch
Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications

Regulatory Agency

Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications
GPO Box 594
Canberra   ACT   2601

Key Words

Distribution Statement

Australian Design Rule, ADR, Autonomous Emergency Braking, Advanced Emergency Braking, AEB, AEBS, Electronic Stability Control, ESC, Heavy Vehicle, Braking

This document was available online for the duration of public consultation at: https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/vehicles/design/adr_comment.aspx

Security Classification

No. Pages

Price

Official

112

No charge


CONTENTS

Executive Summary. 5

1.            What is the Problem?. 11

1.1.         Road Trauma Involving Heavy Vehicles. 11

1.2.         Government Actions to Address Heavy Vehicle Crashes. 13

1.3.         Rear-end Crashes Involving an Impacting Heavy Vehicle. 19

1.4.         The National Road Safety Strategy 2011-2020. 20

2.            Why is Government Action Needed?. 22

2.1.         Autonomous Emergency Braking Systems for Heavy Vehicles. 24

2.2.         Available Standards. 25

2.3.         Summary of UN Regulation No. 131. 25

2.4.         European Mandate of UN Regulation No. 131. 27

2.5.         Objective of Government Action. 28

3.            What Policy Options are Being Considered?. 29

3.1.         Available Options. 29

3.2.         Discussion of the Options. 29

4.            What are the Likely Net Benefits of each Option?. 38

4.1.         Benefit-Cost Analysis. 38

4.2.         Economic Aspects—Impact Analysis. 48

5.            Regulatory Burden and Cost Offsets. 54

6.            What is the Best Option?. 57

6.1.         Net Benefits. 57

6.2.         Benefit-Cost Ratios. 57

6.3.         Casualty Reductions. 57

6.4.         Recommendation. 58

6.5.         Impacts. 59

6.6.         Scope of the Recommended Option. 59

6.7.         Timing of the Recommended Option. 61

7.            Consultation. 62

7.1.         General 62

7.2.         Public Comment 62

8.            Implementation and Evaluation. 65

9.            Conclusion and Recommended Option. 66

10.         References. 68

Appendix 1 - Heavy Vehicle Categories. 72

Appendix 2 - Awareness Campaigns. 74

Appendix 3 - Information Campaigns. 77

Appendix 4 - UN Regulation No. 131 Performance Requirements. 78

Appendix 5 - Benefit-Cost Analysis. 81

Appendix 6 - Acronyms and Abbreviations. 95

Appendix 7 - Glossary of Terms. 97

Appendix 8 – Public Comment, Consultation RIS. 99

 


 

Executive Summary

Road crash trauma involving heavy vehicles

The impact of road crashes on individuals as well as society as a whole is significant, costing the Australian economy over $27 billion per annum (BITRE, 2014).  Heavy vehicle crashes constitute around $1.5 billion of this, including around $200 million from crashes involving a heavy vehicle impacting the rear of another vehicle.  This is the specific road safety problem that has been considered in this Regulation Impact Statement (RIS).

Heavy vehicles represent 3 per cent of all registered vehicles in Australia (ABS, 2018a) and account for just over 8 per cent of total vehicle kilometres travelled on public roads (ABS, 2018b).  However, they are involved in 17 per cent of all fatal crashes. Over the last three years (2017-2019), an average of 199 people were killed annually in 180 fatal crashes involving heavy trucks or buses (BITRE, 2019a).  The most recent available data (2016-2017) shows that 1,832 people were hospitalised from road crashes involving heavy vehicles (BITRE, 2019b).  Heavy vehicle crashes continue to draw increasing attention from policy makers, road safety advocates, the general-public and the heavy vehicle industry itself.

Distraction, fatigue, driver inexperience and error can be causal factors in heavy vehicle crashes.  Actions to reduce the extent of these factors have generally focused on heavy vehicle drivers and fleet managers.  However, in fatal multi-vehicle crashes involving a heavy vehicle, another vehicle is at fault in up to 83 per cent of incidents (NTARC, 2019).  Nonetheless, heavy vehicles have physical characteristics that increase the risk and severity of crashes, including a high gross mass, elevated centre of gravity, long vehicle length, reduced ability to manoeuvre, and relatively longer stopping distances.  Heavy vehicles have a reduced risk of being impacted at the rear, given that they decelerate more gradually than other vehicles.  For the same reason, they have an increased risk of impacting a vehicle in front of them.

Autonomous Emergency Braking (AEB)

When rear-end collisions occur between an impacting heavy vehicle and a light vehicle, vehicle underrun can occur, increasing the severity of the outcome.  This has been mitigated as much as possible by the introduction of Australian Design Rule (ADR) 84 - Front Underrun Impact Protection in 2009.  Front underrun protection systems reduce the severity of trauma when a collision occurs, but cannot reduce the frequency of those collisions.  Though actions targeting driver and fleet managers can help reduce the frequency of heavy vehicle at-fault crashes, technology such as AEB can also help in the event of an otherwise imminent collision.

The internationally agreed standard for heavy vehicle AEB systems is the United Nations (UN) Regulation No.131.  The regulation sets requirements for detecting vehicles in a heavy vehicle’s forward impact zone.  UN regulations are revised on an ongoing basis and so in time it may be possible to expand the requirements to specifically detect road users such as pedestrians and cyclists.  Its scope covers all heavy goods vehicles greater than 3.5 tonnes Gross Vehicle Mass (GVM) and all omnibuses.

Australian research has found that AEB systems meeting the requirements of UN Regulation No. 131 could alleviate or reduce the severity of almost 15 per cent of all Australian heavy vehicle crashes, predominantly those involving a heavy vehicle impacting the rear of another vehicle (MUARC, 2020).  Moreover, it was found that in such collisions, heavy vehicle AEB reduces all forms of trauma by up to 57 per cent.  However, only six per cent of new Australian heavy vehicles are sold fitted with AEB systems that would comply with UN Regulation No. 131.  Most of these are in the heavy duty prime mover segment where 23 per cent of new Australian prime movers are fitted with AEB.

Mandatory fitment of AEB to commercial heavy vehicles according to UN Regulation No. 131 has been implemented across the European market since November 2013, followed by mandates in Japan and Korea.  By November 2018, the European mandate had taken full effect for all new vehicles covered by UN Regulation No. 131 (with exemptions including urban buses and off-road or agricultural vehicles).  Though now well established, the European mandate has not strongly influenced Australian market fitment rates, in part due to the bespoke configurations preferred by Australian operators.  However, the mandate has reduced and mitigated heavy vehicle rear impact crashes in Europe, providing useful European data on the effectiveness of the technology that has been used to support the Australian research.

Within Australia, consideration of the fitment of AEB has had to wait for the other supporting technologies of Anti-lock Brake Systems (ABS) and Electronic Stability Control (ESC) to be mandated.  This has been necessary to guarantee the stability of a heavy vehicle or heavy vehicle combination under the severe conditions of automatically generated braking by AEB systems.  The first considerations of mandating ABS were unsuccessful before and throughout the early 2000s, due to cost and to reliability concerns by some parts of the heavy trailer industry.  This situation continued through to 2014, when some ABS and the underlying electrical power and wiring requirements for advanced braking systems were mandated, in preparation for the next steps of fully implementing ABS/ESC/AEB systems.

Following the mandating of ESC for heavy vehicles under the National Road Safety Strategy 2011-2020 (NRSS) and associated National Road Safety Action Plan 2015-2017, consideration of options to increase fitment of AEB systems to Australian heavy vehicles is now a priority action under the current National Road Safety Action Plan 2018-2020 (NRSAP).  As retro-fitting sophisticated technology such as AEB would generally be high cost and disruptive for current vehicle owners, the action has focused on new vehicles only.

This RIS considers six options to increase the fitment of AEB systems in the Australian heavy vehicle fleet: Option 1: no intervention (business as usual); Option 2: user information campaigns; Option 3: fleet purchasing policies; Option 4: codes of practice; Option 5: mandatory standards under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (C’th) (CCA); Option 6: mandatory standards under the Motor Vehicle Standards Act 1989 (C’th) (MVSA) and then Road Vehicle Standards Act 2018 (C’th)[2] (RVSA).  Option 2 was separated into two sub-options: 2a (targeted awareness) and 2b (advertising).  Option 6 was separated into two sub-options: 6a (broad scope) and 6b (narrow scope).  Of these, Option 1, Option 2a, 2b, Option 6a and 6b were considered viable and were examined in detail.

The results of the benefit-cost analysis over a 35 year period for each of these options (assuming an intervention policy period of 15 years) are summarised in Table 1 to Table 3 below.

Table 1: Summary of gross benefits and net benefits for each option

 

Gross benefits ($m)

Net benefits ($m)

 

Likely case

 

Best
case

Likely case

Worst case

Option 1: no intervention

 

-

 

-

-

-

Option 2a: targeted awareness

 

68

 

-9

-34

-58

Option 2b: advertising

 

39

 

-151

-164

-177

Option 6a: regulation (broad scope)

 

269

 

123

52

-19

Option 6b: regulation (narrow scope)

 

235

 

108

47

-15

Table 2: Summary of costs and benefit-cost ratios for each option

 

Costs ($m)

Benefit-cost ratios

Best
case

Likely case

Worst case

Best
case

Likely case

Worst case

Option 1: no intervention

-

-

-

-

-

-

Option 2a: targeted awareness

77

101

126

0.9

0.7

0.5

Option 2b: advertising

190

203

216

0.2

0.2

0.2

Option 6a: regulation (broad scope)

146

217

250

1.8

1.2

0.9

Option 6b: regulation (narrow scope)

127

188

250

1.9

1.2

0.9

Table 3: Summary of number of lives saved, and serious injuries (hospital admissions) and minor injuries avoided

 

Lives saved

Serious injuries avoided

Minor injuries avoided

Option 1: no intervention

-

-

-

Option 2a: targeted awareness

12

339

1056

Option 2b: advertising

9

248

773

Option 6a: regulation (broad scope)

78

2152

6697

Option 6b: regulation (narrow scope)

69

1891

5883

Option 6a: regulation (broad scope) generated the highest number of lives saved (78) and serious (2,152) and minor (6,697) injuries avoided, as well as the highest likely net benefit ($52 million), while retaining a likely benefit-cost ratio (1.2) matching that of Option 6b.

Electronic Stability Control (ESC)

When braking a heavy vehicle in emergency situations, whether initiated by a driver or an AEB system, maintaining stability is critical.  The role of the existing technologies of heavy vehicle ESC and trailer Rollover Stability Control (RSC) is even more critical when hard braking is accompanied by swerving (common in rear-end collisions as the driver tries to avoid the vehicle in front), when there is any road curvature, and/or when there is reduced wheel traction.  For this reason, vehicles fitted with AEB are typically also fitted with ESC/RSC, often as a necessary sub-component.

ESC for heavy vehicles became mandatory from 1 July 2019 for new model heavy trailers (1 November 2019 for all new heavy trailers) and will become mandatory from 1 November 2020 for new model heavy trucks and heavy buses (1 January 2022 for all new heavy trucks and heavy buses).  The mandate targeted the types of vehicles that could realise the highest benefits in terms of reduction of road trauma – mainly heavy prime movers and their short wheelbase derivatives.  This minimised the regulatory burden on manufacturers and operators.  As reported at the time in the associated RIS[3], the Commonwealth indicated that it would return to the consideration of ESC for the remaining types of vehicles as part of the AEB work, where there may be economies in costing of the systems, due to the integrated nature of AEB and ESC.

Expanding the current ESC requirements to all vehicle categories covered by a broad scope AEB regulation eliminates the cost of separate ESC fitment for those categories where ESC is a sub-component of AEB and so substantially reduces costs through shared system components.  Expanding the current ESC requirements (described from herein as Option 6a with matching ESC fitment) would save an additional 24 lives and prevent an additional 412 serious and 320 minor injuries.  This represents additional savings to society (gross benefits) of $89 million, and in combination with Option 6a requirements for AEB, raises the likely net benefit to $141 million and the likely benefit-cost ratio to 1.6.

The results of the benefit-cost analysis over a 35 year period (assuming an intervention policy period of 15 years) for Option 6a and Option 6a with matching ESC fitment are summarised in Table 4 and Table 5 below.

Table 4: Summary of net benefits and benefit-cost ratios (including associated ESC benefits)

 

Net benefits ($m)

Benefit-cost ratios

Best case

Likely case

Worst case

Likely case

Option 6a: regulation (broad scope)

123

52

-19

1.2

Option 6a: regulation (broad scope) with matching ESC fitment

212

141

71

1.6

Table 5: Summary of number of lives saved and injuries avoided (including associated ESC benefits)

 

Lives saved

Serious injuries avoided

Minor injuries avoided

Option 6a: regulation (broad scope)

78

2152

6697

Option 6a: regulation (broad scope) with matching ESC fitment

102

2564

7017

Public Comment

A consultation version of this RIS was circulated for a six-week public comment period, which closed on 4 October 2019.  A summary of the feedback and Department responses is included at Appendix 8.

The implementation timeframe proposed for consultative purposes was 1 November 2020 for new vehicle models and 1 November 2022 for all new vehicles (for both AEB and matching ESC fitment).

During the consultation period, feedback was received from members of the public, state government agencies, industry, and road user organisations.  Most feedback strongly supported the implementation of Option 6a, including in many cases with matching ESC fitment.

A number of industry submissions indicated more implementation time is needed and suggested alternative datesThe most extended of these was that proposed by the Truck Industry Council (TIC), with a phase in from November 2022 to January 2025.  The effect of the TIC’s suggested extended implementation timing on benefits and costs was examined in a post consultation sensitivity analysis, which also showed substantial positive benefits.

Recommended Option

In accordance with the Australian Government Guide to Regulation (2014) ten principles for Australian Government policy makers, the policy option offering the greatest net benefit is the recommended option.  Option 6a: regulation (broad scope) with matching ESC fitment offers the greatest net benefit and is therefore the recommended option.  Under this option, fitment of AEB and ESC would be mandated for new omnibuses, and for new heavy goods vehicles greater than 3.5 tonnes Gross Vehicle Mass (GVM).  The final implementation dates will be determined as part of the relevant ADRs by the Government.

The RIS Process

This RIS has been written in accordance with Australian Government RIS requirements, addressing the seven assessment questions as set out in the Australian Government Guide to Regulation (2014):

1.         What is the problem you are trying to solve?

2.         Why is government action needed?

3.         What policy options are you considering?

4.         What is the likely net benefit of each option?

5.         Who will you consult about these options and how will you consult them?

6.         What is the best option from those you have considered?

7.         How will you implement and evaluate your chosen option?

In line with the principles for Australian Government policy makers, the regulatory costs imposed on business, the community and individuals associated with each viable option were quantified and it is anticipated that regulatory savings from further alignment of the ADRs with international standards will offset the additional costs of implementing the recommended option.


 

1.     What is the Problem?

1.1.          Road Trauma Involving Heavy Vehicles

The impact of road crashes on society is significant. Individuals injured in crashes must deal with pain and suffering, medical costs, lost income, higher insurance premium rates and vehicle repair costs.  For society as a whole, road crashes result in enormous costs in terms of lost productivity and property damage.  The cost to the Australian economy has been estimated to be at least $27 billion per annum (BITRE, 2014).  This translates to an average of over $1,100 per annum for every person in Australia.  There is also a personal cost for those affected that is not possible to measure.  Road trauma from heavy vehicle crashes costs Australia approximately $1.5 billion each year.  This cost is broadly borne by the general public, businesses and government.

In 2015-16, the Australian domestic road freight task reached 219 billion tonne-kilometres, increasing by more than 23 per cent since 2006-07.  At the same time, the higher rates of crashes involving heavy vehicles has drawn increasing attention from policy makers, road safety advocates and the general-public, as well as from the heavy vehicle industry itself.

Heavy vehicles represent 3 per cent of all registered vehicles in Australia (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2018a) and account for over 7 per cent of total vehicle kilometres travelled on public roads (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2018b).  However, on average they are involved in around 17 per cent of fatal crashes and 5 per cent of serious injury (hospital admission) crashes.  These crashes are estimated to cost the Australian economy around $1.5 billion each year (in 2018 dollar terms), including approximately $200 million from crashes involving a heavy vehicle impacting the rear of another vehicle.

Heavy vehicles impacting the rear of another vehicle is the specific road safety problem that has been considered in this RIS.  According to data from MUARC (MUARC, 2020), these types of crashes accounted for almost 15 per cent of all heavy vehicle injury crashes in Australia. While in fatal multi‑vehicle crashes a lighter vehicle is likely to have been at fault (in up to 83 per cent of incidents according to NTARC, 2019), heavy vehicles nonetheless have characteristics that can increase both the risk and severity of both no-fault and at-fault crashes.  These include a high gross mass, elevated centre of gravity, long vehicle length, reduced opportunity to manoeuvre, and relatively longer stopping distances.

Fatal crashes

The Australian Road Deaths Database, maintained by the Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics, provides basic details of road crash fatalities in Australia as reported by the police each month to the state and territory road authorities.  This includes details on the number of fatal crashes and fatalities in crashes involving heavy articulated trucks (prime movers), rigid trucks and buses.  During the 12 months to the end of December 2019, 206 people died from 189 fatal crashes involving heavy trucks and buses.  Over the last three years (2017-2019), an average of 199 people died in 180 fatal crashes involving heavy trucks and buses each year (BITRE, 2019a).

Figure 1 shows the annual number of fatal crashes involving heavy trucks and buses in Australia for each calendar year in the period 2010 to 2019, while Figure 2 shows the corresponding number of fatalities.

Figure 1: Fatal crashes involving heavy trucks and buses in Australia, annual totals 2010-2019
(source: Australian Road Deaths Database)

Figure 2: Fatalities in crashes involving heavy trucks and buses in Australia, annual totals 2010-2019 (source: Australian Road Deaths Database)

It can be seen that fatalities in crashes involving prime movers decreased by around 20 per cent between 2010 and 2013, but have been relatively constant, with a very gradual downward trend, over the last seven years.  Fatalities in crashes involving rigid trucks and buses have been relatively constant over the 10 years (with some year to year fluctuations).

Over the last three years (2017-2019), the proportions of fatal heavy vehicle crashes involving a prime mover, rigid truck or bus were 46 per cent, 42 per cent and 12 per cent respectively.  Taking into account fatality rates and crash data, fatal crashes involving heavy trucks and buses cost the economy approximately $980 million annually (MUARC, 2020).

Serious and minor injury crashes

Data compiled by the National Injury Surveillance Unit at Flinders University, using the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare National Hospital Morbidity Database provides details on hospitalisation due to road crashes, including those involving heavy vehicles. Road injury while driving a heavy vehicle accounted for age-standardised rates of 4 cases per 100,000 population (AIHW, 2018).  The most recent year of data available (2016-2017) shows that 1,832 people were hospitalised from road crashes involving heavy vehicles (BITRE, 2019b). Prior to this available data, the two most recent years of available data (2012-13 and 2013-14) show that close to 1,750 people are hospitalised each year from road crashes involving heavy vehicles (AIHW, 2015).  This indicates an increasing trend in hospitalised injuries as a result of heavy vehicle presence on Australian roads. While not a perfect measure, hospital admission provides the best available indication of serious injury crashes in Australia.

