Cars that brake for people on foot hit fewer of them

An IIHS study of US police-reported crashes found that automatic emergency braking with pedestrian detection cut pedestrian crash risk by 25% to 27% and injury crash risk by 29% to 30%.

5
Benefit status
Reported
Evidence
Independently studied
Source published
Sources
2 publications
Download data CiteSuggest a correction

Benefits

Benefit

A 25% to 27% lower pedestrian crash risk and a 29% to 30% lower pedestrian injury crash risk

Awaiting review

Outcome identifiers

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Category

Reduced Risk

Awaiting review

Status

Reported benefit

Awaiting review

Beneficiary groups

Society.

Awaiting review

Beneficiaries

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Reach

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Distribution and access

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Duration

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Expected?

Yes

Awaiting review

Costs and harms

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

AI system

System

Automatic emergency braking (AEB) with pedestrian detection, offered as an optional feature on US passenger vehicle models

Awaiting review

Model

This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Release

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Provider

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Role

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Configuration

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Inputs and outputs

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Autonomy

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Workflow

Automakers offered pedestrian-detecting AEB as an option, so equipped and unequipped vehicles of the same models could be compared. The benefit appeared in police-reported crashes in ordinary US driving.

Awaiting review

Human oversight

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Relation to AI

The study compares vehicles of the same models with and without the optional pedestrian-detecting AEB, so it isolates the system's association with crash risk; the comparison is observational.

Awaiting review

AI contribution

The study compares vehicles of the same models with and without the optional pedestrian-detecting AEB, so it isolates the system's association with crash risk; the comparison is observational.

Awaiting review

Measurement

Studies

Controlled observational. [1]

Fully reviewed

Review date: 29 October 2026.

Sources: [1]

Study design

Controlled observational. [1]

Fully reviewed

Review date: 29 October 2026.

Sources: [1]

Measurement

Pedestrian crash rates per insured vehicle year (Poisson regression) and a quasi-induced exposure comparison with a crash type that the system cannot affect. [1]

Fully reviewed

Review date: 29 October 2026.

Sources: [1]

Setting and sample

US police-reported pedestrian crashes involving vehicle models on which pedestrian-detecting AEB was optional. [1]

Fully reviewed

Review date: 29 October 2026.

Sources: [1]

Measures

Pedestrian crash risk and pedestrian injury crash risk. [1]

Fully reviewed

Review date: 29 October 2026.

Sources: [1]

Comparison

Same models without the system. [1]

Fully reviewed

Review date: 29 October 2026.

Sources: [1]

Results

25% to 27% lower pedestrian crash risk; 29% to 30% lower pedestrian injury crash risk. [1]

Fully reviewed

Review date: 29 October 2026.

Sources: [1]

Additional value from AI

25% to 27% lower crash risk attributed to the system. [1]

Fully reviewed

Review date: 29 October 2026.

Sources: [1]

Limitations

Observational; no evidence of benefit at night on unlit roads, at 50 mph or higher speed limits, or in turns; makers and software not named in the abstract. [1]

Fully reviewed

Review date: 29 October 2026.

Sources: [1]

Denominators

Vehicles fitted with pedestrian-detecting AEB. [1]

Fully reviewed

Review date: 29 October 2026.

Sources: [1]

Materials for replication

Police crash data and insured vehicle year data; code not public. [1]

Fully reviewed

Review date: 29 October 2026.

Sources: [1]

Money

Kind of value

The kind of monetary value is unclear.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Amount

The monetary value is not established.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Currency and prices

The currency and price basis are unclear.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Period and unit

The period and unit of the monetary estimate are unclear.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Realization

Whether the monetary value was realized is unclear.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Recipients and payers

The recipients and payers are unclear.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Gross or net

Whether the monetary figure includes costs is unclear.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Included costs

The costs included in the estimate are unclear.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Comparison

The financial comparison is not established.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Method

The method used to calculate monetary value is unclear.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Return and payback

The return on investment or payback period is not established.

