Retrofitting ADAS for Enhanced Truck Safety: Analysis Through Systematic Review, Cost–Benefit Assessment, and Pilot Field Testing

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting study, but there are several issues as listed below that the authors should consider and carefully revise or provide appropriate clarifications for.

 

1. Although the authors have provided Figure 1, it is not clear how the literature was selected. For instance, what are the criteria you defined? I believe there can be more introductions in this regard.

2. The reviewers can understand the reason for recruiting university colleagues to conduct the research, but do these university teachers drive trucks? If they don't, here comes the problem: how can you ensure the credibility of the experimental results when you recruit people who don't drive trucks for the experiment?

3. In Figure 3, is there any basis for the authors to choose this particular road? Are there any special characteristics of this road that led your team to select it for the experimental trial?

4. In Figure 5, how did the authors determine that the ADAS can function? Is there any additional explanation?

5. How was the reduction rate in Table 6 calculated? According to the reviewer's knowledge, one can only determine whether the ADAS is functional after conducting simulations. My concern is, how did you determine that those fatal injuries could be avoided without conducting simulations?

6. Since the authors included perceptions of usefulness, attitudes, etc., in their survey, why didn't they attempt to establish a structural equation model?

7. In Figure 8, the left graph has a score range of 0-10, while the right one has a score range of 0-5. Why is there such a difference?

8. Although the authors' focus is on ADAS systems for trucks, I would still expect the authors to introduce a brief research background on both active and passive safety measures in the introduction section. Considering your topic in this broader context would be more valuable and could provide readers with more knowledge. For example, why is reference [5] included here when it discusses not injuries? In my understanding, after introducing the severity of accidents caused by trucks, which is preceded by the sentence, "A key contribution to a safer transport system also for trucks is represented by Advanced Driver Assistance Systems," the authors could briefly introduce human efforts to enhance the protection of vulnerable road users by vehicles. For instance, in passive safety, a "novel straw structure sandwich hood" has been proposed to protect pedestrians; in integrated active and passive safety, methods of controlling vehicle braking have been proposed to protect pedestrians; and in active safety, numerous ADAS systems have been developed, significantly enhancing vehicle safety. However, among these related technologies, only ADAS systems have made contributions to protecting vulnerable road users for trucks. It would be best to elaborate on what specific contributions ADAS systems have made. Finally, lead into the mandatory installation of these devices by 2024... Therefore, we need to adopt the retrofit ADAS approach.

Author Response

We appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to reviewing our manuscript. We have thoroughly considered all of your comments and suggestions, many of which have been incorporated into the paper. In response to your feedback, we have made several revisions aimed at enhancing the clarity, rigor, and overall quality of the work. With your valuable advice, we are confident that the revisions have significantly improved the manuscript.

Below, we provide detailed responses to each of your points, outlining the changes made and offering any necessary clarifications. We trust these revisions address your concerns adequately.

Comment 1: Although the authors have provided Figure 1, it is not clear how the literature was selected. For instance, what are the criteria you defined? I believe there can be more introductions in this regard.
Response: In favour of the brevity of the paper we were suggested to leave the exclusion and inclusion criteria employed for the literature review in the appendix B. The selection process was executed following the guidelines provided in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions [Higgins, J.P.; Green, S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. 1st ed.; Cochrane B. JohnWiley & Sons Ltd: The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex PO19 8SQ, England, 2008]

 

Comment 2: The reviewers can understand the reason for recruiting university colleagues to conduct the research, but do these university teachers drive trucks? If they don't, here comes the problem: how can you ensure the credibility of the experimental results when you recruit people who don't drive trucks for the experiment?

Response: Due to limitations for the use of the truck equipped with the ADAS system it is true that participants were people working at university.  However, in order to ensure the credibility of the experimental results we selected individuals with relevant driving experience. Specifically, five participants reported driving light commercial vehicles similar to the test vehicle for short routes on average once a month. These were included in the sample to have a representation of non-professional drivers among the sample of participants. The remaining four participants were professional drivers of the university who frequently (more than once a week) drive trucks similar to the test vehicle for professional duties. They were included in the sample to have a representation of professional drivers.

 

Comment 3: In Figure 3, is there any basis for the authors to choose this particular road? Are there any special characteristics of this road that led your team to select it for the experimental trial?