With current annual serious injury rates and crash data available, serious injury crashes involving heavy trucks and buses in Australia cost approximately $520 million each year (MUARC, 2020).

1.2.          Government Actions to Address Heavy Vehicle Crashes

Government actions to address trauma in crashes involving heavy vehicles include the following initiatives, which are described further below:

·         Setting national vehicle standards.

·         Heavy Vehicle National Law and Performance Based Standards road network access controls.

·         Chain of responsibility, Work Health and Safety (vehicle as a workplace).

·         Infrastructure upgrades.

·         Other state and territory government initiatives such as research projects, education and partnerships.

National Vehicle Standards

The Australian Government administers the MVSA[4], which requires that all new road vehicles, whether they are manufactured in Australia or are imported, comply with national vehicle standards known as the Australian Design Rules (ADRs), before they can be offered to the market for use in transport in Australia.  The ADRs set minimum standards for safety, emissions and anti-theft performance.

Within Australia, consideration of the fitment of AEB has had to wait for the other supporting technologies of Anti-lock Brake Systems (ABS) and Electronic Stability Control (ESC) to be mandated.  This has been necessary to guarantee the stability of a heavy vehicle or heavy vehicle combination under the severe conditions of automatically generated braking by AEB systems.  The first considerations of mandating ABS were unsuccessful before and throughout the early 2000s, due to cost of the technology and to reliability concerns by some parts of the heavy trailer industry.  This situation continued through to the 2014 implementation of ABS for trucks, where further exemptions from ABS were sought for heavy trailers, as well as for the Commonwealth to consult at length on any reliability issues.  However, the underlying electrical power and wiring requirements for advanced braking systems were mandated at this time, in preparation for the next steps of fully implementing ABS/ESC/AEB systems.

Following the completion of this first Phase (Phase I) of what became the National Heavy Vehicle Braking Strategy (NHVBS) under the NRSS, the Department consulted as agreed with industry regarding the advantages and disadvantages, including reliability, of other advanced braking systems e.g. ESC and Roll Stability Control (RSC), to support the development of a RIS under Phase II of the NHVBS in 2018. Following the RIS, the Government introduced requirements for advanced ESC based systems for new heavy vehicles and RSC for trailers.  These requirements were introduced in order to reduce the cost of road trauma to the community from heavy vehicle rollover and loss of control crashes.  The RIS examined five options in addition to the business as usual case to increase fitment of ESC and RSC to the heavy vehicle fleet. It found there were significant benefits to be gained in the reduction of rollover and loss of control crashes by mandating ESC/RSC fitment.  This could not otherwise be realised either through the business as usual approach or various other non-regulatory options.  The benefit cost analysis found that there was a case for the provision of ESC and RSC systems for heavy vehicles and heavy trailers through government intervention, in the form of ADRs based on UN Regulation No. 13/11, that incorporates a performance standard adapted from US Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 136.  The positive net benefits of this intervention over the business as usual case were estimated at $217 million with potential to save 126 lives and see a reduction of 1,101 serious injuries following a 15 year period of regulation.

In addition to improved braking, passive safety systems can also mitigate the severity of heavy vehicle crashes.  For instance, when rear-end collisions occur between an impacting heavy vehicle and a light vehicle, vehicle underrun can occur, increasing the severity of the outcome.  This has been mitigated as much as possible by the introduction of Australian Design Rule (ADR) 84 - Front Underrun Impact Protection in 2009. Front underrun protection systems reduce the severity of trauma when a collision occurs, but cannot reduce the frequency of those collisions.

Heavy Vehicle National Law and Performance Based Standards

The Heavy Vehicle National Law (HVNL) was established in 2014 to provide nationally consistent arrangements for regulating the use of heavy vehicles to improve safety, and better manage the impact of heavy vehicles on the environment, road infrastructure and public amenity.  The HVNL also aims to promote the safe transport of goods and passengers, and improve the heavy vehicle industry’s productivity, efficiency, innovation and safe business practices.  It is administered by the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator (NHVR) in all states and territories except for Western Australia (WA) and the Northern Territory (NT).  WA and the NT instead continue with their own local arrangements.

The Australian Government was fundamental in the establishment of the NHVR and continues to provide support to it with respect to heavy vehicle road safety reforms.  It has committed $15.9 million funding to the NHVR for heavy vehicle safety initiatives, including the installation of new monitoring systems, as part of a national compliance and enforcement network.  Other initiatives include industry education on chain of responsibility obligations that have been strengthened under the HVNL, and assisting with the development of Industry codes of practice to strengthen safe business practices.

The Australian Government committed over $800,000 over two years to fund a joint heavy vehicle driver fatigue research project between the Cooperative Research Centre for Alertness, Safety and Productivity and the National Transport Commission (NTC).  These organisations will work together to undertake research to evaluate the impact of HVNL fatigue provisions on road safety risks.

The Performance Based Standards (PBS) scheme is administered by the NHVR to offer the heavy vehicle industry the potential to achieve higher productivity and safety through innovative and optimised vehicle combination design.  To obtain PBS approval, heavy vehicles must meet 16 additional safety standards and four additional infrastructure standards. Vehicles meeting these requirements can then be exempted from requirements relating to their dimensions and configuration (including length, width, height, rear overhang, retractable axles and tow coupling overhang/location etc.) and/or be permitted for operation at higher mass limits on approved routes. The PBS scheme has been in operation since October 2007.

WHS and Chain of Responsibility

On 18 May 2018, the Council of Australian Governments' Transport and Infrastructure Council agreed a framework for developing a 20-year national Freight and Supply Chain Strategy (the Strategy). On 6 April 2019,  the Australian Government published a paper (Delivering on Freight) showing its commitment to address industry’s priorities, including improving heavy vehicle access to local roads, improving availability and sharing of freight data and investing to address pinch points in key freight corridors, without compromising on safety. A national approach is essential to ensure freight systems and infrastructure work across state and territory borders to enable the safe and efficient delivery of goods wherever they are required across Australia. The Commonwealth, state, territory and local governments are working together to develop the Strategy for implementation from 2019.

Safe Work Australia is an Australian government statutory body established in 2008 to develop national policy relating to Work Health and Safety (WHS) and workers compensation.  The Australian Work Health and Safety Strategy 2012–2022 (SWA, 2018a) has identified road freight transport as a priority due to the high number and rate of work-related fatalities, injuries and illnesses.  The Australian Work Health and Safety Strategy 2012-2022 provides a framework to drive improvements in work health and safety in Australia. It promotes a collaborative approach between the Commonwealth, state and territory governments, industry and unions and other organisations to achieve the vision of healthy, safe and productive working lives.  The Strategy aims to reduce the incidence of serious injury by at least 30 per cent nationwide by 2022, and reduce the number of work-related fatalities due to injury by at least 20 per cent. The transport industry will play a critical role in meeting these targets.

The number of workers in the road transport industry grew by 16 per cent over the 13 years from 2003 to 2015 (SWA, 2019). In 2015, 74 per cent of transport workers were classed as employees and were covered by workers’ compensation schemes.  There have been significant reductions in the number and rate of injuries and fatalities in the transport industry over the past decade.  However it remains a high risk industry.

While the frequency of serious claims in the road transport industry remains comparatively high, there have been substantial improvements over the last five years.  The rate remained relatively stable with little improvement from 2007-08 and 2011-12 but has since fallen significantly by 36 per cent.  Figure 3 shows that there has also been a significant fall in the number of worker fatalities and the fatality rate since 2007, however, there has been considerable volatility year-on-year and a plateauing over the last three years (SWA, 2018b).

Figure 3: Fatalities and Serious claims -Safe Work Australia, Road Transport Industry Statistics (SWA, 2018b)

Work diaries and Electronic Work Diaries (EWDs) improve safety for the heavy vehicle industry though improved data accuracy and transparency for drivers, transport operators and authorised officers. They are also an important tool in reducing operator fatigue related crashes. EWDs are a voluntary alternative to written work diaries, approved by the NHVR, to monitor and record the work and rest times of a driver while significantly reducing administrative burden. In its public consultation on the EWD Policy Framework and Standards, the NHVR received majority support for commencing EWD services and in 2018 released a Notice of Final Rule Making allowing the use of EWDs.

Infrastructure Upgrades

The Australian Government has also extended the Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Programme (HVSPP) and will provide $40 million per year from 2021-22 onwards, building on the current $328 million investment from 2013-14 to 2020-21.  The HVSPP is an initiative to fund infrastructure projects that improve productivity and safety outcomes of heavy vehicle operations across Australia.  The Government contributes up to 50 per cent of the total project cost, through national partnership agreements with state and territory governments.  Examples of current safety projects include road freight route upgrades/improvements and the construction of more roadside rest areas for heavy vehicle drivers.

State and Territory Government Actions

Actions undertaken by state and territory governments towards improving heavy vehicle safety include investment in research projects, education campaigns, and strategic partnerships.  They also include increased stringency in safety requirements and access arrangements, particularly for access to government work contracts.  For instance, in NSW and Victoria most buses and many heavy trucks used in major infrastructure projects are subject to increased stringencies.

Building a safety culture and improving safety through partnerships are priorities identified in the NSW Government’s Road Safety Plan 2021 (RSP) released in February 2018.  The RSP commits to the development of a new heavy vehicle safety strategy and partnerships with the heavy vehicle industry, including champions of change, to improve safety of the freight task across NSW.  Initiatives taken by the NSW Government include projects such as:

·         Fleet CAT - The field stage of the Fleet Collision Avoidance Technology Trial (Fleet CAT) project was completed, with drivers in the project travelling 363,000 km and receiving 117,000 alerts from the collision avoidance system.

·         SPECTS - The Safety, Productivity & Environment Construction Transport Scheme (SPECTS) is a voluntary scheme designed to improve the safety, environmental performance and productivity of heavy vehicles used by the construction industry in NSW. SPECTS is administered and maintained by Roads and Maritime Services (RMS).

Towards Zero is a strategy and action plan that the Victorian Government has committed to. This action plan involves governments, communities, vehicle manufacturers, road authorities and transport companies working together to reduce the road toll.  Through this plan, the Victorian Government aims to influence heavy vehicle companies to purchase or lease vehicles with advanced safety features such as AEB, Lane Departure Warning (LDW) or Lane Keep Assist (LKA).

The Heavy Vehicle Safety Action Plan 2019-2020 delivered by the Queensland Government was developed in consultation with Queensland Trucking Association, National Heavy Vehicle Regulator and Queensland Police Service.  The plan aims to reduce heavy vehicle fatalities and identifies 36 heavy vehicle safety interventions.  This includes the adoption of current and emerging safety technologies, standards and schemes such as:

·         Inform a national review of the PBS scheme, and the increased presence of PBS vehicles on suitable road networks.

·         Advocate for fast-tracking mandatory safety technologies for new heavy vehicles including, collision avoidance systems, stability control for prime movers weighing 12 tonnes, stability control for trailers weighing more than 10 tonnes, autonomous emergency braking and underrun protection.

·         Investigate options to include improved/increased heavy vehicle safety standards as part of Queensland government funded construction contracts.

·         Inform a national review of current heavy vehicle accreditation scheme arrangements.

·         Encourage the increased uptake of telematics and other safety technologies for business and/or regulatory purposes.

Towards Zero Together, South Australia’s Road Safety Strategy 2020, was launched in 2011 to set a new approach to road safety by the South Australian Government.  The associated Action Plan 2018-2019 continues the focus established under Towards Zero Together and previous action plans.  It responds to emerging trends from a review of road crash data, and developments in knowledge and technology that supports new solutions.  It also recognises the directions set nationally through the NRSS.  The Action Plan includes priority actions to be delivered by the end of 2019, of which one Priority Action is the introduction of an independent vehicle inspection scheme for heavy vehicles registered in SA.

Towards Zero: Getting there together 2008-2020 was launched by the Western Australian Government and builds on the progress achieved under the previous strategy Arriving Safely.  One of four key initiatives is Safe Vehicles – promoting the uptake of safer vehicles and key safety features, particularly by government and corporate fleets.  This initiative includes the following measures:

·         Prevent death and serious injury by increasing the purchase of safe vehicles and specific safety features in vehicles.

·         Promote community take up of safer vehicles and vehicle safety features

·         Encourage corporate fleets to purchase safe vehicles and vehicle safety features.

·         Strongly encourage making safe vehicles and specific safety features such as ESC, and side and curtain airbags compulsory for government vehicles.

·         Undertake an ongoing research and development program to identify and progress future technological opportunities (improved alcohol interlocks, fatigue warning systems and safety based route navigation).

The Towards Zero Strategy and Towards Zero Action Plan 2017-2019 targets the Tasmanian Government’s highest risk areas and deliberately focuses on those road safety initiatives that will gain the greatest reductions in serious injuries and deaths.  On 2 July 2018, the Department of State Growth in Tasmania transferred responsibility for direct delivery of heavy vehicle compliance and enforcement to the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator (NHVR).

Towards Zero Road Safety Action Plan 2018- 2022 (Towards Zero) is a five year road safety action plan of the Northern Territory Government which has been developed through extensive community consultation.  Towards Zero focuses on road safety actions to address the key priority areas for NT.  Actions within this plan include:

·         Continually monitoring, evaluating, and introducing emerging technology that assists in achieving the vision of the plan.

·         Mandatory Vehicle inspection regimes for private, business and heavy vehicles.

·         Safe driving awareness campaigns that include sharing the road safely with heavy vehicles.

·         Promote bike education for school students and safe cycling with groups, such as heavy vehicles.

1.3.          Rear-end Crashes Involving an Impacting Heavy Vehicle

Heavy vehicles have a reduced risk of being struck from the rear as they decelerate more gradually than other vehicles.  However, for the same reason, they have an increased risk of being the impacting vehicle in a rear-end collision.  Consequently, collisions involving a heavy vehicle impacting the rear of another vehicle are one of the most common type of heavy vehicle crash, accounting for almost 15 per cent of all heavy vehicle trauma (MUARC, 2020).  Like most heavy vehicle crashes, rear-end crashes involving an impacting heavy vehicle are typically severe.

Common contributing factors of heavy vehicle rear-end crashes include other vehicles aborting a manoeuvre at the last moment (for example at traffic lights); cutting-in during peak traffic periods as well as the usual issues of tailgating, driver distraction and driver inattention.  These are exacerbated by the decreased vision generally available to and around a heavy vehicle.

Based on detailed injury crash data (Austroads, 2015), it is estimated that the average annual rear-end crash count for fatal and serious injury across all vehicle types in Australia is 2449.  Of this average, approximately 84 per cent were in urban areas with 16 per cent of rear end crashes occurring in rural areas.  These figures equate to approximately 39 fatal and serious injury related rear end crashes per week in urban areas and approximately 8 in rural areas.  Further, approximately 26 of these each year are from crashes involving a heavy vehicle.

According to data from Budd and Newstead (2014), rear-end crashes accounted for 26 per cent of all heavy vehicle injury crashes in Australia over the period 2008 to 2010 (including 34 per cent involving rigid trucks, 26 per cent involving prime movers and 18 per cent involving road trains for total injury rear-end crashes).  Due to the prevalence of these types of crashes, AEB systems were considered valuable, with the expectation that they would prevent at least some of the more serious trauma crashes from occurring.  The study predicted that at the maximum efficacy, one quarter of all heavy vehicle fatal crashes could be prevented from the mandating of AEB systems.  This translated to an annual saving of costs to Australian society of $187 million.  The study concluded that the injuries and property damage associated with heavy vehicles may be dramatically reduced in metropolitan regions by fitting AEB technology to heavy vehicles as more than half of all severe and more than 70 per cent of fatal crashes were deemed to be potentially prevented by AEB systems.  However, this crash sensitivity included a broad set of scenarios. Budd and Newstead (2014) defined ‘narrowly’ sensitivity crashes as crashes with vehicles travelling in the same direction which were hit in the rear, crashes whilst reversing in traffic and crashes with objects or vehicles parked/stopped on path.  ‘Broadly’ sensitive were crashes which involved a collision with something in the path which was either not a vehicle or not travelling in the same direction.  This set potentially included crashes with trains/level-crossings, pedestrians, animals and other objects in a vehicle’s path, crashes at intersections, crashes with vehicles heading in the opposite direction, crashes whilst manoeuvring when entering or leaving parking or footways or U-turning into a fixed object and crashes whilst overtaking including only head on, pulling out, cutting in or turning.  This study and other early research were primarily based on the maximal potential of AEB systems to detect vulnerable road users, objects and/or infrastructure crash detection and operation in all road/environmental conditions.

In 2017, the NSW Centre for Road Safety, Transport for NSW independently reviewed crash avoidance technologies including AEB.  The report (Transport for NSW, 2017) estimated that AEB could prevent up to 25 per cent of all heavy vehicle fatalities.  Research recently commissioned by the Government (MUARC, 2020) has considered the effect of the technology conforming to the minimum requirements of UN Regulation No. 131.  The study found that 5.5 per cent of the 200 heavy vehicle fatalities per year could be prevented.

Although there are currently a number of existing government actions to improve heavy vehicle safety, these are mostly road user behaviour or infrastructure related, and only include a limited number of localised measures to encourage fitting of technology through contracts and/or more favourable road access arrangements.  The existing government actions are therefore likely to have only a limited impact on national fitment rates of AEB systems conforming to UN Regulation No. 131, which can directly prevent or mitigate heavy vehicle rear impact crashes.  Together with the ongoing trend of these crashes occurring in Australia and the reported success of the technology where mandated in other countries, this has led to increased deployment of AEB being prioritised as an action under the National Road Safety Strategy 2011-2020.  As retro-fitting sophisticated technology such as AEB would generally be high cost and disruptive for current vehicle owners, the action has concentrated on influencing the new vehicle market only.

1.4.          The National Road Safety Strategy 2011-2020

Under the National Road Safety Strategy (NRSS) 2011-2020, the Australian Government and state and territory governments have agreed on a set of national road safety goals, objectives and action priorities through the decade 2011-2020 and beyond (Transport and Infrastructure Council, 2011).  The NRSS aims to reduce the number of deaths and serious injuries on the nation’s roads by at least 30 per cent by 2020 (relative to the baseline period 2008-2010 levels), as endorsed by the Transport and Infrastructure Council (the Council), in 2011.  As Future Steps, the NRSS includes, subject to RIS outcomes, consideration of mandating AEB for heavy vehicles.

