+353-1-416-8900REST OF WORLD
+44-20-3973-8888REST OF WORLD
1-917-300-0470EAST COAST U.S
1-800-526-8630U.S. (TOLL FREE)

US Rear Autonomous Emergency Braking System Market, 2017

  • Report

  • 36 Pages
  • May 2018
  • Region: United States
  • Frost & Sullivan
  • ID: 4541322

R-AEB Addition After 2019 will Translate into Opportunities to Achieve NHTSA 5-star Ratings, an Upsurge in Technology, and Market Penetration

According to NHTSA’s estimates, backover crashes resulted in 210 fatalities and more than 15,000 injuries in 2014-2015. The current-generation rear object detection systems have reliability issues when it comes to detecting humans and other moving objects correctly. The basic ultrasonic sensors cannot detect any moving objects, whereas images from the rearview camera can be insufficient to classify the objects, therefore not satisfactory. Moreover, human error can also override the input from the reverse parking sensors, which is one of the major reasons for an untoward rear-end collision.

An immediate solution to solve this problem is to incorporate rear automatic emergency braking (R-AEB) as a feature in every vehicle manufactured in the US, along with the forward autonomous emergency braking. R-AEB could potentially prevent or mitigate a crash in 7 of the 32 crash scenarios. This feature addition could possibly end up saving about 150 lives a year, lost due to back over collisions. While avoiding slow-moving or stationary objects, such as poles and parked vehicles, may provide economic benefits to drivers, NHTSA is focusing on reducing fatalities and injuries, and as an extension, on system performance, to avoid crashes with pedestrians. Several OEMs are understood to be working on this technology, offering different sets of features based on the segment, such as stationary object detection only, dynamic object detection only, and/or a combination of both.

Most OEMs in the US are expected to start offering this feature as a standard or as an optional (as a subset of a supporting driver assistance feature). Some premium OEMs are also expected to offer R-AEB with pedestrian and cyclist detection capabilities besides stationary objects and rear traffic movement.

While a handful of OEMs have incorporated a basic version of this technology on their vehicles, some of them have expressed concerns pertaining to customer perception of the system and are of the view that an improved version will be required in the future. Another hindrance is the detection of small objects which are well below the range of the ultrasonic sensors or are difficult for the camera to recognize sometimes. The decision-making onus, thus, rests with who will continually be aided by the system.

Addition of the R-AEB feature, in addition to other safety features, would give them an edge over the competition that does not have this feature. The system should be robust enough for OEMs to convince the buyer of the advantages that come with it. Addition of R-AEB system in vehicles would require an additional cost that the OEM needs to justify.

Table of Contents

Executive Summary
  • Rear Autonomous Emergency Braking (R-AEB) System
  • Comparative Analysis of Various Automotive Sensors
  • OEM Outlook for Current R-AEB Systems
  • OEM Outlook for Expected R-AEB Systems
  • Key Trends on Current Generation Rear AEB Systems

Current Market Scenario
  • NHTSA Proposal for Rear AEB-An Overview
  • NHTSA vs. IIHS RCAR-Test Scenario Outline
  • Rear AEB System by OEM
  • Location of ADAS Sensors and Coverage Patterns

Technology-Future Outlook
  • Key Rear AEB Trends That will Impact the future
  • Rear AEB-Future Options
  • Sensor Comparison-Today vs. Future
  • Rear AEB as Part of Supporting Features-A Functional Roadmap
  • Supplier Outlook-Component Supply & System Hardware

Growth Opportunities and Companies to Action
  • Growth Opportunity-Investments and Partnerships from OEMs/TSPs
  • Strategic Imperatives for Success and Growth

The Last Word
  • Key Conclusions and Takeaways
  • Legal Disclaimer

  • List of Exhibits