Benefits
- Benefit
-
A 17% lower rate of pedestrian or cyclist collisions (95% CI 5% to 27%)
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
-
Pedestrian autonomous emergency braking (PAEB), identified from the Redbook specification feature for pedestrian avoidance with braking
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
-
Vehicles on Australian and New Zealand roads carried factory-fitted PAEB. Pedestrian detection made the difference: AEB without it showed no reduction in these collisions.
Awaiting review
- Human oversight
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Relation to AI
-
The study compares PAEB-equipped vehicles with vehicles that have no AEB and with vehicles that have AEB without pedestrian detection, so it isolates the pedestrian detection; the comparison is observational.
Awaiting review
- AI contribution
-
The study compares PAEB-equipped vehicles with vehicles that have no AEB and with vehicles that have AEB without pedestrian detection, so it isolates the pedestrian detection; the comparison is observational.
Awaiting review
Measurement
- Studies
-
Controlled observational. [1]
Fully reviewed: supporting details for Studies
Review date: 29 October 2026.
Sources: [1]
- Study design
-
Controlled observational. [1]
Fully reviewed: supporting details for Study design
Review date: 29 October 2026.
Sources: [1]
- Measurement
-
Induced exposure analysis of injury crash rates, controlling for jurisdiction, speed limit, market group, driver age and sex, weather, light and year. [1]
Fully reviewed: supporting details for Measurement
Review date: 29 October 2026.
Sources: [1]
- Setting and sample
-
Australian and New Zealand injury crashes, 2016 to 2023. [1]
Fully reviewed: supporting details for Setting and sample
Review date: 29 October 2026.
Sources: [1]
- Measures
-
Rate of collisions with pedestrians or cyclists, and with motorcycles. [1]
Fully reviewed: supporting details for Measures
Review date: 29 October 2026.
Sources: [1]
- Comparison
-
Vehicles without AEB; vehicles with AEB lacking pedestrian detection. [1]
Fully reviewed: supporting details for Comparison
Review date: 29 October 2026.
Sources: [1]
- Results
-
17% lower pedestrian or cyclist collision rate (95% CI 5% to 27%); 11% lower motorcycle collision rate (95% CI 0% to 21%). [1]
Fully reviewed: supporting details for Results
Review date: 29 October 2026.
Sources: [1]
- Additional value from AI
-
No reduction for AEB without pedestrian detection, so the gain is tied to the detection. [1]
Fully reviewed: supporting details for Additional value from AI
Review date: 29 October 2026.
Sources: [1]
- Limitations
-
Observational; fitment inferred from Redbook specifications; too few cyclists for a separate estimate. [1]
Fully reviewed: supporting details for Limitations
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 systems on vehicles sold in Australia and New Zealand).
Awaiting review
- Jurisdictions
-
Benefit:
Australia and 
New Zealand. 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 pedestrians, cyclists or motorcyclists in time to brake. The fitted system must include pedestrian detection.
Awaiting review
- Replication attempts
-
2 follow-up entries. Benefit recurred: 2.
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-0602-source-0001
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 links
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
- Evidence strength
-
Independently studied. Sources: one independent peer-reviewed study. The cited evidence includes no finding by a regulator or court. [1]
Fully reviewed: supporting details for Evidence strength
Review date: 29 October 2026.
Sources: [1]
- Missing evidence
-
Unresolved
Not reviewedUnresolved
Grades
- Assessed benefits
-
Society.
Awaiting review
- Depth
-
Society: 5.
Awaiting review
- Reasons
-
Society: Across eight years of Australian and New Zealand injury crashes, PAEB-equipped vehicles had a 17% lower rate of pedestrian or cyclist collisions.
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 using induced exposure. [1]
Fully reviewed: supporting details for Kind
Review date: 29 October 2026.
Sources: [1]
- Related entries
-
Both records concern automatic emergency braking on passenger cars, and in this incident false braking endangered car occupants and other road users whom the system is meant to protect.
Fully reviewed: supporting details for Related entries
Compared with the incidents in the AI Incident Database snapshot of 26 October 2026; a second reading confirmed that the incident concerns the same kind of system and stakeholder.
Sources: incidentdatabase.ai
- Field
-
Road safety.
Awaiting review
- Purpose
-
Pedestrian AEB is built to extend automatic braking to people on foot and on bicycles. The fewer collisions with vulnerable road users that the study measured were that purpose.
Awaiting review
- Dates
-
Source published: 11 June 2026. Updated: 29 October 2026.
Awaiting review
- Stage
-
The system was in routine use. Factory-fitted systems on vehicles in ordinary use. [1]
Fully reviewed: supporting details for Stage
Review date: 29 October 2026.
Sources: [1]
- Version
-
SHA-256: 343b71a13286…
Awaiting review: supporting details for Version
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
-
Peer-reviewed study Independent author
Keall MD, Newstead S. Analysis of real word safety benefits of pedestrian autonomous emergency braking (PAEB) for pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists. Traffic Inj Prev. 2026;27:S286-S292. doi:10.1080/15389588.2026.2673090
there was a 17% reduction (95% CI 5% to 27%) in the rate of pedestrian or cyclist collisions associated with vehicles equipped with PAEB relative to vehicles without any AEB system