An updated National Road Safety Action Plan 2018-20 (the Action Plan) developed cooperatively by federal, state and territory transport agencies, was endorsed by the Council in May 2018 (National Road Safety Strategy, 2018).  The Action Plan supports the broader 10-year agenda of the NRSS by ensuring that national efforts in the final three years of the NRSS are focused on strategically important initiatives.  The Action Plan contains nine Priority Actions that all jurisdictions have agreed must be completed and will assist to meet the targets for road trauma reduction contained in the NRSS.  This plan also includes a list of Other Critical Actions – these represent either extensions of existing national efforts or supporting actions that are important to continue in addition to the key national priority list.  The choice of Priority Actions and Other Critical Actions has been informed by available data and evidence about effective approaches to reduce road trauma.

Priority Action 4 of the Action Plan is to increase deployment of AEB in both heavy and light vehicles.  The case for this Priority Action was based on the potential for AEB systems to reduce death and injury through a demonstrated reduction in rear-end crashes.  The action tasks the Commonwealth examining international standards for AEB for heavy vehicles for implementation in the Australian new vehicle fleet, and finalise a regulatory package through the ADRs, subject to RIS outcomes.

Priority 9 is to increase the market uptake of safer new and used vehicles and emerging vehicle technologies with high safety benefits.  This follows the success of the Australasian New Car Assessment Program (ANCAP), Used Car Safety Ratings (UCSR) and related safety research showing the benefits to consumers of choosing safer vehicles.  A large proportion of new vehicle purchases are made for private and government fleets, being turned over to the general fleet after 2–3 years. Influencing fleet operators to purchase the safest vehicles was determined as one of the quickest ways to improve the safety of the Australian fleet overall.  This Priority Action required the Commonwealth and state and territory Governments to update their fleet policies to require ANCAP 5-star rated light passenger and light commercial vehicles, as well as driver assistance technologies including AEB, Lane Keep Assist, Lane Departure Warning and Adaptive Cruise Control; and other beneficial technologies, where available.

Other Critical Action K aims to require contractors on government-funded construction projects to improve the safety of vulnerable road users around heavy vehicles through safety technology and education programs.  The case for this Action was based on evidence of heavy vehicles featuring prominently in crashes causing deaths and serious injuries to vulnerable road users in urban areas.  Furthermore, there is a large amount of major infrastructure construction currently underway or planned across Australia. As much of this increased activity is in city and suburban areas, it brings increased risk to vulnerable road users (VRUs).  Implementation of this action includes use of vehicle safety technologies and standards through government construction contracts, for technologies such VRU detection, improved driver field of view, warning systems, and advanced forms of AEB, that could better protect VRUs sharing the roads with the heavy trucks that are used in construction in urban areas.


 

2.     Why is Government Action Needed?

Government action may be needed where the market fails to provide the most efficient and effective solution to a problem.  In this case the problem is that heavy vehicle crashes are estimated to cost the Australian community around $200 million every year.  These crashes are not reducing as much as they could, given the availability of effective safety technologies.

In Australia, the introduction of safety technologies through market action alone is significantly slower for heavy vehicles than it is for light vehicles.  A major reason for this is the nature of construction of heavy vehicles. In comparison to light vehicles (for example cars and Sports Utility Vehicles), heavy vehicles are more likely to be built to order, with engines, drivetrains, suspensions, brakes, axles and safety systems individually specified by the purchasing business.  Heavy vehicles constitute a substantial financial investment and are generally configured for business use.  Purchasers may in some instances focus primarily on maximising economic productivity rather than on the safety of other road users.

A significant number of heavy vehicles are built in Australia specifically for the Australian market.  For example, about 50 per cent of heavy duty trucks (see Figure 4 below), more than 80 per cent of the heavy haulage vehicles used in the mining industry and around 95 per cent of heavy trailers are built in Australia.  This means that the designs and regulations effective in other markets will have a lesser influence on the makeup of the Australian heavy duty truck fleet.  This means that rate of fitment of safety systems in the Australian market is likely to remain relatively independent of fitment rates in other markets, in the absence of market intervention.

Truck Sales in Australia (2014) by Country/Region of Manufacture (source: TIC, 2015)

Figure 4: Truck Sales in Australia (2014) by Country/Region of Manufacture (source: TIC, 2015)[5]

Businesses profit from the manufacture of heavy vehicles and from their operation on Australia’s public road network.  However, heavy vehicle trauma and associated financial costs are borne by all road network users and the broader Australian community more generally.  Though actions around driver and fleet managers can reduce the frequency of heavy vehicle at-fault crashes, technology such as Anti-lock Braking Systems (ABS), ESC, AEB and LKA can also alleviate crashes and/or mitigate crash severity.

In the case of AEB, researchers have found that in collisions involving a heavy vehicle impacting the rear of another vehicle, it reduces all forms of trauma of vehicle occupants by up to 57 per cent (MUARC, 2020).  However, heavy vehicle AEB fitment rates have been low with only around six per cent of all new Australian heavy vehicles sold in 2018 being fitted with AEB systems complying with internationally adopted standards.  Table 6 shows that based on heavy vehicle industry reported sales and fitment data most of these are in the heavy duty prime mover segment at 23 per cent (NC category prime mover (PM)).  The remaining fitment of AEB occurs in close to four per cent of NC category rigid vehicles and 0.15 per cent of NB category vehicles.

Table 6: Industry reported heavy vehicle AEB fitment (2018)

Total Number of New Vehicle Sales (as reported)

Estimated Number of New Vehicles Fitted (as reported)

Estimated AEB Fitment (%)

NB1

NB2

NC-PM

NC-Rigid

NB1

NB2

NC-PM

NC-Rigid

NB1

NB2

NC-PM

NC-Rigid

10938

7846

7525

10509

0

11

1760

379

0

0.15

23.38

3.61

In Australia, the fitment of AEB systems is significantly higher for NC category heavy duty prime movers than for other vehicle categories.  The reason for this is not clear, but it may relate to the higher value of these trucks and the loads that they carry.  A fleet owner is more likely to order the technology if its cost is less relative to the overall cost of the truck.  Another factor may be the awareness of owners that because heavy duty prime movers have a greater exposure to high loads and highway speeds, there are greater consequences should a crash occur.

ANCAP publishes safety ratings for a range of new passenger, sports utility (SUV) and light commercial vehicles (LCV) entering the Australian and New Zealand markets, using a rating system of 0 to 5 stars.  ANCAP has reported that the number of top 100 selling LPV models offered with AEB as standard increased from 3 per cent of the market in 2015, to 31 per cent of the market in 2018.  The latest available data indicates fitment rates of approximately 40 per cent of the top 100 selling models in the Australian light vehicle fleet.

Unlike the light vehicle fleet, there are no national consumer safety ratings schemes for new heavy vehicles.  Despite AEB being an increasingly available fitment (or part of a fitment package upgrade), new heavy vehicles are generally configured with an emphasis on productivity, with a lower level of passive and active safety features than is typical of light vehicles.

Mandatory fitment of AEB to commercial heavy vehicles according to UN Regulation No. 131 has been implemented across the European market since November 2013, followed by mandates in Japan and Korea.  By November 2018, the European mandate had taken full effect for all new vehicles covered by UN Regulation No. 131 (with exemptions including urban buses and off-road or agricultural vehicles).  Though now well established, the European mandate has not strongly influenced Australian market fitment rates, in part due to the bespoke sale configurations selected by Australian operators. However, the mandate has reduced and mitigated heavy vehicle rear impact crashes in Europe, providing useful European data on the effectiveness of the technology that has been used to support the Australian research.

2.1.            Autonomous Emergency Braking Systems for Heavy Vehicles

Like other Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS), an AEB system reads inputs from a variety of devices to monitor the environment.  In the event that a collision with a vehicle (and in some instances other road users such as pedestrians) is predicted, the driver is warned via an acoustic alarm. If the driver does not respond, a warning brake phase may be initiated.  If the driver still does not react to the event, the system will prime the brakes and soon after execute an emergency braking phase in order to mitigate the collision.  The AEB system is typically built on top of an ESC platform and is integrated with its ABS, ensuring that an emergency stop doesn’t lead to, for example, rollover.

The timing of the emergency braking phase may be delayed until the last opportunity for the driver to steer to avoid the accident.  While not substantially reducing the potential to mitigate an impending collision, the system may use this delay to eliminate false target detections.  It also gives the driver the ability to deliberately steer close to an object without triggering unnecessary emergency braking.

An AEB system may also be capable of providing a “brake assist” function.  This can occur when a driver does not apply sufficient brake pedal force to avoid a collision.  In this instance, the AEB system calculates the velocity and displacement of the vehicle from the target and applies additional braking force to mitigate the collision.

AEB systems use a variety of sensors to monitor their environment. Complex algorithms bring together vehicle motion and relative position data with data from environment scanning sensors, such as radar and cameras, to identify potential collisions.  When a critical situation is identified and the driver fails to react sufficiently, the AEB system automatically applies the brakes to avoid or mitigate the impact.

Since AEB systems are designed to intervene at the last possible moment prior to a collision, the deceleration brought about by an AEB intervention is rapid and so uncomfortable for the driver. This serves the purpose of preventing the behaviour known as driver adaptation (Xiong & Boyle, 2012). An AEB system is not designed to replace the driver’s responsibility to remain in control at all times.  It exists to support the driver in the event of a collision otherwise occurring.

When braking a heavy vehicle in emergency situations, whether initiated by a driver or an AEB system, maintaining stability is critical.  The role of heavy vehicle ESC and trailer RSC is even more critical when hard braking is accompanied by swerving (common in rear-end collisions as the driver tries to avoid the vehicle in front, when there is any road curvature, and/or when there is reduced wheel traction.  For this reason, vehicles fitted with effective AEB are typically also fitted with ESC/RSC, often as a necessary sub-component.

The effectiveness of AEB systems for heavy vehicles is likely to be greater than for passenger vehicles as a result of frequency and severity of impacting heavy vehicle rear-end collisions.

2.2.            Available Standards

Australia participates in the peak UN forum that sets both the framework and technical requirements for international vehicle standards, known as WP.29.  The Australian Government has been involved for over thirty years and is a signatory to the two major treaties for the development of UN Regulations (the 1958 Agreement) and Global Technical Regulations (GTRs) (the 1998 Agreement).  The adoption of international regulations as a basis for national or regional standards results in the highest safety levels at the lowest possible cost.

Since attaining WP.29 endorsement in 2013, UN Regulation No. 131 has remained the internationally agreed standard covering heavy vehicle AEB.  It sets requirements for detecting vehicles in the impact zone, while operating up to the full speed of the heavy vehicle under highway conditions.  UN regulations are revised on an ongoing basis and so in time it may be possible to expand the requirements to specifically detect road users such as pedestrians and cyclists.  However, this is outside the scope of this RIS.

Six per cent of new Australian heavy vehicles are already sold fitted with AEB systems that would comply with UN Regulation No. 131.

2.3.     Summary of UN Regulation No. 131

Scope

UN Regulation No. 131 covers AEB systems fitted to vehicles greater than 3.5 tonnes Gross Vehicle Mass (GVM) applicable to UN vehicle categories M2, M3, N2 and N3, corresponding to ADR subcategories MD, ME, NB and NC.  These systems automatically detect a potential forward collision, provide the driver with a warning and activate the vehicle braking system to decelerate the vehicle with the purpose of avoiding or mitigating the severity of a collision in the event that the driver does not respond to the warning.

System Capability

As a minimum, the AEB system must provide an acoustic or haptic warning, which may also be a sharp deceleration, so that an unaware driver is alerted to a critical situation.  The timing of the warning signals must be such that they provide the possibility for the driver to react to the risk of collision and take control of the situation.  Following the warning phase, in the event of an imminent collision with a target vehicle, the system must achieve the specified requirements of the braking phase.

During any phase of action taken by the AEB system (the warning or emergency braking phases), the driver can, at any time through a conscious action, e.g. by a steering action or an accelerator kickdown or operating the direction indicator control, take control and override the system.

Since UN Regulation No. 131 cannot include all the traffic conditions and infrastructure features in the type-approval process, false warnings or false braking must be limited so that they do not encourage the driver to switch the system off (if the vehicle is equipped with a means to manually deactivate the AEB system).  In addition, the AEB system may be temporarily not available due to adverse weather conditions.  In this instance the driver must be provided with an optical warning to indicate system status.

In the case of a failure in the AEB system, it is a requirement that the safe operation of the vehicle must not be endangered.

Test Conditions

The application for approval of a vehicle type with regard to AEB systems requires testing the subject vehicle to warning and activation test requirements.  The applicability of a vehicle subcategory to the requirements in these tests is dependent upon the GVM and brake system type (pneumatic or hydraulic) fitted to the vehicle.  The AEB performance requirements applicable to heavier vehicles are more stringent than those applicable to lighter vehicles.  In particular, the speed of the target vehicle for the moving target test is much higher; 67 km/h versus 12 km/h.  Appendix 4 summarises these performance requirements.

There are two types of tests; stationary target and moving target.  Test conditions are summarised in Table 7.

Table 7: UN Regulation No. 131 – Summary, AEB Test conditions

Test Condition

Description

Surface

Flat, dry concrete or asphalt affording good adhesion.

Temperature Range

0 – 45 deg. Celsius

Lighting Conditions

Horizontal visibility range shall allow the target to be observed throughout test.

Test when there is no wind liable to affect the results.

Subject Vehicle Mass

The vehicle shall be tested in a condition of load
(loaded to manufacturer specifications).

The regulation includes a clause specifying that requirements will be reviewed before 1st November 2021.  This has commenced under WP.29 and is expected to increase performance requirements for some vehicle types.  However, implementation dates would be several years away. For this reason, the benefits of the current UN Regulation No. 131 are considered in this RIS.  The Department will review any amendments to the regulation in line with UN revisions, as they become available.

Test Targets

A target is the object being detected by the AEB system. Certification tests utilise the high volume series production passenger car UN category M1 AA ‘saloon body shape’ (equivalent to ADR sub-category MA), comprising not more than 9 seats including driver’s seat. A soft target may be used that will suffer minimum damage and cause minimum damage to the subject vehicle in the event of a testing collision.  For the moving target test, the target travels at a constant speed in the same direction and in the centre of the same lane of travel.  For the stationary target test, a target at standstill facing the same direction is positioned on the centre of the same test lane of travel as the subject vehicle.

Guidance on Exemptions

In the introduction (for information) of UN Regulation No. 131 it is stated that the intention of this regulation is to establish uniform provisions for AEB systems fitted to motor vehicles of the UN categories M2, M3 (omnibuses), and N2 and N3 (goods vehicles over 3.5 tonnes) primarily used under highway conditions.  It is also noted in this section that there are sub-groups of vehicles where the benefit is rather uncertain because they are primarily used in conditions other than highway conditions (e.g. buses with standing passengers (i.e. UN class A, I and II vehicles), off-road vehicles (i.e. UN category G vehicles) and construction vehicles), and there are other sub-groups where the installation of AEBS would be technically difficult regardless of the benefit (e.g. position of the sensor on off-road vehicles and special purpose vehicles, etc.).  This information is provided to assist countries to decide which vehicles (if any) to exempt when incorporating this regulation into regional or national law.

2.4.             European Mandate of UN Regulation No. 131

European Commission Regulation No. 661/2009 set an ambitious target to fit AEB systems (termed AEBS) to all new types of M2, M3, N2 and N3 category vehicles from 1 November 2013 and to all new vehicles of these categories from 1 November 2015.  The first technical requirements and test procedures for AEB systems were subsequently published in the EU implementing regulation No. 347/2012.  Recognising that some additional time would be required to fully develop effective AEB systems, especially for certain types and configurations of vehicles, mandatory AEB fitment requirements were introduced in two stages.

For the first stage, applicable from 1 November 2013 for new vehicle types/models and from 1 November 2015 for all new vehicles, the AEB requirements were only applied to M3 category vehicles, larger N2 category vehicles with a GVM greater than 8,000 kg and N3 category vehicles that are equipped with pneumatic or air/hydraulic braking systems and with pneumatic rear axle suspension systems.

For the second stage, applicable from 1 November 2016 for new vehicle types/models and from 1 November 2018 for all new vehicles, the AEB requirements were extended to cover all M2, M3, N2 and N3 category vehicles, other than those specifically exempted.  The stringency of the AEB system performance requirements was also increased for M3 category vehicles, N2 category vehicles with a GVM greater than 8,000 kg and N3 category vehicles.

Exemptions are provided for semi-trailer towing vehicles with a maximum mass not exceeding 8 tonnes, buses with provision for standing passengers (i.e. UN class A, I and II vehicles), vehicles with more than three axles, vehicles designed for off-road use (i.e. UN category G vehicles) and certain other special purpose vehicles.

Much discussion over the AEB system performance requirements for M2 category vehicles and N2 category vehicles with a GVM not exceeding 8,000 kg took place between industry and governments to ensure full alignment between the EU requirements and those contained in UN Regulation No. 131.

2.5.             Objective of Government Action

Australia has a strong history of government actions aimed at increasing the availability and uptake of safer vehicles and Australians have come to expect high levels of safety.  The general objective of the Australian Government is to ensure that the most appropriate measures for delivering safer vehicles to the Australian community are in place.  The most appropriate measures will be those which provide the greatest net benefit to society and are in accordance with Australia’s international obligations.

The objective of this RIS is to examine the case for government intervention to reduce heavy vehicle rear impact crashes.  Specifically, it is to improve the in-lane crash avoidance capability of the new heavy vehicle fleet in Australia by increasing the fitment rate of AEB systems.  This is in order to reduce the cost of road trauma to the community from these types of crashes.

Where intervention involves the use of regulation, the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade requires Australia to adopt international standards where they are available or imminent.  Where the decision maker is the Australian Government’s Cabinet, the Prime Minister, minister, statutory authority, board or other regulator, Australian Government RIS requirements apply.  This is the case for this RIS.  The requirements are set out in the Australian Government Guide to Regulation (Australian Government, 2014a).


 

3.     What Policy Options are Being Considered?

A number of options were considered to increase the fitment of AEB systems to new heavy vehicles supplied to the Australian market.  These included both non-regulatory and/or regulatory means such as the use of market forces, education campaigns, codes of practice, fleet purchasing policies, as well as regulation through the ADRs under the MVSA and then RVSA.

3.1.          Available Options

Non-Regulatory Options

Option 1: no intervention
Allow market forces to provide a solution (no intervention).

Option 2: user information campaigns
Information campaigns to inform consumers and operators about the benefits of AEB systems.

Option 3: fleet purchasing policies
Permit only heavy vehicles fitted with AEB systems for government fleet purchases (economic approach).

Regulatory Options

Option 4: codes of practice
Allow heavy vehicle supplier associations, with government assistance, to initiate and monitor a voluntary code of practice for the fitment of AEB systems to new heavy vehicles. (regulatory—voluntary).  Alternatively, mandate a code of practice (regulatory—mandatory).

Option 5: mandatory standards under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (CCA)
Mandate standards for fitment of AEB systems to new heavy vehicles under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (CCA) (regulatory—mandatory).