Response: The itinerary was selected in order to include two parts with different driving scenarios (motorway and urban areas) to test the ADAS in both conditions. Also, using the e same starting point for all participants, it was selected a route allowing to present the two scenarios counterbalanced among participants: half participants encountered before the motorway section and the others encountered before the urban one.

 

Comment 4: In Figure 5, how did the authors determine that the ADAS can function? Is there any additional explanation?
Response: Figure 5 represent data collected during Forward Collision Warning (FCW) intervention. The FCW intervention was detected trough data and cameras installed in the vehicle monitoring the warning screen. Once the FCW alert was issued, the driver reacted with braking action (which produced the deceleration and speed reduction represented in the figure, after about 1,5 s from the alert required as reaction time).

Comment 5: How was the reduction rate in Table 6 calculated? According to the reviewer's knowledge, one can only determine whether the ADAS is functional after conducting simulations. My concern is, how did you determine that those fatal injuries could be avoided without conducting simulations?
Response: The reduction rates in Table 6 were derived from previously published studies that analysed the effectiveness of ADAS in preventing or mitigating crashes. These studies utilized different methods to estimate the reduction in crashes and fatalities associated with trucks equipped with the different ADAS functionalities. For the details, please see the referenced studies.

 

Comment 6: Since the authors included perceptions of usefulness, attitudes, etc., in their survey, why didn't they attempt to establish a structural equation model?

Response: Thank you for your question, we did not attempt to establish a structural equation model due to the limitations in our data and sample size. Given our small sample size of participants and duration of data acquisition, attempting to build a structural equation model would not have yielded robust result. We preferred focusing on simple statistical methods that are more appropriate for the data we collected, ensuring the reliability of our analysis.

 

Comment 7: In Figure 8, the left graph has a score range of 0-10, while the right one has a score range of 0-5. Why is there such a difference?

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. The difference in score ranges between the left and right graphs in Figure 8 was due to the difference in the initial scaling. We have recalculated the scaling to ensure that both graphs use the same score range for consistency.

 

Comment 8: Although the authors' focus is on ADAS systems for trucks, I would still expect the authors to introduce a brief research background on both active and passive safety measures in the introduction section. Considering your topic in this broader context would be more valuable and could provide readers with more knowledge. For example, why is reference [5] included here when it discusses not injuries? In my understanding, after introducing the severity of accidents caused by trucks, which is preceded by the sentence, "A key contribution to a safer transport system also for trucks is represented by Advanced Driver Assistance Systems," the authors could briefly introduce human efforts to enhance the protection of vulnerable road users by vehicles. For instance, in passive safety, a "novel straw structure sandwich hood" has been proposed to protect pedestrians; in integrated active and passive safety, methods of controlling vehicle braking have been proposed to protect pedestrians; and in active safety, numerous ADAS systems have been developed, significantly enhancing vehicle safety. However, among these related technologies, only ADAS systems have made contributions to protecting vulnerable road users for trucks. It would be best to elaborate on what specific contributions ADAS systems have made. Finally, lead into the mandatory installation of these devices by 2024... Therefore, we need to adopt the retrofit ADAS approach.

Response: Thank you for the detailed and constructive suggestion. We acknowledge that for most readers a step was missing in the introduction between the introduction of crash severity for trucks and the proposed ADAS solution. We have added a paragraph to the introduction to address this.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please find attached the comments and suggestions to improve the paper

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We would like to thank Reviewer 2 for their constructive suggestions. The points raised were very helpful in refining the manuscript. Below, we respond to each of the comments:

 

Comment 1: The introduction should be expanded, as the current version is too brief. Furthermore, the introduction could benefit from a more focused outline of the study's objectives. While the paper describes the safety benefits of ADAS, a clearer framing of the research questions would strengthen the reader's understanding of the study's aims from the outset. Restructure the aims and objectives from page 2, lines 65 to 74, and present them as the contributions or novel aspects of the paper. Use bullet points to enhance readability and guide the reader effectively.
Response: Thank you for the suggestion, we decided for a brief introduction, as the overall length of the paper is quite long and the literature review most of the necessary background information. However, we added a paragraph in the introduction to better clarify for readers the transition from the introduction of crash severity for trucks and the proposed ADAS solution

We also rephrased the paragraph reporting objectives of the paper to better highlight the novelty of the paper and clarify the goals, summarized in the form of bullet point within the paragraph as suggested for this kind of publication.

 

Comment 2: The exclusion criteria used for selecting papers in the study should be clarified. To enhance clarity for readers, it would be beneficial to report the selection process following the PRISMA format, detailing how papers that did not meet the inclusion criteria were excluded.