Not reviewedUnresolved

People and places

Participants

Developer: Multiple automakers (not named in the abstract). Operator: Multiple automakers (factory-fitted optional equipment).

Awaiting review

Jurisdictions

Benefit: United States. Developer: Multiple countries (makers not named). Operator: Multiple countries (makers not named).

Awaiting review

Ownership and control

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Dependencies

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Cross-border connections

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Geopolitical implications

The geopolitical implications are unclear.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Follow-up

Conditions for replication

The system must detect the pedestrian in time to warn or brake. The study found no benefit on unlit roads at night, at speed limits of 50 mph or more, or in turns, so the benefit depends on the crash setting.

Awaiting review

Replication attempts

3 follow-up entries. Benefit recurred: 3.

Awaiting review

Later findings

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Availability

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Institutional decision

A relevant institutional decision has not been established.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Grounds

The grounds for an institutional decision are unclear.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Action and result

The result of an institutional decision is not established.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Success criterion

The criterion for a successful institutional decision is unclear.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Evidence

Source numbers

AIBD-0601-source-0001–0002

Awaiting review

Citations

Numbered references below.

Awaiting review

Language

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Source relationships

Independent

Awaiting review

Original evidence

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Access and versions

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Supported findings

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Evidence strength

Independently studied. Sources: one independent peer-reviewed study and one independent report. The cited evidence includes no finding by a regulator or court. [1] [2]

Fully reviewed

Review date: 29 October 2026.

Sources: [1] [2]

Missing evidence

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Grades

Assessed benefits

Society.

Awaiting review

Depth

Society: 5.

Awaiting review

Reasons

Society: Across US police-reported crashes, equipped vehicles had a 25% to 27% lower pedestrian crash risk and a 29% to 30% lower pedestrian injury crash risk.

Awaiting review

Observed or intended

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Rubric

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Assessor and date

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Alternative assessments

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Fill

Independently studied

Awaiting review

Entry details

Kind

The case describes an evaluation or a study. A crash-data study comparing equipped and unequipped vehicles. [1]

Fully reviewed

Review date: 29 October 2026.

Sources: [1]

Field

Road safety.

Awaiting review

Purpose

Pedestrian detection systems are built to warn drivers of a likely collision with a pedestrian, and many brake automatically when a crash is imminent. The lower crash risk that the study measured was that purpose.

Awaiting review

Dates

Source published: 14 May 2022. Updated: 29 October 2026.

Awaiting review

Stage

The system was in routine use. The systems were factory-fitted options on vehicles in ordinary use. [1]

Fully reviewed

Review date: 29 October 2026.

Sources: [1]

Version

SHA-256: c8894d85b6f0…

Awaiting review

SHA-256 of the public case, its assessments, and its displayed answers and notes, excluding its own identifier and the derived coverage summary.

References

Other identifiers

AI Incident Database: 341.

Awaiting review

Category mappings

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Citable summary

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Revisions

2 revisions. Latest: 29 October 2026.

Awaiting review

Sources

  1. Peer-reviewed study Independent author

    Cicchino JB. Effects of automatic emergency braking systems on pedestrian crash risk. Accid Anal Prev. 2022;172:106686. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2022.106686

  2. Report Independent author

    Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Pedestrians and bicyclists (research area overview).

Cite this case

BibTeX Download BibTeX

Version c8894d85b6f0, archived in the edition of 29 October 2026

Benefit marks

Depth

The number and color show the depth of a benefit.

  1. A convenience, or time or money saved.
  2. A measurable improvement in a result or ability.
  3. A lasting change, an ability restored, or a risk removed.
  4. A serious harm averted or a serious condition resolved in time.
  5. A life or livelihood preserved, or a change documented across a population.

Beneficiary

  • Circle: a person
  • Square: an organization
  • Triangle: society

Evidence

  • Solid. A court or regulator found a benefit, or researchers independently studied it.

  • Hatched. Independent reporting.

  • Outline. Claimed by the parties. Only the people or organizations involved, or sources whose independence has not been assessed, support the benefit.

The fill changes with the evidence. The depth color stays the same.

How benefits are assessed