Option 6: mandatory standards under the MVSA and then RVSA (regulation)
Mandate standards requiring the fitment of AEB systems to new heavy vehicles under the MVSA and then RVSA based on UN Regulation No. 131
(regulatory—mandatory).

3.2.          Discussion of the Options

Option 1: No Intervention (Business as Usual)

The Business As Usual (BAU) case relies on the market fixing the problem, the community accepting the problem, or some combination of the two.

The state of current voluntary fitment of AEB systems to heavy vehicles is around six per with heavy duty prime movers having a fitment rate of around 23 per cent.  These fitment rates have arisen without regulation in Australia, including due to many heavy vehicle manufacturers and operators recognising the benefits of the technology to their businesses and/or the broader community.  However, it is also important to note that fitment of these technologies is significantly higher in some other markets, most notably Europe were fitment is now mandatory (subject to some limited exemptions) for all new vehicles. The mandate in Europe has not strongly influenced the Australian market in that the increase in AEB systems as a result of manufacturers fitting the technology in Europe since 2013 has not translated into rapidly increasing fitment rates in Australia.

In examining this case, European Commission requirements on the fitment of heavy vehicle AEB in the EU and its flow on effect to the Australian market was considered. This included decreasing production costs of AEB equipment as well as reduced development and testing costs over the years as the technology improves and best practice methods of application, development and implementation become widespread.

Actions undertaken by state and territory governments towards improving heavy vehicle safety have been described earlier and include investment in research projects, education campaigns, and strategic partnerships.  They also include increased stringency in safety requirements and access arrangements, particularly for access to government work contracts.  These actions are mostly road user behaviour or infrastructure countermeasures, and only include a limited number of localised measures to encourage fitting of technology through contracts or more favourable road access arrangements. They are therefore expected to have only a limited impact in reducing the overall number of heavy vehicle rear impact crashes across Australia.  Nationally, ADR 84 - Front Underrun Impact Protection is a technology that been mandated for a number of years that helps reduce the severity of trauma when a collision occurs.  The only other proven technology to date is AEB.  The broad introduction of technology such as AEB is not practical through state and territory government efforts as there is no national consumer safety ratings scheme for new heavy vehicles (unlike ANCAP for light vehicles).

Under Option 1, voluntary fitment by industry of AEB systems to new heavy vehicles is projected (based on recent trends and regulation in other markets) to increase year on year to some degree, with marked initial increases.  The BAU option was analysed in detail in order to establish the baseline for comparison with other options.

Option 2: User Information Campaigns

User information campaigns can be effective in promoting the benefits of a new technology to increase demand for it.  Campaigns may be carried out by the private sector and/or the public sector.  They work best when the information being provided is simple to understand and unambiguous. They can be targeted towards the single consumer or to those who make significant purchase decisions, such as private or government fleet owners. Campaigns around vehicle safety technologies do not need to consider manufacturer system development costs, because consumers are educated to choose from existing (developed) models that already include the technology.

Appendix 2 — Targeted Awareness Campaigns (2a) details two real examples of awareness campaigns; a broad high cost approach and a targeted low cost approach.  The broad high cost approach cost $6 million and provided a benefit-cost ratio of 5.  The targeted low cost approach cost $1 million and generated an awareness of 77 per cent.  The targeted low cost approach was run over a period of four months, with an effectiveness of 77 per cent. It is likely that a campaign would have to be run on a regular basis to maintain effectiveness.

Appendix 3 — Advertising Campaigns (2b) details three notable automotive sector advertising campaigns for Hyundai, Mitsubishi and Volkswagen.  The costs of such campaigns are not made public.  However, a typical cost would be $5 million for television, newspaper and magazine advertisements for a three-month campaign.  Research has shown that for general goods, advertising campaigns can lead to an around 8 per cent increase in sales (Radio Ad Lab, 2005).  This increase is similar to the result achieved by the Mitsubishi campaign promoting the benefits of its ESC. While some costs were available, the effectiveness of the campaigns was not able to be determined.  It is likely that a campaign would have to be run on a regular basis to maintain effectiveness.

Table 8 provides a summary of the costs and effectiveness of the information campaigns used in the benefit-cost analysis (Section 4).

Table 8:  Estimation of campaign costs and effectiveness

Campaigns

Estimated campaign cost
($m) per year

Expected effectiveness

Awareness – targeted

3

77 per cent fitment of AEB to new heavy vehicles

Advertising

18

8 per cent increase in AEB fitment rate relative to BAU fitment rate

Targeted awareness campaigns (Option 2a) could include the promotion of AEB for heavy vehicles as well as market incentives, including at point of sale.  Such campaigns can be tailored to a specific user group.  With the existing BAU fitment rates expected for AEB for heavy vehicles, it was determined that targeted awareness campaigns would remain relevant for up to the full 15 year policy intervention.  This would be considered an unusually long period for such campaigns.  This means advertising fatigue would need to be considered together with varying annual implementation costs to increase accuracy in forecasting.  However, in order to conservatively estimate the best case outcome for comparison to other options, fatigue and cost variations were not included in modelling.

Advertising campaigns (Option 2b) typically capitalise on media and event promotion of a technology, and may be less specific in effect in comparison to targeted awareness campaigns.  They usually have a minor to moderate effect on technology uptake in comparison to targeted awareness campaigns, and may be more costly.

Taking into consideration the existing BAU fitment rates for AEB systems, it is forecast that targeted awareness campaigns would have the strongest effect over the later years of a policy lifespan for heavy vehicles.

Both Options 2a and 2b were analysed further to determine expected benefits.

Option 3: Fleet Purchasing Policies

The Australian Government could intervene by permitting only heavy vehicles fitted with AEB systems to be purchased for its fleet.  This would create an incentive for manufacturers to fit these systems to models that are otherwise compatible with government requirements.

However, as the Australian Government heavy vehicle fleet is small (only 1066 heavy commercial vehicles as at 30 June 2013 - less than 0.2 per cent of all registered heavy vehicles) and operators order bespoke, rather than standard configured vehicles, Government fleet purchasing policies are not considered an effective means to increase the penetration of AEB systems more generally in the Australian heavy vehicle fleet.

This option was not considered in further detail.

Option 4: Codes of Practice

A code of practice can be either voluntary or mandatory.  If mandatory, there can be remedies for those who suffer loss or damage due to a supplier contravening the code, including injunctions, damages, orders for corrective advertising and refusing enforcement of contractual terms.

Voluntary Code of Practice

Compared with legislated requirements, voluntary codes of practice usually involve a high degree of industry participation, as well as a greater responsiveness to change when needed.  For them to succeed, the relationship between business, government and consumer representatives should be collaborative so that all parties have ownership of, and commitment to, the arrangements (Commonwealth Interdepartmental Committee on Quasi Regulation, 1997).

A voluntary code of practice could be an agreement by industry to fit AEB systems to heavy vehicles at nominated fitment rates.  Based on real world tests conducted under controlled conditions, the environmental capability and the performance characteristics of existing AEB systems is known to vary substantially across manufacturers.  Applying this to real world scenarios in uncontrolled conditions is likely to reveal further variance in performance across manufacturers.  In terms of alleviating trauma, AEB performance across the fleet, particularly in common crash scenarios, can be as critical as fitment rates.

Voluntary codes are unlikely to cover all heavy vehicle manufacturers and as consequence any breaches of the code would be difficult for the various industry bodies and/or the Australian Government to monitor and control.  Further, given the sophistication of AEB systems for heavy vehicles, detecting a breach would be particularly difficult in the case of a crash resulting from reduced performance.  Such breaches would usually only be revealed through continual failures in the field or by expert third party reporting.  Any reduction in implementation costs relative to other options would need to be balanced against the consequences of such failures.  In the case of AEB systems for heavy vehicles, taking into account the severity of typical crashes, a breach could have serious consequences, including increased road trauma.

For safety critical matters such as AEB systems for heavy vehicles, voluntary codes of practice are a high risk and cost proposition in terms of both monitoring and detecting breaches and being able to take timely action to intervene.

This sub-option was therefore not considered any further.

Mandatory Code of Practice - Regulation

Mandatory codes of practice can be an effective means of regulation in areas where government agencies do not have the expertise or resources to monitor compliance.  However, in considering the options for regulating the performance of heavy vehicles, the responsible government agency (the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications) has existing legislation, expertise, resources and well-established systems to administer a compliance regime that would be more effective than a mandatory code of practice.

Because of the above, this option was not considered in further detail.

Option 5: Mandatory Standards under the CCA—Regulation

As with codes of practice, standards can be either voluntary or mandatory as provided for under the CCA.  However, in the same way as a mandatory code of practice was considered in the more general case of regulating the performance of heavy vehicles, the responsible government agency (Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications) has existing legislation, expertise and resources to administer a compliance regime that would be more effective than a mandatory standard administered through the CCA.  For this reason, this option was therefore not considered any further.

Option 6: Mandatory Standards under the MVSA and then RVSA—Regulation

Under Option 6, the Australian Government would mandate the fitment of AEB systems to new heavy vehicles supplied to the market via a new national standard (ADR) under the MVSA, which would then continue in force as an ADR under the RVSA.  This new ADR would adopt the technical requirements of UN Regulation No. 131, incorporating the latest (01) series of amendments.  The ADR would also include a requirement that the AEB system be fitted as prescribed.  As new ADRs only apply to new vehicles, implementation of this option would not affect vehicles already in service.

AEB systems from various manufacturers react differently to potential crash situations.  As such, a mutually agreed international standard would further simplify system design and enhance quality.  In terms of alleviating trauma, AEB performance across the fleet, particularly in common crash scenarios, can be as critical as fitment rates.  It is therefore important to adopt an effective standard, otherwise the benefits of AEB would be uncertain. Research has shown UN Regulation No. 131 is effective in an Australian context (MUARC, 2020).

As this option is considered viable, and has been pursued internationally, the introduction of a mandatory standard was analysed further in terms of expected benefits to the community.  This option has two sub-options; 6a - mandatory for all heavy vehicles and 6b - mandatory for all heavy vehicles excluding buses.

Background

Australia currently mandates approximately sixty active ADRs under the MVSA.  Vehicles are approved on a model (or vehicle type) basis known as type approval, whereby the Australian Government approves a vehicle type based on test and other information supplied by the manufacturer.  Compliance of vehicles built under that approval is ensured by the regular audit of the manufacturer’s production, design and test facilities.  This includes audit of the manufacturers’ quality systems and processes.

The ADRs apply equally to new imported vehicles and new vehicles manufactured in Australia.  No distinction is made on the basis of country of origin/manufacture and this has been the case since the introduction of the MVSA, and will continue to be the case with the replacement of MVSA with the RVSA.  Further, each ADR in force under the MVSA, immediately before commencement of the RVSA, will continue in force under the RVSA.

A program of harmonising the ADRs with international standards, as developed through the UN, began in the mid-1980s and has recently been accelerated. Harmonising with UN requirements provides consumers with access to vehicles meeting the latest levels of safety and innovation, at the lowest possible cost.  The Australian Government has the skill and experience to adopt, whether by acceptance as alternative standards or by mandating, both UN GTRs and UN regulations into the ADRs.

As discussed earlier, consideration of the case for mandating AEB systems for heavy vehicles contributes to several Priority Actions in the NRSAP to increase the percentage of safer vehicles in the fleet.  This proposed action also constitutes action towards increasing the uptake of advanced safety features under the NHVBS (see section 1.2).

Mandatory fitment of AEB to commercial heavy vehicles according to UN Regulation No. 131 has been implemented across the European market since November 2013, followed by mandates in Japan and Korea.  By November 2018, the European mandate had taken full effect for all new vehicles covered by UN Regulation No. 131 (with exemptions including urban buses and off-road or agricultural vehicles).  These mandates are now well established.

Australian research has found that AEB systems meeting the requirements of UN Regulation No.131 could alleviate or reduce the severity of almost 15 per cent of all Australian heavy vehicle crashes, predominantly those involving a heavy vehicle impacting the rear of another vehicle (MUARC, 2020).  Moreover, it was found that in such collisions, heavy vehicle AEB reduces all forms of trauma by up to 57 per cent.

Scope/Applicability

The internationally agreed standard for heavy vehicle AEB systems is the United Nations (UN) Regulation No.131.  This regulation sets requirements for detecting vehicles in the forwards impact zone, making it particularly effective in heavy vehicle rear-end collisions.  Its scope covers all heavy goods vehicles greater than 3.5 tonnes Gross Vehicle Mass (GVM) and all omnibuses.

The adoption of international regulations results in the highest safety levels at the lowest possible cost.  Harmonised Australian requirements would minimise costs associated with AEB system development, and provides manufacturers the flexibility to incorporate or adapt systems that have already been developed and tested for other markets.

Two sub-options were considered relevant in relation to the scope of vehicles for which mandatory requirements for AEB systems could be applied under the ADRs.  A broad scope option directly aligned with the technical requirements of the UN Regulation No. 131, and a narrow scope option considering cost savings that would be associated with the exemption of all omnibuses.  These options are:

·         Option 6a: regulation (broad scope) — a new ADR would be implemented to require fitment of an AEB system for omnibuses, and goods vehicles over 3.5 tonnes GVM (ADR category MD, ME, NB and NC vehicles).

·         Option 6b: regulation (narrow scope) — a new ADR would be implemented to require fitment of an AEB system for goods vehicles over 3.5 tonnes GVM (ADR category NB and NC vehicles).

Both sub-options 6a and 6b were analysed further in terms of expected benefits to the community as well as costs to business and consumers.

Extension of the base option 6a to include matching ESC fitment

When braking a heavy vehicle in emergency situations, whether initiated by a driver or an AEB system, maintaining stability is critical.  The role of the existing technologies of heavy vehicle ESC and RSC is even more critical when hard braking is accompanied by swerving (common in rear-end collisions as the driver tries to avoid the vehicle in front), when there is any road curvature, and/or when there is reduced wheel traction.  For this reason, vehicles fitted with AEB are typically also fitted with ESC or RSC, often as a necessary sub component.

ESC for heavy vehicles became mandatory from 1 July 2019 for new model heavy trailers (1 November 2019 for all new heavy trailers) and will become mandatory from 1 November 2020 for new model heavy trucks and heavy buses (1 January 2022 for all new heavy trucks and heavy buses).  The mandate targeted the types of vehicles that could realise the highest benefits in terms of reduction of road trauma – mainly heavy prime movers and their short wheelbase derivatives.  This minimised the regulatory burden on manufacturers and operators.  As reported at the time in the associated RIS[6], the Commonwealth indicated that it would return to the consideration of ESC for the remaining types of vehicles as part of the AEB work, where there may be economies in costing of the systems, due to the integrated nature of AEB and ESC.

Expanding the current ESC requirements to all vehicle categories covered by a broad scope AEB regulation would eliminate the cost of separate ESC fitment for those categories where ESC is a sub-component of AEB and so substantially reduce costs through shared system components.  An additional Option 6a with matching ESC fitment was therefore also analysed further in terms of expected benefits to the community as well as costs to business and consumers.

Implementation Timing

The ADRs only apply to new vehicles and typically use a phase-in period to give models that are already established in the market, time to change their design.  The implementation lead time of an ADR is generally no less than 18 months for models that are new to the market (new model vehicles) and 24 months for models that are already established in the market (all new vehicles), but this varies depending on the complexity of the change and the requirements of the ADR.

The proposed implementation timetable (for AEB and where applicable matching ESC fitment) in the consultation RIS was:

·         1 November 2020 for new model vehicles; and

·         1 November 2022 for all new vehicles.

Final implementation dates (and therefore also final annual regulatory costs) will be determined by the Government as part of the relevant ADRs, following further consultation by the Department with industry on alternative implementation dates.


 

4.     What are the Likely Net Benefits of each Option?

4.1.          Benefit-Cost Analysis

The benefit-cost methodology used in this analysis is a Net Present Value (NPV) model.  Using this model, the flow of benefits and costs are reduced to one specific moment in time.  The time period for which benefits are assumed to be generated is over the life of the vehicle(s).  Net benefits indicate whether the returns (benefits) on a project outweigh the resources outlaid (costs) and indicate what, if any, this difference is.  Benefit-cost ratios (BCRs) are a measure of efficiency of the project. For net benefits to be positive, this ratio must be greater than one.  A higher BCR in turn means that for a given cost, the benefits are paid back many times over (the cost is multiplied by the BCR).  For example, if a project costs $1 million but results in benefits of $3 million, the net benefit would be 3-1 = $2 million while the BCR would be 3/1 = 3.

In the case of adding particular safety features to vehicles, there will be an upfront cost (by the vehicle manufacturers) at the start, followed by a series of benefits spread throughout the life of the vehicles.  This is then repeated in subsequent years as additional new vehicles are registered.  There may also be other ongoing business and government costs through the years, depending on the option being considered.

Three of the policy options outlined in Section 3.2 of this RIS (Option 1: no intervention; Option 2: user information campaigns; and Option 6: mandatory standards under the MVSA (and then RVSA) (regulation), were considered viable to analyse further.  The results of each option were compared with what would happen if there was no government intervention, that is, Option 1: no intervention (BAU).

The period of analysis is 45 years. This covers the expected life of the policy option (15 years of intervention) plus the time it takes for benefits to work their way through the fleet (around 30 years, the approximate maximum lifespan of a heavy vehicle).

Given that the function of UN Regulation No. 131 is to enhance heavy vehicles safety, the included benefits focus on the safety benefit from expected reductions in trauma.  However, it should be noted that many operators would be likely to obtain other benefits (for example, alleviation of property damage) that have not been included in this RIS.  The net benefit and the benefit-cost ratio for each option are therefore likely to be conservative estimates.

Benefits

For Option 1, there are no intervention benefits (or costs) as this is the BAU case.

For Options 2 and 6 the benefits were established based on the difference between the expected BAU level of fitment of AEB to new heavy vehicles and the level of fitment expected under the implementation of each proposed option.  Benefits are derived from the fitment effect from each intervention option (which varies across options) and the overall impact of the technology when fitted, which is the product of sensitivity (the proportion of heavy vehicle crashes whose severity could be reduced by AEB - common to all options) and the effectiveness of the technology in mitigating trauma when fitted.

Fitment effect of each option

Figures 5 to 7 show the anticipated level of fitment for each of the analysed options (2a, 2b, 6a and 6b) across the intervention period (2020-2035) compared to BAU.  The BAU fitment for each year up to 2024 was determined from AEB fitment data (actual and projected) from heavy vehicle manufacturers.  Much of the increased fitment over this period will be due to manufacturers opting to fit AEB at the same time they are required by ADR 35/06 to fit ESC to heavy buses, prime movers and short wheelbase rigid trucks.  Industry will also likely have been factoring in a probable mandate of AEB for heavy vehicles in determining production plans for the period 2021 to 2024.  However, in the absence of any intervention in the market, the AEB fitment rate would be very unlikely to continue to increase much above 70 per cent beyond 2024.  This is because there is no ANCAP for heavy vehicles to encourage higher fitment rates and these vehicles are more likely (compared to light vehicles) to be built to order, with safety systems such as AEB able to be individually specified by the purchaser.  Many purchasers (at least 30 per cent) will focus on maximising productivity for the money they spend.  Further, a significant number of heavy vehicles are built in Australia and/or specifically for the Australian market (for example, nearly half of heavy trucks).  This means that the designs and regulations of other countries will have a lesser influence on the makeup of the Australian heavy vehicle fleet.  The actual AEB fitment rates for some types of heavy trucks have also been very low to date (for example, only 3.6 per cent of heavy rigid trucks in 2018 – refer Table 6 in section 2 above).  Because of all these factors, the Department assumed there would only be a gradual increase in the AEB fitment rate under BAU from 66 per cent in 2024 to 71 per cent in 2035.

