International Journal of Automotive Technology

, Volume 18, Issue 6, pp 1085–1097 | Cite as

Cyclist target and test setup for evaluation of cyclist-autonomous emergency braking

  • Olaf Op den Camp
  • Sjef van Montfort
  • Jeroen Uittenbogaard
  • Joke Welten


From 2018, Autonomous Emergency Braking (AEB) systems dedicated to avoid or mitigate passenger car-tocyclist collisions will be considered in the safety assessment by Euro NCAP. To test such systems, appropriate equipment has been developed in a project called CATS “Cyclist-AEB Testing System”, that has run between April 2014 and August 2016. Moreover, a proposal for the most relevant test scenarios was set up. The objective of the project was to provide proof to Euro NCAP of the relevance of the proposed test scenarios and of the feasibility of practical implementation of the scenarios and test setup. The process regarding the selection, verification and validation of test scenarios is described. The cooperation between 17 industrial partners (car manufacturers and automotive suppliers) in the CATS project has stimulated the harmonization and acceptance of the protocol, target and test setup. The process and intermediate results including the used methodology, have been reviewed by the German Federal Highway Research Institute (BASt) and have been shared on a regular basis during the project with stakeholders in Europe, Japan and the USA. Euro NCAP already indicated to consider the results of the CATS project as the main input to draft the test protocol, including scenarios and target for Cyclist-AEB systems in 2018 and 2020.

Key words

Autonomous emergency braking Cyclist safety Euro NCAP 



length, m


distance, m


speed, km/h


time-to-collision, s


field-of-view, °


killed, fatalities


seriously injured










Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bloeming, H. (2009). Handboek Voor Inrichting van de Openbare Ruimte in Dutch., De Bilt.Google Scholar
  2. van Dam, E., Op den Camp, O., Uittenbogaard, J., van Montfort, S. and de Hair, S. (2016). CATS Deliverable 2.3: CATS Observation Studies. Scholar
  3. CATS Department for Transport (2016). Reported Road Casualties Great Britain: 2015 Annual Report, 1–409. Scholar
  4. Euro NCAP (2015a). Euro NCAP 2020 Roadmap Revision 1. Euro NCAP. Scholar
  5. Euro NCAP (2015b). Euro NCAP AEB VRU Test Protocol v1.0.1. Scholar
  6. European Parliament (2010). The Promotion of Cycling. Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies, Transport and Tourism, 1–74.Google Scholar
  7. Fredriksson, R., Fredriksson, K. and Strandroth, J. (2014). Pre-crash motion and conditions of bicyclist-to-car crashes in Sweden. Int. Cycling Safety Conf.Google Scholar
  8. Fritz, M., Wimmer, T. and van Montfort, S. (2016). CATS Deliverable 3.4: CATS Bicyclist Target Specifications. Scholar
  9. CATS Istat (2013). Year 2012 Road Accidents in Italy. Scholar
  10. Op den Camp, O., Ranjbar, A., Uittenbogaard, J., Rosen, E. and Buijssen, S. (2014). Overview of main accident scenarios in car-to-cyclist accidents for use in AEBsystem test protocol. Int. Cycling Safety Conf.Google Scholar
  11. Op den Camp, O., de Hair, S., de Gelder, E. and Cara, I. (2015). Observation study into the influence of a viewblocking obstruction at an intersection on bicycle and passenger car velocity profiles. Int. Cycling Safety Conf.Google Scholar
  12. Op den Camp, O., van Montfort, S., Uittenbogaard, J. and Welten, J. (2016). Cyclist target and test setup for evaluation of cyclist-autonomous emergency braking. Proc. FISITA 2016, BEXCO, Korea.Google Scholar
  13. Page, Y., Cuny, S., Hermitté, T. and Labrousse, M. (2012). A comprehensive overview of the frequency and the severity of injuries sustained by car occupants and subsequent implications in terms of injury prevention. Annals of Advances in Automotive Medicine. Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine, 56, 165–174.Google Scholar
  14. Rodarius, C., Kwakkernaat, M. and Edwards, M. (2014). Benefit Estimate Based on Previous Studies for Precrash Bicyclist Systems and Recommendations for Necessary Changes to Pedestrian test and Assessment Protocol, AsPeCCs D1.5, SST.2011.RTD 1 GA No. 285106.Google Scholar
  15. Saurabh, V., Heymans, L. and Sanz Villegas, M. (2015). CARE -Community Database on Accidents on the Roads in Europe. Scholar
  16. Schleinitz, K., Petzoldt, T., Franke-Bartholdt, L., Krems, J. and Gehlert, T. (2014). The german naturalistic cycling study -Comparing cycling speed of riders of different ebikes and conventional bicycles. Proc. Int. Cycling Safety Conf.Google Scholar
  17. Schubert, A., Erbsmehl, C. and Hannawald, L. (2013). Standardized pre-crash scenarios in digital format on the basis of the VUFO simulation input data from GIDAS. 5th Int. Conf. ESAR, Expert Symp. Accident Research, 366–372.Google Scholar
  18. Skyving, M. (2015). STRADA: Road traffic accident and injury data in Sweden. Proc. 24th World Int. Traffic Medicine Association Cong.Google Scholar
  19. SWOV (2016). BRON: Netherlands National Road Crash Register; Police Registered Numbers of Casualties, Drivers and Crashes. http://www.swov.nlGoogle Scholar
  20. Uittenbogaard, J., Op den Camp, O. and van Montfort, S. (2016a). CATS Deliverable 2.2: CATS Car-to-cyclist Accident Parameters and Test Scenarios. Scholar
  21. Uittenbogaard, J., Op den Camp, O. and van Montfort, S. (2016b). CATS Deliverable 5.1: CATS Verification of Test Matrix and Protocol. Scholar
  22. Wisch, M. et al. (2013). Scenarios and Weighting Factors for Pre-crash Assessment of Integrated Pedestrian Safety Systems, AsPeCSS deliverable D1.1, SST.2011.RTD-1 GA No. 28.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Korean Society of Automotive Engineers and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Olaf Op den Camp
    • 1
  • Sjef van Montfort
    • 1
  • Jeroen Uittenbogaard
    • 1
  • Joke Welten
    • 1
  1. 1.TNO Integrated Vehicle SafetyAutomotive Campus 30HelmondThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations