Cited by 74Traffic and Road SafetyAutonomous Vehicle Technology and SafetyTraffic control and management

Analysis of pre-crash scenarios and contributing factors for autonomous vehicle crashes at intersections

Liu, Qian, Wang, Xuesong, Liu, Shikun, Yu, Chunjun, Glaser, Yi·2024·Accident Analysis & Prevention

Abstract

Intersections are high-risk locations for autonomous vehicles (AVs). Crash causation analysis based on pre-crash scenarios can provide new insight into these crashes that can lead to effective countermeasures, but there are significant differences in pre-crash scenarios between autonomous and conventional vehicles, and inadequate AV data has put limits on research. The association rule method, however, can yield useful results despite these limits. This study therefore aims to use the method with pre-crash scenarios to understand the characteristics and contributing factors of AV crashes at intersections from the latest 5-year AV crash data. Analysis of 197 AV crashes at intersections revealed 30 types of pre-crash scenarios. The rear-end crash (58.88%) and lane change crash (16.24%) were the most frequently occurring scenarios for AVs. The proportion of AVs being rear-ended by conventional vehicles was 58.38%. The main contributing factors of these two most common AV scenarios were identified by association rules and crash causes were analyzed from the perspective of AV decision-making. The main factors contributing to the AV rear-end scenario were location outside the intersection in the intersection-related area, traffic signal control, autonomous engaged mode, mixed-use or public land, and weekdays, while those for lane change scenarios were on-street parking and the time of 8:00 a.m. Important causes of rear-end crashes attributable to the AV were inadequate stop and dec…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.aap.2023.107383

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 23 · Cited by 74

Authors
Liu, Q., Wang, X., Liu, S., Yu, C., & Glaser, Y.
Affiliations
  • Tongji University (CN)
  • General Motors (United States) (US)
Corresponding author
Wang, Xuesong
Venue
Accident Analysis & Prevention
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2024-02
Volume
195
Pages
107383
ISSN
0001-4575 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4388793431
Cited by
74
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 37 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 14
FWCI
12.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Accident Analysis & Prevention (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Key Research and Development Program of China (2021YFF0602700)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality › Traffic and Road Safety
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Automotive Engineering › Autonomous Vehicle Technology and Safety
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Control and Systems Engineering › Traffic control and management
Keywords
autonomous vehicles, intersection crashes, pre-crash scenarios, rear-end collisions, crash contributing factors, collision avoidance, operational design domain, association rule mining, traffic signal control
MeSH terms
Accidents, Traffic, Autonomous Vehicles, Automobile Driving, Humans

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review