Figure 5 – Fitment via Option 2a compared to BAU

Figure 6 - Fitment via Option 2b compared to BAU

Figure 7 - Fitment via Options 6 (a and b) compared to BAU

Impact of AEB when fitted to a heavy vehicle

Sensitivity

Monash University Accident Research Centre (MUARC) reported on the impact of AEB for heavy vehicles in Australia.  Crash and crash injury benefits were modelled on police reported crash data on crashes occurring in Australia between 2013-2016 inclusive.  The classification of sensitive crashes, those potentially mitigated by AEB, was applied to crashes occurring in Australia.  The analysis did not include crashes involving vulnerable road users such as pedestrians and cyclists.  Though their inclusion would increase the percentage of sensitive crashes substantially, the agreed international standard for AEB does not yet include vulnerable road users so it was assumed that typical AEB systems currently in the fleet do not mitigate these crashes.

Around fifteen per cent (14.8 per cent) of all heavy vehicle crashes were classified as sensitive to avoidance or mitigation with AEB.  This figure incorporates narrowly sensitive heavy vehicle crashes only, i.e., those crashes exhibiting a high degree of confidence that AEB would alleviate or mitigate the crash and not those crashes where there was only some or minor evidence.

MUARC found that, on average, for every sensitive fatal crash, 28 serious and 111 minor injury sensitive crashes also occurred.

Effectiveness

MUARC determined the effectiveness of AEB for heavy vehicles by building on empirical literature, as data to allow direct estimation of crash reductions associated with the technology from Australian heavy vehicle crash data was not available.  Crash reductions in sensitive crashes associated with heavy vehicle AEB fitment estimated from existing international literature were between 22 and 57 per cent.  The overall effectiveness of heavy vehicle AEB against trauma has been modelled using the lower end of this range.

Like other vehicle safety technologies, AEB effectiveness is expected to be higher for fatal and serious injuries than for minor injuries.  This is due in part to the effect of downgrading of trauma severity at higher trauma levels (to serious, minor or completely mitigated from fatal) whereas for minor severity traumas, complete mitigation is the only improved outcome.  This effect is modelled as an approximate 10 per cent increment in effectiveness for mitigation of fatal and serious injury crash outcomes over that of minor injury crashes, which has been observed in light vehicle crash outcomes and for which data is available.

Though AEB effectiveness is typically higher in high severity (for example, highway/high-speed) crashes, low severity crashes occurring in lower speed areas are higher in frequency.  This biases the expected effectiveness in an arbitrary crash towards lower ranges.

On the basis of the above, the adopted effectiveness values were 33 per cent for all sensitive trauma crashes and 43 per cent for higher severity (fatal and serious injury) crashes.

Overall Impact on Australian Heavy Vehicle Trauma

The overall impact of AEB when fitted against all heavy vehicle road trauma is the product of sensitivity and effectiveness.  The result is 4.9 per cent effectiveness against all heavy vehicle trauma crashes, and 6.4 per cent against all heavy vehicle fatal and serious trauma crashes.

Crash Savings

The economic benefits of increased fitment of AEB (and where applicable ESC) to new Australian heavy vehicles would flow from trauma reductions.  In addition, there would be benefits to families, businesses and the broader community in ways it is not possible to measure.

Campaigns promoting heavy vehicle AEB fitment were projected to have a modest positive effect on trauma alleviation over the modelled period.  Option 2a is expected to save 12 lives, 339 serious injuries and 1,056 minor injuries amounting to trauma alleviation savings of approximately $68 million.  Option 2b is expected to save 9 lives, 248 serious injuries and 773 minor injuries, amounting to trauma alleviation savings of approximately $39 million.

Regulation of AEB (and where applicable ESC) for heavy vehicles was projected to have a substantially greater effect.  Option 6a was expected to yield the greatest trauma reductions of the base (AEB) options with 78 lives saved, 2,152 serious injuries and 6,697 minor injuries alleviated, which amounts to $269 million in trauma savings.  Option 6b was expected to yield 69 lives saved, 1,891 serious injuries and 5,883 minor injuries alleviated, which amounts to $235 million in trauma savings.  Expanding the base option 6a to include matching ESC fitment would save an additional 24 lives and prevent an additional 412 serious and 320 minor injuries, which amounts to $358 million in trauma savings.

Appendix 5 includes further detail on the calculation of road crash casualty reductions and the resulting trauma savings for each of the intervention options analysed.  Table 9 summarises the road crash casualty reductions associated with each intervention option.  These savings do not incorporate other benefits from crash alleviation expenses such as property and infrastructure damage, road closures, police investigations, etc.

Table 9: Summary of lives saved and serious and minor injuries avoided

 

Lives saved

Serious injuries avoided

Minor injuries avoided

Option 1: no intervention

-

-

-

Option 2a: targeted awareness

12

339

1,056

Option 2b: advertising

9

248

773

Option 6a: regulation (broad scope)

78

2,152

6,697

Option 6a: regulation (broad scope) with matching ESC fitment

102

2,564

7,017

Option 6b: regulation (narrow scope)

69

1,891

5,883

Costs

System development costs

No additional system development cost was added for options 2a and 2b, as it was assumed that the heavy vehicle owners/operators persuaded by information campaigns to purchase heavy vehicles equipped with AEB would simply choose from existing models available with these systems.

A development cost of $50,000 to $100,000 was added for each additional vehicle model for which AEB would be developed due to government intervention under Option 6a and 6b.  Preliminary industry consultation indicated that the incremental AEB development cost is reduced substantially due to prior fitment of ESC, a typical sub-component of AEB which is required to be fitted by separate legislation.  The estimated development cost included design, logistics, production line floor area allocation, and other overheads, for those models where AEB is not an existing optional fitment.  An additional $10,000 per model was initially examined to cover validation and testing for certification, as well as a further $10,000 per model for additional/other regulatory expenses as an extension of a manufacturer’s regulatory and certification administration process.  During the consultation, the TIC suggested that the AEB validation test cost should be increased to $30,000 to $50,000 per model.  The Department accepted this industry feedback, and raised the base testing and certification cost from $10,000 to $50,000 per model.  Additional/other regulatory expenses of $10,000 per model were retained, as per the analysis in the consultation RIS.

System fitment cost

A wholesale AEB system fitment cost range from $1,000 (low/best case) to $2,000 (high/worst case) was adopted, with $1,500 used as the likely fitment cost.  This range represents the average incremental cost of fitting an AEB system relative to existing systems otherwise required to be fitted, such as ABS.  The estimate includes only the costs of a system able to meet the requirements of UN Regulation No. 131, and not the more advanced systems that may be able to detect stationary objects, infrastructure, vulnerable road users such as pedestrians or cyclists, and flora and fauna.  The fitment cost adopted was a conservative average of cost estimations obtained from survey responses from heavy vehicle manufacturers with regards to existing system fitment costs.  The adopted fitment cost is conservative in comparison to other estimates of $300 to $400 for existing systems (MUARC, 2014).

Fitment costs were allocated for each additional heavy vehicle equipped with AEB as a consequence of government intervention under all options.

Government costs

It was assumed that a targeted awareness campaign under Option 2a would cost the government a total of $3 million per annum, comprising of three 4-month campaigns at a cost of $1 million each.  A cost of $18 million per year was assumed for the Australian Government to create and run an advertising campaign under Option 2b.

It was assumed there would be an estimated annual cost of $50,000 for the Department to create, implement and maintain a regulation under Option 6, as well as for the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator (NHVR), WA and NT to develop processes for its in-service use, such as vehicle modification requirements.  This includes the initial development cost, as well as ongoing maintenance and interpretation advice.  The value of this cost was based on Department experience.

Summary of Costs

Table 10 provides a summary of the various costs associated with the implementation of Options 2a, 2b, 6a and 6b.

Table 10:   Summary of costs associated with the implementation of each option

Costs related to:

Cost relative to BAU

Option(s)

Applicability

Impact

 

Best
Case

Likely
Case

Worst
Case

 

 

 

Development of systems

$50,000

$75,000

$100,000

6a, 6b

Per model

Business

Fitment of systems

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

2a, 2b,
6a, 6b

Per vehicle

Business

Testing of systems

$50,000

6a, 6b

Per model

Business

Certification of system

$10,000

6a, 6b

Per model

Business

Implement and maintain policy

$1,000,000

2a

Per year

Government

Implement and maintain policy

$18,000,000

2b

Per year

Government

Implement and maintain regulation

$50,000

6a, 6b

Per year

Government


 

Benefit-Cost Analysis Results

Appendix 5 details the calculations for the benefit-cost analysis. A summary of the results is provided below in Table 11.  A 7 per cent discount rate was used for summarised options.

Table 11:   Summary of benefits, costs, lives saved and serious injuries avoided under each option

Case

Gross Benefits ($m)

Net Benefits ($m)

Cost to Business ($m)

Cost to Government ($m)

BCR

Number of Lives Saved

Serious Injuries Avoided

Minor Injuries Avoided

Option 2a

Best

68

-9

49

27

0.9

12

339

1056

Likely

-34

74

27

0.7

Worst

-58

99

27

0.5

Option 2b

Best

39

-151

26

164

0.2

9

248

773

Likely

-164

39

164

0.2

Worst

-177

52

164

0.2

Option 6a

Best

269

123

145

0.50

1.8

78

2152

6697

Likely

52

216

0.50

1.2

Worst

-19

288

0.50

0.9

Option 6a with matching ESC fitment

Best

358

212

145

0.50

2.5

102

2564

7017

Likely

141

216

0.50

1.6

Worst

71

288

0.50

1.4

Option 6b

Best

235

108

126

0.50

1.9

69

1891

5883

Likely

47

187

0.50

1.2

Worst

-15

250

0.50

0.9

Sensitivity Analysis

A sensitivity analysis was carried out to determine the effect of varying the critical parameters on the outcome of the benefit-cost analysis.

Firstly, while a 7 per cent (per annum) real discount rate was used for all options, the benefit-cost analysis for Option 6a was also run with a rate of 3 per cent and 10 per cent.  Table 12 shows that the net benefits and the BCR remained positive under all three discount rates.

Table 12:   Impact on Net Benefits and BCR of changes to the real discount rate
(Option 6a with matching ESC fitment)

 

Net Benefits ($m)

BCR

Low discount rate (3%)

412

2.4

Base case discount rate (7%)

141

1.6

High discount rate (10%)

55

1.3

Next, the effectiveness of heavy vehicle AEB systems was varied to establish its effect on the analysis, using both high (increment 5 per cent) and low (decrement 5 per cent) effectiveness scenario.  As shown in Table 13, despite analysing an unrealistically low effectiveness (equivalent to the lowest rate reported by MUARC for the worst performing systems in the fleet), the net benefits and the BCR remained positive.  It was noted that varying the effectiveness was less significant than varying the discount rate.

Table 13:   Impact on Net Benefits and BCR of changes to effectiveness of AEB for heavy vehicles
(Option 6a with matching ESC fitment)

 

Net Benefits ($m)

BCR

Low effectiveness (-5%)

100

1.5

Base case effectiveness

141

1.6

High effectiveness (+5%)

182

1.8

The BAU fitment rate was also subjected to a sensitivity analysis, including both a high and a low fitment rate scenario (BAU fitment curves adjusted +/- 10 per cent), to account for variations in the market uptake of heavy vehicle AEB systems.  As shown in Table 14, the net benefits and the BCR remained positive in both the high and the low BAU fitment rate scenarios.

Table 14:   Impact on Net Benefits and BCR of changes to the BAU fitment rate of AEB for heavy vehicles
(Option 6a with matching ESC fitment)

 

Net Benefits ($m)

BCR

Low BAU fitment rate (10% decrease)

158

1.6

Base case fitment rate

141

1.6

High BAU fitment rate (10% increase)

127

1.8

Finally, the fitment cost range was varied, incrementing the fitment cost range upwards by $500 to $1,500 - $2,500.  The net benefits and BCRs remained positive, as shown in
Table 15.

Table 15: Impact on Net Benefits and BCR of changes to unit fitment cost of AEB for heavy vehicles
(Option 6a with matching ESC fitment)

 

Net Benefits ($m)

BCR

Base case cost (likely)

141

1.6

High cost (Base case +$500)

71

1.2

Post-consultation analysis

During consultation, the TIC suggested that the benefit-cost analysis should be revised to include ESC validation test costs.  To account for this other possible source of costs, a post‑consultation sensitivity analysis was undertaken to evaluate the effects of ESC validation test costs up to $200,000 per model (see Table 16).  Notably, less than a 4 per cent reduction in net benefits was observed for each $100,000 increase in the per model validation test cost and the benefit-cost ratios remained constant (to one decimal place).  This indicates that the benefit-cost analysis is not particularly sensitive to variations in ESC validation test cost.  Further, the recommended option remains the same.

Table 16: Impact on Net Benefits and BCR of increases in ESC validation test costs
(Option 6a with matching ESC fitment)

 

Net Benefits ($m)

BCR

Base case ($10,000 per model)

141

1.6

Increased cost (1)
($100,000 per model)

138

1.6

Increased cost (2)
($200,000 per model)

133

1.6

In addition, the BIC, Daimler Truck and Bus, the FCAI, HVIA, Knorr-Bremse Australia and the TIC all indicated more implementation time is needed and suggested alternative dates.  A post-consultation sensitivity analysis was undertaken to evaluate the effects of changes in implementation timing (Table 17).  Whilst the benefit-cost ratio improves slightly due to a reduced number of vehicles required to fit mandatory AEB, the postponed timing results in a 9 per cent reduction in lives saved and an almost 18 per cent reduction in total (gross) economic benefits.

Table 17: Impact on Gross Benefits and BCR of changes to implementation timing
(Option 6a with matching ESC fitment)

 

Gross Benefits ($m)

BCR

Base case implementation dates
(Nov 2020 new models, Nov 2022 all vehicles)

358

1.6

Alternative implementation dates
(November 2022 new models, January 2025 all vehicles)

304

1.9

4.2.          Economic Aspects—Impact Analysis

Impact analysis considers the magnitude and distribution of the benefits and costs among the affected parties.

Identification of Affected Parties

In the case of AEB (and where applicable ESC) systems for heavy vehicles, the parties affected by the options are:

Business

·         vehicle manufacturers or importers;

·         component suppliers;

·         vehicle owners; and

·         vehicle operators.

There is an overlap between businesses and consumers when considering heavy vehicles.  Unlike light vehicles, heavy vehicle owners and operators, in general, are purchasing and operating these vehicles as part of a business.  This is distinct to businesses that manufacture the vehicles or supply the components.

The affected businesses are represented by a number of peak bodies, including:

·         The Australian Livestock and Rural Transporters Association (ALRTA), that represents road transport companies based in rural and regional Australia;

·         The Australian Trucking Association (ATA), that represents trucking operators, including major logistics companies and transport industry associations;

·         The Bus Industry Confederation (BIC), that represents the bus and coach industry;

·         Commercial Vehicle Industry Association Australia (CVIAA); that represents members in the commercial vehicle industry;

·         Heavy Vehicle Industry Australia (HVIA), that represents manufacturers and suppliers of heavy vehicles and their components, equipment and technology; and

·         The Truck Industry Council (TIC), that represents truck manufacturers and importers, diesel engine companies and major truck component suppliers.

Governments

·         Australian/state and territory governments and their represented communities.

Impact of Viable Options

There were three options that were considered viable for further examination: Option 1: no intervention; Option 2: user information campaigns; and Option 6: regulation.  This section looks at the impact of these options in terms of quantifying expected benefits and costs, and identifies how these would be distributed among affected parties.  These were summarised in Table 11 previously and are discussed in more detail below.

Option 1: no intervention

Under this option, the government would not intervene, with market forces instead providing a solution to the problem.  As this option is the BAU case, there are no new benefits or costs allocated.  Any remaining option(s) are calculated relative to this BAU option, so that what would have happened anyway in the marketplace is not attributed to any proposed intervention.

Option 2: user information campaigns

Under this option, heavy vehicle owners and operators would be informed of the benefits of AEB for heavy vehicles through information campaigns.  As this option involves intervention only to influence demand for the systems in the market place, the benefits and costs are those that are expected to occur on a voluntary basis, over and above those in the BAU case.  The fitment of AEB would remain a commercial decision within this changed environment.

Benefits

Business — heavy vehicle owners/operators

There would be a direct benefit through a reduction in road crashes (over and above that of Option 1) for the heavy vehicle owners/operators who are persuaded by information campaigns to purchase and/or operate heavy vehicles equipped with AEB.  This would save an estimated 12 lives and 339 serious and 1,056 minor injuries under Option 2a, and 9 lives and 248 serious and 773 minor injuries under Option 2b (over and above Option 1).  A proportion of these would be occupants of a heavy vehicle.  There would also be direct benefits to business (including owners/operators and/or insurance companies) through reductions in compensation, legal costs, driver hiring and training, vehicle repair and replacement costs, loss of goods, and in some cases, fines relating to spills that lead to environmental contamination.

Business — manufacturers/component suppliers

There would be no direct benefit to heavy vehicle manufacturers (as a collective).  Heavy vehicle owners/operators persuaded by the campaign would simply choose from existing truck and trailer models already equipped with AEB.  This could lead to some shift in market share between the respective heavy vehicle brands (depending on the availability/cost of the technology by manufacturer), but would be unlikely to have much effect on the overall number of new heavy vehicles sold.  Component suppliers may benefit directly in terms of increased income/revenue from supplying additional equipment to heavy vehicle manufacturers.

Governments/community

There would be an indirect benefit to governments (over and above that of Option 1) from the reduction in road crashes that would follow the increase in the uptake of new heavy vehicles and omnibuses equipped with AEB, achieved as a result of the information campaigns.

This would have benefits of $68 million under Option 2a and $39 million under Option 2b over and above Option 1.  These benefits would be shared by the community and as cost savings to governments.

Costs

Business

There would be a direct cost (over and above that of Option 1) to the heavy vehicle owners/operators who are persuaded by information campaigns to purchase and/or operate heavy vehicles equipped with AEB.  This is due to the additional cost of purchasing a vehicle equipped with these technologies.  This is likely to cost $74 million for Option 2a and $39 million for Option 2b (over and above Option 1).  The heavy vehicle owners/operators would be likely to absorb most of this cost (but, as noted above, would also receive a proportion of the benefits).

Governments

There would be a cost to governments for funding and/or running user information campaigns to inform heavy vehicle owners and operators of the benefits of AEB.  This is estimated at $27 million for Option 2a and $164 million for Option 2b.

Option 6: regulation

As this option, including each of the sub options, involves direct intervention to compel a change in the safety performance of heavy vehicles supplied to the marketplace, the benefits and costs are those that would occur over and above those of Option 1.  The fitment of AEB (and where applicable ESC) would no longer be a commercial decision within this changed environment.

Benefits

Business — heavy vehicle owners/operators

There would be a direct benefit through a reduction in road crashes (over and above that of Option 1) for the heavy vehicle owners/operators who purchase and/or operate new heavy vehicles equipped with AEB (and where applicable ESC) due to a mandated standard.  This would save an estimated 78 lives and 2,152 serious and 6,697 minor injuries under Option 6a, 102 lives and 2,564 serious and 7,017 minor injuries under Option 6a with matching ESC fitment, and 69 lives and 1,891 serious and 5,883 minor injuries under Option 6b (over and above Option 1).  A proportion of these would be occupants of heavy vehicles.  There would also be direct benefits to business (including owners/operators and/or insurance companies) through reductions in compensation, legal costs, driver hiring and training, vehicle repair and replacement costs, loss of goods, and in some cases, fines relating to spills that lead to environmental contamination.

Business — manufacturers/component suppliers

There would be no direct benefit to heavy vehicle manufacturers (over and above that of Option 1).  Component suppliers would benefit directly in terms of increased income/revenue from supplying additional equipment to heavy vehicle and omnibus manufacturers.

Governments/community

There would be an indirect benefit to governments (over and above that of Option 1) from the reduction in road crashes that would follow the increase in the number and percentage of new heavy vehicles equipped with AEB (and where applicable ESC) systems due to a mandated standard.  This would have benefits of $269 million under Option 6a, $358 million under Option 6a with matching ESC fitment, and $235 million under Option 6b (over and above Option 1).  These benefits would be shared among the community and as cost savings to governments.

Costs

Business

There would be a direct cost to heavy vehicle manufacturers (over and above that of Option 1) as a result of design/development, fitment and testing costs for the additional heavy vehicles sold fitted with AEB (and where applicable ESC) due to a mandated standard.  This would likely cost $216 million under Option 6a (including with matching ESC fitment) and $188 million under Option 6b (over and above Option 1).  It is likely that manufacturers would pass this increase in costs on at the point of sale to heavy vehicle owners/operators who would then absorb most of it (but, as noted above, would also receive a portion of the benefits).

Governments

There would be a cost to governments for developing, implementing and administering regulations (standards) that mandate the fitment of AEB.  This is estimated to be $0.5 million for each sub-option.

5.     Regulatory Burden and Cost Offsets

The Australian Government Guide to Regulation (2014) requires that all new regulatory options are costed using the Regulatory Burden Measurement (RBM) Framework.  Under the RBM Framework, the regulatory burden is the cost of a proposal to business and the community (not including the cost to government).  It is calculated in a prescribed manner that usually results in it being different to the overall costs of a proposal in the benefit-cost analysis.  In line with the RBM Framework, the average annual regulatory costs were calculated for this proposal by totalling the undiscounted (nominal) cost (including development and fitment cost) for each option over the 10 year period 2021-2030 inclusive.  This total was then divided by 10.

The average annual regulatory costs under the RBM of the six viable options, Options 1, 2a, 2b, 6a and 6b are set out in the Tables 19 to 23.  There are no costs associated with Option 1 as it is the BAU case.  The average annual regulatory costs associated with base Options 2a, 2b, 6a and 6b are estimated to be $8.0 million, $4.0 million, $22.5 million and $19.1 million respectively.

Table 18:   Regulatory burden and cost offset estimate — Option 1

Average annual regulatory costs (relative to BAU)

Change in costs ($ million)

Business

Community organisations

Individuals

Total change in costs

Total, by sector

-

-

-

-

Table 19:   Regulatory burden and cost offset estimate — Option 2a

Average annual regulatory costs (relative to BAU)

Change in costs ($ million)

Business

Community organisations

Individuals

Total change in costs

Total, by sector

$8.0 m

-

-

$8.0 m

Table 20:   Regulatory burden and cost offset estimate — Option 2b

Average annual regulatory costs (relative to BAU)

Change in costs ($ million)

Business

Community organisations

Individuals

Total change in costs

Total, by sector

$4.0 m

-

-

$4.0 m

Table 21:   Regulatory burden and cost offset estimate — Option 6a

Average annual regulatory costs (relative to BAU)

Change in costs ($ million)

Business

Community organisations

Individuals

Total change in costs

Total, by sector

$22.5 m

-

-

$22.5 m

Table 22:   Regulatory burden and cost offset estimate — Option 6b

Average annual regulatory costs (relative to BAU)

Change in costs ($ million)

Business

Community organisations

Individuals

Total change in costs

Total, by sector

$19.1 m

-

-

$19.1 m

The Australian Government Guide to Regulation sets out ten principles for Australian Government policy makers.  One of these principles is that all new regulations (or changes to regulations) are required to be quantified under the RBM Framework and where possible offset by the relevant portfolio.

It is anticipated that regulatory savings from further alignment of the ADRs with international standards will offset the additional RBM costs of this measure.

Post-consultation sensitivity analysis

As noted in Section 4.1, the BIC, Daimler Truck and Bus, FCAI, HVIA, Knorr-Bremse Australia and the TIC all indicated more implementation time is needed and suggested alternative datesThe most extended of these was that proposed by the TIC, with a phase in from November 2022 to January 2025.  Table 23 below shows that this timetable would reduce the average annual regulatory costs associated with the recommended option to $15.4 m.

Table 23:   Regulatory burden and cost offset estimate — Recommended option with delayed implementation

Average annual regulatory costs (relative to BAU)

Change in costs ($ million)

Business

Community organisations

Individuals

Total change in costs

Total, by sector

$15.4 m

-

-

$15.4 m

Final implementation dates (and therefore final annual regulatory costs) will be determined by the Government as part of an ADR, following further consultation by the Department with industry on alternative implementation dates.

It is likely that under any new ADR the regulatory costs of the implemented option will fall in the range of $15.4 m (under the dates proposed by the TIC) to $22.5 m (under the indicative dates proposed in the consultation RIS).


 

6.     What is the Best Option?

The following options were identified earlier in this RIS as being viable for analysis:

·         Option 1: no intervention;

·         Option 2: user information campaigns; and

·         Option 6: mandatory standards under the MVSA and then RVSA (regulation).

6.1.        Net Benefits

Net benefit (total benefits minus total costs in present value terms) provides the best measure of the economic effectiveness of the options. Accordingly, the Australian Government Guide to Regulation (2014) states that the policy option offering the greatest net benefit should always be the recommended option.

Option 6a: regulation (broad scope) with matching ESC fitment had the highest net benefit of the options examined, at $141 m for the likely case.  This benefit would be spread over a period of around 45 years, including the assumed 15 year period of regulation followed by a period of around 30 years over which the overall percentage of heavy vehicles fitted with AEB and ESC in the fleet continues to rise as older vehicles without these technologies are deregistered at the end of their service life.

Options 6a: regulation (broad scope) and 6b: regulation (narrow scope) also had positive net benefits of $52 m and $47 m respectively for the likely case.  However, Options 2a (targeted awareness) and 2b (advertising) had negative net benefits, which indicates the costs of implementing these options would exceed the benefits.

6.2.          Benefit-Cost Ratios

Option 6a with matching ESC fitment had the highest BCR of 1.6 (likely case).

Options 6a and 6b also both had a favourable BCR of 1.2 (likely case). However, Options 2a (targeted awareness) and 2b (advertising) had BCRs less than 1, which indicates the costs of implementing these options would exceed the benefits.

6.3.        Casualty Reductions

Option 6a with matching ESC fitment would provide the greatest reduction in road crash casualties, including 102 lives saved and 2,564 serious and 7,017 minor injuries avoided.  The next best reduction in casualties would be for the base option 6a, with 78 lives saved and 2,152 serious and 6,697 minor injuries avoided, followed by Option 6b with 69 lives saved and 1,891 serious and 5,883 minor injuries avoided.

The road casualty reductions for user information campaigns would be much lower than regulation, with 12 lives saved and 339 serious and 1,056 minor injuries avoided under option 2a, and only nine lives saved and 248 serious and 773 minor injuries avoided under option 2b.

6.4.        Recommendation

This RIS identified the road safety problem in Australia of crashes involving a heavy vehicle impacting the rear of another vehicle, which can be substantially alleviated via fitment of AEB.  Although market uptake is increasing, the current overall fitment across the fleet is still relatively low with around 6 per cent of new heavy vehicles fitted with AEB.  The current low fitment rate and the number and severity of rear-end crashes indicates a need for intervention.

There is a strong case for government intervention to increase the fitment of AEB to heavy vehicles via broad scope regulation.  Analysis shows that such an intervention will provide significant reductions in road trauma while achieving the maximum net benefit for the community.

Of the base (AEB) options considered, Option 6a (regulation – broad scope) provides the largest net benefit ($78 million) as well as the greatest reduction in road crash casualties, including 78 lives saved and 2,152 serious and 6,697 minor injuries avoided.  In terms of efficiency of regulation, the BCR for Option 6a is 1.2.

Expanding the base option 6a to incorporate ESC requirements for all vehicle categories covered by a broad scope AEB regulation (Option 6a with matching ESC fitment) eliminates the cost of separate ESC fitment for those categories where ESC is a sub-component of AEB and so substantially reduces costs through shared system componentry.  While having minimal overall cost effects on Option 6a, expanding ESC requirements to the covered vehicle categories would save an additional 24 lives and prevent an additional 412 serious and 320 minor injuries.  This represents additional savings to society of $89 million, and in combination with the Option 6a requirements for AEB, raises the total net benefits to $141 million and the BCR to 1.6.

Manufacturers and operators are likely to be impacted via additional AEB fitment costs for new heavy vehicles.  However such businesses also receive substantial benefits.  Heavy vehicle crashes are relatively expensive on average, due to the size and mass of these vehicles.  Crash alleviation will play an important role in contributing to Australia’s freight productivity and the success of the heavy vehicle industry.

Option 6a with matching ESC fitment offers the important advantage of being able to guarantee 100 per cent fitment of AEB and ESC to applicable vehicles.  There would be no guarantee that non-regulatory options, such as Option 2, would deliver an enduring result, or that the predicted take-up of AEB (or ESC) would be reached and then maintained.  Given there is currently a low uptake of this technology, there is good reason to conclude that, under BAU, sections of the market will continue to offer AEB and/or ESC only as an extra – often as part of a more expensive package of optional upgrades.  If regulation had to be considered again in the future, there would also be a long lead time (likely to be greater than two years to redevelop the proposal, as well as the normal implementation, programming, development, testing and certification time necessary for implementing systems in line with a performance based standard).

According to the Australian Government Guide to Regulation (Australian Government, 2014a) ten principles for Australian Government policy makers, the policy option offering the greatest net benefit should be the recommended option.  Option 6a - regulation (broad scope) with matching ESC fitment is therefore the recommended option.  It represents an effective option that would guarantee on-going provision of improved rear impact outcomes in the new heavy vehicle fleet in Australia.

6.5.          Impacts

Business/consumers

The three options considered would have varying degrees of impact on consumers, business and the government.  The costs to manufacturers would be passed on to operators (purchasers of new heavy vehicles) who would mostly absorb them.  Much of the benefit would be directly received by heavy vehicle operators through reductions in road trauma and other road crash related costs, with the remainder shared between governments and the wider community.

Option 6 may normally be considered the most difficult option for the vehicle manufacturing industry, because it would involve regulation-based development and testing with forced compliance for all applicable models.  However, in the case of AEB and ESC, Europe and Japan have each mandated standards for these systems on heavy vehicles.  This would give manufacturers flexibility to adapt many AEB and ESC systems from their home markets to the vehicles they supply in Australia.  This should enable some leveraging of testing and certification already conducted in other markets, which will help to minimise design and development costs as much as possible.

Governments

The Australian Government maintains and operates a vehicle certification system, which is used to ensure that vehicles first supplied to the market comply with the ADRs.  A cost recovery model is used and so ultimately, the cost of the certification system as a whole is recovered from business.

6.6.          Scope of the Recommended Option

The relevant international standard for AEB systems on heavy vehicles is the UN Regulation No. 131.  The vehicle categories for which this regulation applies are the UN vehicle categories of M2 and M3 (omnibuses), and N2 and N3 (goods vehicles — GVM exceeding 3.5 tonnes).  There are various exemptions recommended in the introduction of this regulation, and which have been adopted in other markets including the European Union (EU) and Japan.  For example, in Europe there are exemptions for semi-trailer towing vehicles with a maximum mass not exceeding 8 tonnes (uncommon vehicles in Australia), buses with provision for standing passengers, vehicles with more than three axles, vehicles designed for off-road use and certain other special purpose vehicles.

A new ADR 97/00 would be implemented to require AEB for new omnibuses, and new goods vehicles greater than 3.5 tonnes GVM.  These vehicles are represented by ADR vehicle categories MD, ME, NB and NC.  The relevant ADR categories are summarised in Appendix 1.  Exemptions from fitment of AEB would apply under ADR 97/00 for articulated and route service buses, and trucks and buses which have four or more axles and/or are ‘designed for off-road use’ (note: ‘designed for off-road use’ would be defined for relevant vehicle categories in an appendix to the ADR).  Further exemptions may be given according to 19(3) of the RVSA for special purpose vehicles that comply with the ADRs to an extent that makes them suitable for use on a public road in Australia.

The relevant international standard for ESC systems on heavy vehicles is the UN Regulation No. 13, and the heavy vehicle categories for which stability control requirements apply under this regulation are the UN vehicle categories of M2 and M3 (omnibuses), N2 and N3 (goods vehicles — GVM exceeding 3.5 tonnes), as well as O3 and O4 (trailers — GTM exceeding 3.5 tonnes).  There are various exemptions, including for buses with provision for standing passengers, articulated buses, vehicles with more than three axles, and vehicles designed for off-road use.

ESC will become mandatory from 1 November 2020 for new model heavy prime movers and their short-wheelbase derivatives as well as heavy buses.  Expanding the existing ESC requirements to all vehicle categories covered by a broad scope AEB regulation would eliminate the cost of separate ESC fitment for those vehicles where ESC is a sub-component of AEB and so would substantially reduce costs through shared system components.

The existing ADR 35/06 ESC requirements would be expanded to apply to all vehicle categories covered by a broad scope AEB regulation.  This would be implemented by adopting the same requirements as for short-wheelbase derivatives of prime movers (i.e. functional requirements only), for the expanded set of heavy vehicles through a new ADR 35/07.  This would keep the certification requirements relatively simple and so would not add to the regulatory burden for these types of vehicles.  It would be in line with the reduced crash risk of these types of vehicles in the first place, in part due to the relatively better stability of a rigid vehicle over an articulated one (e.g. prime mover).  Exemptions from the mandatory fitment of ESC would continue to apply under the new ADR 35/07 for articulated and route service buses, and ADR category NC trucks which have four or more axles, as well as trucks and buses which are ‘designed for off-road use’ (note: ‘designed for off-road use’ would be defined for relevant vehicle categories in an appendix to the ADR).

6.7.          Timing of the Recommended Option

The proposed implementation timeframe for consultative purposes was:

·         1 November 2020 for new model vehicles; and

·         1 November 2022 for all new vehicles.

The implementation lead-time for an ADR change that results in an increase in stringency is generally no less than 18 months for new models and 24 months for all other models.  Final implementation dates (and therefore also final annual regulatory costs) will be determined by the Government as part of the relevant ADRs, following further consultation by the Department with industry on alternative implementation dates.


 

7.     Consultation

7.1.        General

Development of the ADRs for safety and anti-theft under the MVSA and RVSA is the responsibility of the Vehicle Safety Standards Branch of the Department.  It is carried out in consultation with representatives of the Australian Government, state and territory governments, manufacturing and operating industries, road user groups and experts in the field of road safety.

The Department undertakes public consultation on significant proposals.  Depending on the nature of the proposed changes, consultation may involve community and industry stakeholders as well as established government committees such as the Technical Liaison Group (TLG), Strategic Vehicle Safety and Environment Group (SVSEG), Transport and Infrastructure Senior Officials’ Committee (TISOC) and the Transport and Infrastructure Council (the Council).

·         TLG consists of technical representatives of government (Australian and state/territory), the manufacturing and operational arms of the industry (including organisations such as the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries and the Australian Trucking Association) and of representative organisations of consumers and road users (particularly through the Australian Automobile Association).

·         SVSEG consists of senior representatives of government (Australian and state/territory), the manufacturing and operational arms of the industry and of representative organisations of consumers and road users (at a higher level within each organisation as represented in TLG).

·         TISOC consists of state and territory transport and/or infrastructure Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) (or equivalents), the CEO of the National Transport Commission, New Zealand and the Australian Local Government Association.

·         The Council consists of the Australian, state/territory and New Zealand Ministers with responsibility for transport and infrastructure issues.

While the TLG sits under the higher level SVSEG forum, it is still the principal consultative forum for advising on the more detailed aspects of ADR proposals.

7.2.        Public Comment

The publication of an exposure draft of the proposal for public comment is an integral part of the consultation process.  This provides an opportunity for businesses and road user groups, as well as all other interested parties, to respond to the proposal by submitting their comments to the Department.  Analysing proposals through the RIS process assists stakeholders in identifying the likely impacts of the proposals and enables more informed discussion on any issues.

In line with the Australian Government Guide to Regulation (2014) the proposal was circulated for a six-week public comment period, which closed 4 October 2019.  Formal feedback was received from the following organisations and individuals:

State governments

Department of Transport and Main Roads (TMR) QLD

NSW Government – Transport for NSW

 

Industry

Bus Industry Confederation (BIC)

Daimler Truck and Bus

Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries

Heavy Vehicle Industry Association (HVIA)

Knorr-Bremse Australia

Truck Industry Council (TIC)

 

Road users / heavy vehicle operators

Australian Automobile Association (AAA)

Australian Trucking Association (ATA)

Boral Logistics

 

National Road Transport Association (NatRoad)

Toll Group

 

Consumer

Australasian New Car Assessment Program (ANCAP)

 

Individuals

Andrew Corney

Brett Green

Camille Jago

TMR QLD, the NSW Government, the BIC, Daimler Truck and Bus, HVIA, the AAA, the ATA, Boral Logistics, Toll Group, Andrew Corney, ANCAP, and Camille Jago all supported Option 6a (regulation – broad scope) in the RIS.  NatRoad and Brett Green both supported Option 1 (no intervention).  Brett Green recommended light vehicle driver education and advertising campaigns and increased police action in regard to light vehicle driver behaviour around heavy vehicles.  NatRoad recommended further research on AEB and proposed a new option to require AEB to be fitted to vehicles meeting Euro VI emissions standards only.  The FCAI and the TIC were both supportive of AEB as a technology which offers significant road safety benefits.

TMR QLD, the NSW Government, HVIA, the AAA, the ATA, Boral Logistics, and ANCAP all also indicated support for Option 6a with matching ESC fitment.  NatRoad, while not supporting a broad scope AEB regulation, also supported mandating ESC for the broader range of heavy vehicles proposed in the RIS.

The TIC also supported broadening uptake of ESC on trucks, but suggested that the
benefit-cost analysis should be revised to include further ESC costs.  The Department conducted a post‑consultation sensitivity analysis to evaluate the effects of ESC validation test costs up to $200,000 per model (see Table 16 in Section 4.1).  Notably, less than a 4 per cent reduction in net benefits was observed for each $100,000 increase in the per model validation test cost and the benefit-cost ratios remained constant (to one decimal place).  This indicates that the benefit-cost analysis is not particularly sensitive to variations in ESC validation test cost.

The BIC supported exemptions for buses carrying standees and unrestrained passengers and the TIC supported exemptions for trucks with four or more axles, off-road/all-wheel drive trucks and special purpose vehicles to align with the European exemptions.  The Department updated the RIS post consultation to clarify the exemptions that would apply under the recommended option and how these would align with those in Europe.   

In terms of implementation timing, there was support from several stakeholders for the dates proposed in the consultation RIS.  However, the BIC, Daimler Truck and Bus, the FCAI, HVIA, Knorr‑Bremse Australia and the TIC suggested longer lead times will be needed and proposed extended implementation timetables.  The most extended of these was that proposed by the TIC, with applicability dates of 1 November 2022 for new models and 1 January 2025 for all (new) vehicles.  Further, both the BIC and the TIC recommended that the introduction of AEB be aligned with the introduction of Euro VI (and equivalent) emissions standards for heavy vehicles.

As noted earlier in the RIS, the Department will consult further with peak industry bodies on implementation timing, and final implementation dates will be determined by the Government as part of the relevant ADRs.  To ensure that the decision is fully informed by the RIS, an additional sensitivity analysis was conducted based on the dates proposed by the TIC (see Table 17 in Section 4.1).  Under this alternative implementation scenario, Option 6a with matching ESC fitment would still provide a substantial positive net benefit and remains the recommended option.

A more detailed summary of public comment together with Department responses is included at Appendix 8.


8.     Implementation and Evaluation

New ADRs or amendments to the ADRs can be determined by the responsible minister under section 7 of the MVSA or section 12 of the RVSA.

As Australian Government regulations, ADRs are subject to review every ten years as resources permit.  This ensures that they remain relevant, cost effective and do not become a barrier to the importation of safer vehicles and vehicle components.  The new ADRs 97/00 and 35/07 to implement the recommended option would be scheduled for a full review on an ongoing basis and in line with this practice.

The Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics regularly publishes road crash statistics for Australia, including quarterly and annual summaries of trauma from road crashes in which one or more heavy trucks or buses were involved.  Each state and territory also publishes police reported road crash data, including for crashes involving heavy vehicles.  The Department expects these data sources will be used to collectively inform and support future evaluation(s) of the implementation of the recommended option.    

In addition, UN Regulation No. 131 includes a clause specifying that requirements will be reviewed before 1 November 2021.  UN regulations are revised on an ongoing basis and so in time it may be possible to expand the requirement to specifically detect road users such as pedestrians and cyclists.  The Department reviews adopted regulations in line with UN amendments as they become available.


 

9.     Conclusion and Recommended Option

Heavy vehicle rear impact crashes are the specific road safety problem that has been considered in this RIS.  These crashes cost the community $200 million annually.  Heavy vehicle AEB systems are a mature technology capable of mitigating rear impact crashes.

This RIS examined the case for government intervention to increase fitment rates of AEB for new heavy vehicles.  Research shows that AEB is relevant to 14.8 per cent of all heavy vehicle trauma crashes, and if fitted in such crashes reduces trauma by up to 57 per cent.  In Australia, around 6 per cent of new heavy vehicles are fitted with AEB.  Though fitment is mandatory in the major market of Europe, this has not strongly influenced the fitment rate in the Australian market.

This RIS considered five intervention options in addition to the BAU case to increase fitment of AEB to the heavy vehicle fleet.  It found the most significant (and only positive) net benefits are to be gained by mandating AEB fitment for new heavy vehicles.  This could not otherwise be realised either through the business as usual approach or various other non-regulatory options such as user information campaigns.

Option 6a: regulation (broad scope) generated the highest net benefits ($52 million) of the base (AEB) options examined as well as the highest number of lives saved (78) and serious injuries avoided (2,152), with a likely BCR of 1.2 (best case up to 1.8).  Expanding the base option 6a to incorporate ESC requirements for all vehicle categories covered by a broad scope AEB regulation (Option 6a with matching ESC fitment), would save an additional 24 lives and prevent an additional 412 serious and 320 minor injuries.  This represents additional savings to society (gross benefits) of $89 million, and in combination with the Option 6a requirements for AEB, raises the total net benefits to $141 million and the likely BCR to 1.6 (best case up to 2.5).

According to the Australian Government Guide to Regulation (2014) ten principles for Australian Government policy makers, the policy option offering the greatest net benefit should always be the recommended option.  Therefore, Option 6a - regulation (broad scope) with matching ESC fitment is the recommended option.  Under this option, fitment of AEB and ESC would be mandated for new omnibuses, and for new heavy goods vehicles greater than 3.5 tonnes Gross Vehicle Mass (GVM).

A draft RIS was released for a six-week public consultation period, which closed 4 October 2019. The majority of feedback received during this period strongly supported the implementation of Option 6a, including in many cases with matching ESC fitment.  The proposed implementation timing for consultative purposes was:

·         1 November 2020 for new model vehicles; and

·         1 November 2022 for all new vehicles.

During the consultation period, the BIC, Daimler Truck and Bus, the FCAI, HVIA, Knorr‑Bremse Australia and the TIC proposed an extended implementation timetable.  The most extended of these was that proposed by the TIC, with a phase in from November 2022 to January 2025.  The effect of extending the implementation timetable was examined in a sensitivity analysis, which showed there would still be a positive net benefit for the dates proposed by the TIC.

In terms of the impact of the recommended option, the costs to business for the necessary changes to vehicles would normally be passed on to consumers, while the benefits would flow to the community and the consumers or their families that are directly involved in crashes.  However, in this case offsets will be identified to reduce or eliminate this cost through other harmonisation and/or deregulation initiatives.

Final implementation dates (and therefore also final annual regulatory costs) will be determined by the Government as part of the relevant ADRs, following further consultation by the Department with peak industry bodies on alternative implementation dates.


 

10.References

Abelson, P. (2007). Establishing a Monetary Value for Lives Saved: Issues and Controversies. Paper presented at the 2007 ‘Delivering Better Quality Regulatory Proposals through Better Cost-Benefit Analysis’ Conference, Canberra, Australia.

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2013). Population Projections, Australia, 2012 (base) to 2101, 2013. Report No. 3220.0.  Retrieved August 2016 from http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/3222.02012%20(base)%20to%202101?OpenDocument.

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2014). Australian Historical Population Statistics, 2014. Report No. 3105.0.65.001.  Retrieved August 2016 from http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/3105.0.65.0012014?OpenDocument.

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2018a). Motor Vehicle Census, Australia, 2019. Report No. 9309.0.    Retrieved May 2020 from https://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/allprimarymainfeatures/06D0E28CD6E66B8ACA2568A900139408?opendocument

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2018b). Survey of Motor Vehicle Use, Australia, 12 months 30 June 2018. Report No. 9208.0.  Retrieved March 2019 from http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/9208.0main+features112%20months%20ended%2030%20June%202018

Australian Government (2014a). The Australian Government Guide to Regulation. Retrieved April 2017 from https://www.cuttingredtape.gov.au/handbook/australian-government-guide-regulation.

Australian Government (2014b). Vehicle Standard (Australian Design Rule 35/05 – Commercial Vehicle Brake Systems). Retrieved September 2017 from https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2014C01106.

Australian Government (2016). Guidance Note: Cost-Benefit Analysis. Retrieved October 2017 from https://www.pmc.gov.au/resource-centre/regulation/cost-benefit-analysis-guidance-note.

Australian Government (2018). Regulation Impact Statement, National Heavy Vehicle Braking Strategy Phase II - Improving the Stability and Control of Heavy Vehicles. Retrieved February 2019 from https://ris.pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/posts/2018/06/national_heavy_vehicle_braking_strategy_phase_ii_-_improving_the_stability_and_control_of_heavy_vehicles.pdf.

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2015). National Hospital Data Collection, National Hospital Morbidity Database 2013-2014. Retrieved May 2019 from https://www.aihw.gov.au/about-our-data/our-data-collections/national-hospitals-data-collection.

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2018). Hospitalised Injury due to land transport crashes. Cat. No. INJCAT 195. Injury research and statistics series no. 115. Canberra, Australia.

Austroads (2015). Investigation of Key Crash Types: Rear-end Crashes in Urban and Rural Environments (Research Report No. AP-R480-15) Sydney, Australia.

Budd, L., & Newstead, S. (2014). Potential Safety Benefits of Emerging Crash Avoidance Technologies in Australasian Heavy Vehicles. Monash University Accident Research Centre. Retrieved February 2020 from https://www.monash.edu/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/216489/Potential-Safety-Benefits-of-Emerging-Crash-Avoidance-Technologies-in-Australasian-Heavy-Vehicles.pdfBureau of Transport Economics (BTE) (2000). Road Crash Costs in Australia (Report No. 102) Canberra, Australia.

Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics (BITRE) (2009), Cost of road crashes in Australia 2006, Report 118, Canberra, Australia.

Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics (BITRE) (2014), Impact of road trauma and measures to improve outcomes, Report 140, Canberra, Australia.

Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics (BITRE) (2016), Fatal heavy vehicle crashes Australia quarterly bulletin, Jul-Sep 2016, Canberra, Australia.

Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics (BITRE) (2017a), Fatal heavy vehicle crashes Australia quarterly bulletin, Jan-Mar 2017, Canberra, Australia.

Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics (BITRE) (2017b), Road trauma involving heavy vehicles 2016 statistical summary, Canberra, Australia.

Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics (BITRE) (2019a), Fatal heavy vehicle crashes Australia quarterly bulletin, Oct-Dec 2019, Canberra, Australia.

Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics (BITRE) (2019b), Hospitalised Injury April 2019. Retrieved May 2019 from https://www.bitre.gov.au/publications/ongoing/hospitalised-injury.aspx.

Commonwealth Interdepartmental Committee on Quasi Regulation. (1997). Grey Letter Law. Retrieved April 2017 from http://www.pc.gov.au/research/supporting/grey-letter-law.

MUARC (2020). The Potential Benefits of Autonomous Emergency Braking Systems in Australia. Retrieved February 2020 from
https://www.monash.edu/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/2093511/The-Potential-Benefits-of-Autonomous-Emergency-Braking-Systems-in-Australia-Report-339.pdf.

National Road Safety Strategy (2018). National Road Safety Action Plan 2018-2020. Retrieved September 2018 from http://roadsafety.gov.au/action-plan/2018-2020/.

NSW TfNSW (2018). Inquiry Into Heavy Vehicle Safety And Use Of Technology To Improve Road Safety.

NTARC (2019). Major Accident Investigation Report: Covering major accidents in 2017. Retrieved April 2019 from https://www.nti.com.au/news-resources/research/latest-report

SWA (2018a). Australian Work Health and Safety Strategy 2012-2022. Retrieved May 2019 from https://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/doc/australian-work-health-and-safety-strategy-2012-2022

SWA (2018b). Road transport: Priority industry snapshots (2018). Retrieved May 2019 from https://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/system/files/documents/1903/road-transport-priority-industry-snapshot-2018.pdf

SWA (2019). Transport  Industry Snapshot (2019). Retrieved May 2019 from https://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/transport

Transport and Infrastructure Council (2011). National Road Safety Strategy 2011-2020. Retrieved April 2017 from http://www.transportinfrastructurecouncil.gov.au/publications/.

Transport and Infrastructure Council (2015). National Road Safety Action Plan 2015–2017. Retrieved April 2017 from http://www.transportinfrastructurecouncil.gov.au/publications/.

Transport for NSW (2017). Safety Technologies for Heavy Vehicles and Combinations. Cat No.45094061. Retrieved May 2019 from https://roadsafety.transport.nsw.gov.au/downloads/safety-technologies-heavy-vehicles.pdf

UN (2014a). United Nations Regulation No. 13 – Revision 8 – Uniform provisions concerning the approval of vehicles of categories M, N and O with regard to braking. Retrieved October 2017 from
https://www.unece.org/trans/main/wp29/wp29regs1-20.html

UN (2014b). United Nations Regulation No. 131 – Revision 1 – Uniform provisions concerning the approval of motor vehicles with regard to the Advanced Emergency Braking Systems (AEBS). Retrieved November 2018 from https://www.unece.org/trans/main/wp29/wp29regs121-140.html

UN (2017). Consolidated Resolution on the Construction of Vehicles (R.E.3.) Revision 6. Retrieved May 2019 from https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/main/wp29/wp29resolutions/ECE-TRANS-WP.29-78r6e.pdfhttps://www.unece.org/trans/main/wp29/wp29regs1-20.html

Xiong, H & Boyle, L. (2012). Drivers’ Adaptation to Adaptive Cruise Control: Examination of Automatic and Manual Braking. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems. 13. 1468-1473. 10.1109/TITS.2012.2192730.


 

Appendix 1 - Heavy Vehicle Categories

A two-character vehicle category code is shown for each vehicle category. This code is used to designate the relevant vehicles in the national standards, as represented by the ADRs, and in related documentation.

The categories listed below are those relevant to vehicles greater than 4.5 tonnes Gross Vehicle Mass and trailers greater than 4.5 tonnes Gross Trailer Mass (Heavy Vehicles).

Omnibuses (M)

A passenger vehicle having more than 9 seating positions, including that of the driver.

An omnibus comprising 2 or more non-separable but articulated units shall be considered as a single vehicle.

Light Omnibus (MD)

An omnibus with a ‘Gross Vehicle Mass’ not exceeding 5.0 tonnes.

Sub-category
            MD1 – up to 3.5 tonnes ‘Gross Vehicle Mass

            MD2 – up to 3.5 tonnes ‘Gross Vehicle Mass

            MD3 – over 3.5 tonnes, up to 4.5 tonnes ‘Gross Vehicle Mass

            MD4 – over 4.5 tonnes, up to 5 tonnes ‘Gross Vehicle Mass

            MD5 – up to 2.7 tonnes ‘Gross Vehicle Mass

            MD6 – over 2.7 tonnes, up to 5 tonnes ‘Gross Vehicle Mass

Heavy Omnibus (ME)

An omnibus with a ‘Gross Vehicle Mass’ exceeding 5.0 tonnes.

Goods Vehicles (N)

A motor vehicle constructed primarily for the carriage of goods and having at least 4 wheels; or 3 wheels and a ‘Gross Vehicle Mass’ exceeding 1.0 tonne.

A vehicle constructed for both the carriage of persons and the carriage of good shall be considered to be primarily for the carriage of goods if the number of seating positions times 68 kg is less than 50 per cent of the difference between the ‘Gross Vehicle Mass‘ and the ‘Unladen Mass‘.

The equipment and installations carried on certain special-purpose vehicles not designed for the carriage of passengers (crane vehicles, workshop vehicles, publicity vehicles, etc.) are regarded as being equivalent to goods for the purposes of this definition.

A goods vehicle comprising two or more non-separable but articulated units shall be considered as a single vehicle.

Medium Goods Vehicle (NB)

A goods vehicle with a ‘Gross Vehicle Mass’ exceeding 3.5 tonnes but not exceeding 12.0 tonnes.

Sub-category
            NB1 – over 3.5 tonnes, up to 4.5 tonnes ‘Gross Vehicle Mass

            NB2 – over 4.5 tonnes, up to 12 tonnes ‘Gross Vehicle Mass

 Heavy Goods Vehicle (NC)

A goods vehicle with a ‘Gross Vehicle Mass’ exceeding 12.0 tonnes.


 

Appendix 2 - Awareness Campaigns

There are numerous examples of awareness advertising campaigns that have been successful. One particularly successful campaign was the Grim Reaper advertisements of 1987. In an attempt to educate the public about risk factors for HIV Aids; television and newspaper advertisements were run showing the Grim Reaper playing ten pin bowling with human pins. This campaign led to significant increases in HIV testing requests meaning that the campaign effectively reached the target market. Other awareness campaigns can be as successful if well designed, planned and positioned. Two examples are the more recent Skin Cancer Awareness Campaign and the Liquids, Aerosols and Gels Awareness Campaign.

Providing accurate costings is a difficult task. Each public awareness campaign will consist of different target markets, different objectives and different reaches to name a few common differences. In providing a minimum and maximum response two cases have been used; the maximum cost is developed from the Department of Health & Ageing’s Skin Cancer Awareness Campaign. The minimum cost is developed from the Office of Transport Security’s Liquids, Aerosols and Gels (LAGs) Awareness Campaign.

Broad High Cost Campaign

The “Protect yourself from skin cancer in five ways” campaign was developed in an effort to raise awareness of skin cancer amongst young people who often underestimate the dangers of skin cancer.

Research prior to the campaign found that young people were the most desirable target market as they had the highest incidence of burning and had an orientation toward tanning. This group is also highly influential in setting societal norms for outdoor behaviour. A mass marketed approach was deemed appropriate.

The Cancer Council support investment in raising awareness of skin cancer prevention as research shows that government investment in skin cancer prevention leads to a $5 benefit for every $1 spent.

Whilst it is not a direct measure of effectiveness, the National Sun Protection Survey would provide an indication as to the changed behaviours that may have arisen as a result of the advertising campaign. The research showed that there had been a 31 per cent fall in the number of adults reporting that they were sunburnt since the previous survey in 2004 suggesting that the campaign was to some extent effective. The actual effectiveness of the campaign was not publicly released.


 

The costs of this campaign were from three sources:

Creative Advertising Services (e.g. advertisement development)

$378,671

Media Buy (e.g. placement of advertisements)

$5,508,437

Evaluation Research (measuring the effectiveness of the campaign)

$211,424

Total

$6,098,532

Applicability to AEB Systems for Heavy Vehicles

Using a mass marketing approach can be regarded as an effective approach because it has the ability to reach a large number of people. However, this may not be the most efficient approach as most people exposed to such advertisements would not be members of the target market.  Further, political sensitivities can arise from large scale marketing campaigns and that there would likely be a thorough analysis of any such spending. As a result, it would be essential to demonstrate that such a campaign is likely to be effective prior to launch.

The scale of the above example would be too large for a campaign targeting an Australian heavy vehicle fleet. Unlike the examples given in Appendix 3, heavy vehicles are traditionally not advertised as commodities through television media, as the target market is too small proportion of the public. In lieu of advertising the equipment through manufacturers’ commercials, a safety advertisement would instead reach a larger proportion of the public that have the means to act on the campaign. Comparing to reported expenditure of government agencies for 2015-2016 (Department of Finance, 2016), the estimate of $1.5 million per month, or $18 million per year to run a mass market approach was comparable.

Targeted Low Cost Campaign

In August 2006, United Kingdom security services interrupted a terrorist operation that involved a plan to take concealed matter on board an international flight to subsequently build an explosive device. The operation led to the identification of a vulnerability with respect to the detection of liquid explosives.

As a result, the International Civil Aviation Organisation released security guidelines for screening Liquids, Aerosols & Gels (LAGS). As a result new measures were launched in Australia. To raise awareness of the changes, the following awareness campaign was run over a period of four months:

1)      14 million brochures were published in English, Japanese, Chinese, Korean & Malay and were distributed to airports, airlines, duty free outlets and travel agents

2)      1200 Posters, 1700 counter top signs, 57000 pocket cards, 36 banners and 5000 information kits were prepared.

3)      Radio and television Interviews

4)      Items in news bulletins

5)      Advertising in major metropolitan and regional newspapers

6)      A website, hotline number and email address were established to provide travellers with a ready source of information.

7)      5 million resealable plastic bags were distributed to international airports

8)      Training for 1900 airport security screeners and customer service staff was funded and facilitated by the Department.

The campaign won the Public Relations Institute of Australia (ACT) 2007 Award for Excellence for a Government Sponsored Campaign having demonstrated a rapid rise in awareness. 77 per cent of travellers surveyed said they had heard of the new measures in general terms and 74 per cent of respondents claimed to be aware of the measures when prompted.

The costs of this campaign were from three sources:

Developmental Research (e.g. Understanding Public Awareness prior to the campaign)

$50,000

Media Buy (e.g. Placement of advertisements)

$1,002,619

Evaluation Research (Measuring the effectiveness of the campaign)

$40,000

Total

$1,092,619

Applicability to AEB Systems for Heavy Vehicles

This campaign had a very narrow target market; international travellers. As a result, the placement of the message for the most part was able to be specifically targeted to that market with minimum wastage through targeting airports and travel agents.

Should a heavy vehicle campaign be run, there would be a similar narrow target market; new heavy vehicle and bus buyers. As a result, placement of similar marketing tools could be positioned in places where these buyers search for information. Particular focus may be on heavy vehicle sales locations and in print media (e.g. magazines) specifically covering heavy vehicles.

The scale of the above example would be too large for a campaign targeting an Australian heavy vehicle campaign. Targeting specific media publications, both online and print media, would provide the best outcomes. Using reported expenditure of government agencies for 2015-2016 (Department of Finance, 2016), an estimate of $200,000 for a three month period was used. The cost modelling of this option started with a two year campaign followed by campaigns every second year (to prevent advertising fatigue) while the BAU fitment rate remained under 70 per cent.


 

Appendix 3 - Information Campaigns

The following are real-world advertising campaigns that featured automotive technologies as a selling point, with a measured outcome:

A Mitsubishi Outlander advertising campaign was launched in February 2008. It focused solely on the fact that the car had “Active Stability Control as standard”. Changes in sales were attributable directly to the campaign. There was an immediate effect with sales of the Mitsubishi Outlander increasing by 9.1 per cent for the month of February alone.

A Hyundai advertising campaign was launched in April 2008, offering free ESC on the Elantra 2.0 SX until the end of June.  This was supplemented by television commercials launched in early May.  The impact of this campaign was significant, with a 52.8 per cent increase in sales for this model over the period.

A 2008 Volkswagen Golf advertising campaign aimed to inform the market that the Golf had “extra features at no extra cost”.  The result was a 69.1 per cent increase in sales for those models over the April – June period.


 

Appendix 4 - UN Regulation No. 131 Performance Requirements

Warning and activation for a stationary target

A summary of the requirements of the Stationary Target Test Type 1 and Type 2 are shown in Table 24 and Table 25 respectively. The subject vehicle is travelling at a speed of 80 km/h and is at a distance of at least 120m from the stationary target. The subject vehicle to target centreline offset of not more than 0.5m. The total speed reduction of the subject vehicle, specified in the Emergency Braking Phase, is at the time of impact with the stationary target.

Table 24: Stationary Target Test Type 1

Target 0km/h

ADR Subcategory

(Subject Vehicle)

80km/h

Collision Warning Phases

Total speed reduction shall not exceed 15 km/h or 30 per cent of the total subject vehicle speed reduction

Emergency Braking Phase

At least 1 warning not later than 1.4 s before emergency braking phase

At least 2 warnings not later than 0.8 s before emergency braking phase

This phase shall not start before a Time To Collision (TTC) of 3 s or less

NC

Haptic or Acoustic

Haptic or Acoustic

Speed reduction  ≥  20 km/h

NB > 8 Tonnes

Haptic or Acoustic

Haptic or Acoustic

Speed reduction  ≥  20 km/h

NB ≤ 8 Tonnes

With pneumatic braking systems

Haptic or Acoustic

Haptic or Acoustic

Speed reduction  ≥  20 km/h

ME

With pneumatic braking systems

Haptic or Acoustic

Haptic or Acoustic

Speed reduction  ≥  20 km/h

MD

With pneumatic braking systems

Haptic or Acoustic

Haptic or Acoustic

Speed reduction  ≥  20 km/h

Table 25: Stationary Target Test Type 2

Target 0km/h

*Manufacturers may elect to gain vehicle Type Approval to requirements in Stationary Target Test Type 1

ADR Subcategory

(Subject Vehicle)

80 km/h

Collision Warning Phases

Total speed reduction shall not exceed 15 km/h or 30 per cent of the total subject vehicle speed reduction

Emergency Braking Phase

At least 1 warning not later than 0.8 s before emergency braking phase

At least 2 warnings before emergency braking phase

This phase shall not start before a Time To Collision (TTC) of 3 s or less

*NB ≤ 8 Tonnes

With hydraulic braking systems

Haptic or Acoustic or Optical

Haptic or Acoustic or Optical

Speed reduction  ≥  10 km/h

ME

With hydraulic braking systems

Haptic or Acoustic or Optical

Haptic or Acoustic or Optical

Speed reduction  ≥  10 km/h

*MD

With hydraulic braking systems

Haptic or Acoustic or Optical

Haptic or Acoustic or Optical

Speed reduction  ≥  10 km/h

Warning and activation for a moving target

A summary of the requirements of the Moving Target Test Type 1 and Type 2 are shown in Table 26 and Table 27 respectively. The subject vehicle is travelling at a speed of 80 km/h, the moving target at 12 km/h (or 67 km/h), and a separation distance of at least 120m between them. The subject vehicle to target centreline offset of not more than 0.5m. The Emergency Braking Phase shall result in the subject vehicle not impacting with the moving target.

Table 26: Moving Target Test Type 1

Target 12km/h

ADR Subcategory

(Subject Vehicle)

80km/h

Collision Warning Phases

Total speed reduction shall not exceed 15 km/h or 30 per cent of the total subject vehicle speed reduction

Emergency Braking Phase

At least 1 warning not later than 1.4 s before emergency braking phase

At least 2 warnings not later than 0.8 s before emergency braking phase

This phase shall not start before a Time To Collision (TTC) of 3 s or less

NC

Haptic or Acoustic

Haptic or Acoustic

No Impact

NB > 8 Tonnes

Haptic or Acoustic

Haptic or Acoustic

No Impact

NB ≤ 8 Tonnes

With pneumatic braking systems

Haptic or Acoustic

Haptic or Acoustic

No Impact

ME

With pneumatic braking systems

Haptic or Acoustic

Haptic or Acoustic

No Impact

MD

With pneumatic braking systems

Haptic or Acoustic

Haptic or Acoustic

No Impact

Table 27: Moving Target Test Type 2

Target 67km/h

*Manufacturers may elect to gain vehicle Type Approval to requirements in Moving Target Test Type 1

ADR Subcategory

(Subject Vehicle)

80km/h

Collision Warning Phases

Total speed reduction shall not exceed 15 km/h or 30 per cent of the total subject vehicle speed reduction

Emergency Braking Phase

At least 1 warning not later than 0.8 s before emergency braking phase

At least 2 warnings before emergency braking phase

This phase shall not start before a Time To Collision (TTC) of 3 s or less

*NB ≤ 8 Tonnes

With hydraulic braking systems

Haptic or Acoustic or Optical

Haptic or Acoustic or Optical

No Impact

ME

With hydraulic braking systems

Haptic or Acoustic or Optical

Haptic or Acoustic or Optical

No Impact

*MD

With hydraulic braking systems

Haptic or Acoustic or Optical

Haptic or Acoustic or Optical

No Impact

False reaction test

A summary of the requirements of the False Reaction Test is shown in Table 28. The subject vehicle is travelling at a speed of 50 km/h, two stationary targets with a distance of 4.5m between them shall be positioned to face in the same direction of travel as the subject vehicle. The rear of both target vehicles shall be aligned with the other. 

The subject vehicle shall travel for a distance of at least 60m, at 50 km/h, to pass centrally between the two stationary targets. The AEB system shall not provide a collision warning and shall not initiate the emergency braking phase.

Table 28: False Reaction Test with Two Stationary Targets

Two Targets 0km/h (4.5m apart)

ADR Subcategory

(Subject Vehicle)

50km/h

Collision Warning Phases

Total speed reduction shall not exceed 15 km/h or 30 per cent of the total subject vehicle speed reduction

Emergency Braking Phase

NC , NB , ME , MD

No warning provided

No warning provided

No emergency braking applied

 


 

Appendix 5 - Benefit-Cost Analysis

The model used in this analysis was the Net Present Value (NPV) model. The costs and expected benefits associated with a number of options for government intervention were summed over time. The further the cost or benefit occurred from the nominal starting date, the more they were discounted. This allowed all costs and benefits to be compared equally among the options, no matter when they occurred. Table 36 summarises the figures from this analysis.

The analysis was broken up into the steps outlined below.

1.      The number of new registered vehicles in ADR categories covered by UN Regulation No. 131 were established for each year between 1968 and 2018 inclusive, utilising available Australian Bureau of Statistics Motor Vehicle Census (report series 9309.0) data (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2017a), and registrations per capita for years prior to availability of census data (Figure 8):

Figure 8: New Australian heavy vehicle registrations, categories covered by UN Regulation No. 131 to 2018.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.      Data from MUARC 2020 was used to determine the typical crash frequency by age for vehicle categories covered by UN Regulation No. 131 (Figure 9):

Figure 9: Crash frequency by vehicle age, categories covered by UN Regulation No. 131.

3.      The data from steps 1 and 2 were used to determine the likelihood of a vehicle of a given age being involved in a casualty crash over course of 1 year as a function of number of registered vehicles of a given age (Figure 10):

Figure 10: Crash likelihood by vehicle age, categories covered by UN Regulation No. 131.

 

 

 

4.      Recent new vehicle combined sales data for the relevant vehicle categories was established (Figure 11):

Figure 11: Past and projected vehicle sales; Option 6b (dashed), other options (solid).

Short to medium term forecast sales were obtained from industry bodies, beyond which growth rates were projected from NTC statistics (Who moves what where, 2016), heavy duty vehicle industry (Heavy Duty sales, 2018), Bus Industry Council’s National Technical Suppliers Summit 2017 and VFACTS.


 

5.      The projected increased fitment rates at sale was established for each intervention option (solid line – BAU) (Figures 12 to 14):

Figure 12: Projected fitment effect, Option 2a

Figure 13: Projected fitment effect, Option 2b

Figure 14: Projected fitment effect, Option 6a, 6b

6.      From sales data (step 4) and fitment data (step 5), determine the fitment increase by year due to each option (Table 29):

Fitment Increase at Sale

Year

 Option 2a

Option 2b

Option 6a

Option 6b

2021

11,944

1,544

5,045

4,287

2022

8,488

1,935

11,884

10,140

2023

6,215

2,237

16,380

14,032

2024

5,107

2,452

15,740

13,535

2025

3,400

2,720

14,523

12,535

2026

3,493

2,851

15,130

13,107

2027

3,589

2,988

15,763

13,705

2028

3,685

3,132

16,424

14,329

2029

3,784

3,283

17,114

14,982

2030

3,883

3,442

17,834

15,664

2031

3,985

3,609

18,585

16,377

2032

4,087

3,784

19,369

17,122

2033

4,191

3,968

20,187

17,901

2034

4,296

4,161

21,041

18,715

2035

4,271

4,234

21,280

18,913

2036

 

3,489

20,768

18,443

2037

 

2,682

20,242

17,962

2038

 

1,849

19,702

17,470

2039

 

 

19,148

16,965

2040

 

 

18,579

16,448

2041

 

 

17,995

15,919

2042

 

 

17,397

15,377

2043

 

 

16,782

14,822

2044

 

 

16,153

14,254

2045

 

 

15,507

13,673

2046

 

 

14,844

13,079

2047

 

 

14,165

12,470

2048

 

 

13,469

11,848

2049

 

 

12,756

11,211

2050

 

 

12,025

10,560

2051

 

 

11,276

9,894

2052

 

 

10,509

9,213

2053

 

 

9,723

8,516

2054

 

 

8,917

7,804

2055

 

 

8,093

7,076

2056

 

 

7,248

6,332

2057

 

 

6,383

5,572

2058

 

 

5,498

4,795

2059

 

 

4,591

4,000

2060

 

 

3,663

3,189

2061

 

 

2,713

2,360

2062

 

 

1,741

1,513

2063

 

 

746

647

2064

 

 

272

236

2065

 

 

1,314

1,139

Table 29: Fitment increase at sale.


 

7.      Table 30 shows for each year and each option, the fitment increase at sale due to intervention were used to calculate the additional fitment costs over the intervention policy period (15 years):

Year

Additional Fitment Costs ($)

Option 2a

Option 2b

Option 6a

Option 6b

2021

17,915,883

2,316,650

7,567,075

6,431,050

2022

12,732,642

2,903,042

17,825,699

15,210,466

2023

9,321,879

3,355,876

24,569,809

21,047,483

2024

7,661,150

3,677,352

23,610,270

20,303,121

2025

5,099,920

4,079,936

21,783,943

18,802,846

2026

5,240,100

4,275,921

22,694,395

19,660,450

2027

5,382,808

4,481,686

23,644,483

20,556,809

2028

5,527,965

4,697,728

24,635,951

21,493,651

2029

5,675,477

4,924,568

25,670,620

22,472,786

2030

5,825,235

5,162,757

26,750,392

23,496,101

2031

5,977,112

5,412,872

27,877,249

24,565,565

2032

6,130,964

5,675,521

29,053,263

25,683,235

2033

6,286,628

5,951,342

30,280,594

26,851,258

2034

6,443,920

6,241,005

31,561,497

28,071,875

2035

6,406,299

6,350,592

31,920,080

28,369,178

Table 30: Additional fitment cost by option.

8.      From year 1 of intervention (2021), the number of crashes affected by the increased fitment was determined for each year over a 37 year period (2 year implementation plus 35 year analysis), for each viable intervention option as shown in Table 31-34. The crashes affected each year are the product of the likelihood of crash at the vehicles age (from step 3) with the increased fitment at sale (from step 5), summed as they infiltrate the fleet over time.

 


Year

 

Vehicle Age

Total vehicles

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

..

..

36

37

 

1

83

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

..

..

 

 

83

2

279

59

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

..

..

 

 

338

3

370

198

43

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

..

..

 

 

611

4

424

263

145

35

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

..

..

 

 

867

5

406

301

192

119

24

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

..

..

 

 

1042

6

378

288

221

158

79

24

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

..

..

 

 

1148

7

359

268

211

181

105

82

25

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

..

..

 

 

1231

8

323

255

196

173

121

108

84

26

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

..

..

 

 

1286

9

270

230

187

161

115

124

111

86

26

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

..

..

 

 

1310

10

203

192

168

153

107

119

127

114

88

27

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

..

..

 

 

1299

11

161

144

140

138

102

110

122

131

117

91

28

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

..

..

 

 

1285

12

126

115

106

115

92

105

113

125

134

120

93

28

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

..

..

 

 

1273

13

102

90

84

87

77

95

108

116

128

138

123

95

29

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

..

..

 

 

1272

14

98

72

66

69

58

79

97

111

120

132

141

127

98

30

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

..

..

 

 

1296

15

89

69

53

54

46

59

81

100

114

123

135

145

130

100

30

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

..

..

 

 

1328

16

78

64

51

43

36

47

61

83

102

117

126

139

149

133

100

0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

..

..

 

 

1329

17

68

56

46

42

29

37

48

63

85

105

120

129

142

153

132

0

0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

..

..

 

 

1256

18

70

49

41

38

28

30

38

50

64

88

108

123

132

146

152

0

0

0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

..

..

 

 

1155

19

62

49

36

33

25

29

31

39

51

66

90

111

126

136

145

0

0

0

0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

..

..

 

 

1028

20

67

44

36

29

22

26

29

31

40

52

68

92

113

129

135

0

0

0

0

0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

..

..

 

 

915

21

63

48

32

30

19

23

27

30

32

41

54

70

95

116

128

0

0

0

0

0

0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

..

..

 

 

807

22

50

45

35

26

20

20

24

28

31

33

42

55

71

97

116

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

..

..

 

 

692

23

47

36

33

29

18

20

21

24

28

32

34

43

57

73

96

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

 

 

 

 

 

 

..

..

 

 

590

24

47

34

26

27

19

18

21

21

25

29

33

35

44

58

73

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

 

 

 

 

 

..

..

 

 

509

25

46

34

25

21

18

20

19

21

22

25

30

33

36

45

58

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

 

 

 

 

..

..

 

 

452

26

38

32

25

20

14

18

20

19

22

22

26

31

34

37

45

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

 

 

 

..

..

 

 

404

27

28

27

24

20

13

15

19

21

20

23

23

27

31

35

36

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

 

 

..

..

 

 

362

28

25

20

20

19

13

14

15

19

21

20

23

23

27

32

35

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

 

..

..

 

 

329

28

22

18

15

16

13

14

14

15

20

22

21

24

24

28

32

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

..

..

 

 

298

30

16

16

13

12

11

13

14

15

16

20

22

21

24

25

28

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

..

..

 

 

267

31

15

12

11

11

8

11

14

15

15

16

21

23

22

25

24

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

..

..

 

 

243

32

0

11

8

9

7

8

12

14

15

15

17

21

24

22

25

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

..

..

 

 

209

33

0

0

8

7

6

7

8

12

14

15

16

17

22

24

22

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

..

..

 

 

180

34

0

0

0

6

5

6

8

9

12

15

16

16

18

23

24

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0