Response: In favour of the brevity of the paper we were suggested to leave the exclusion and inclusion criteria employed for the selection process in the appendix (see appendix B). We acknowledge that using PRISMA format is now a commonly used approach. In this study, as indicated in methods section, we used as reference for the execution of the systematic review and for the selection process the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, which is also a valuable reference and has many common point with PRISMA guidelines [Higgins, J.P.; Green, S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. 1st ed.; Cochrane B. JohnWiley & Sons Ltd: The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex PO19 8SQ, England, 2008].

 

Comment 3: The size and contrast of Figures 3 and 4 should be enhanced. 

Response: Thanks for the suggestion, we improved the size and contrast of figure 3 and 4.

 

Comment 4: Please review the heading “No. of studies” in Table 4, as it currently appears as “N. of studies”.

Response: Thanks for the suggestion, we corrected the error.

 

Comment 5: Many of the citations are outdated, including those from 1971 and 1977. It is recommended to update the references with more recent studies and findings, such as https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijtst.2023.04.004, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2023.100943 and https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtte.2023.07.006.

Response: The review was conducted using literature published after the year 2000, ensuring that the sources were up-to-date and relevant to the study. The two older references (from 1971 and 1977) are the original foundational sources for the scales and methods employed in our paper, which remain widely accepted in the field. Thank you for the indication of newer references, we added one of the suggested references in the introduction as relevant for the identification of the background of this study, while they do not meet the inclusion criteria of our review and therefore was not possible to include them in the systematic review section. We appreciate your suggestions and will consider them for future research directions.

 

Comment 6: Line styles should be used to differentiate the plot lines in Figures 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 to guide the reader when printed. The font sizes of both x and y labels should also be increased.
Response: Thank you for your feedback, as requested from the editor, in the final version of the paper, if accepted, we will adjust the line styles and also increase the font sizes labels in the figures to improve readability.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article titled "Retrofitting Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) for a Substantial and Prompt Safety Improvement of Circulating Trucks" examines the possibility of enhancing truck safety in Europe through the retrofitting of Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS). It combines a systematic literature review, cost-benefit analysis, and field testing to evaluate available ADAS technologies, the economic benefits of their implementation, and user acceptance. The review identified technologies such as Forward Collision Warning (FCW), Lane Departure Warning (LDW), Blind-Spot Detection (BSD), Fatigue Warning System (FWS), and Pedestrian and Cyclist Collision Warning (PCW) as effective in reducing accidents. Based on data from Italy, the cost-benefit analysis showed that retrofitting these technologies could save lives and reduce societal costs, while field tests indicated positive acceptance of the systems.

 

Suggestions for major review:

 

The sample of nine participants limits the robustness of the conclusions. To allow for more robust and generalizable statistical analyses, it is suggested that the number of drivers involved be significantly increased.

 

The tests were conducted in a single country (Italy) with a specific truck model. Given variations in traffic regulations and road infrastructure, it is recommended that the analysis be broadened to different regions and a wider variety of vehicles.

 

Although the article provides an estimate of costs, a more detailed analysis of factors influencing costs, such as specific vehicle models or regional characteristics, could offer more practical and applicable insights for different scenarios.

 

The study evaluates the immediate effects of ADAS, but a longitudinal analysis tracking drivers over time would help identify behavioral adaptations that could impact system effectiveness.

 

 In addition to the mentioned ADAS, it could be beneficial to explore emerging or complementary technologies, such as V2X (vehicle-to-everything), which could extend the benefits of a retrofitted system.

Author Response

We would like to express our appreciation to Reviewer 3 for their valuable and constructive feedback. We have carefully reviewed all the points raised and have made the necessary revisions to improve the manuscript. Below, we provide detailed responses to each of the comments and suggestions:

 

Comment 1: The sample of nine participants limits the robustness of the conclusions. To allow for more robust and generalizable statistical analyses, it is suggested that the number of drivers involved be significantly increased.

Response: We fully acknowledge the limitations of having a small sample size of nine participants. Increasing the number of participants would indeed allow for more robust statistical analysis and generalization of the findings. In future research, we plan to significantly expand the participant pool to ensure a more representative and diverse sample of drivers. This will help us draw stronger and more applicable conclusions.

 

Comment 2: The tests were conducted in a single country (Italy) with a specific truck model. Given variations in traffic regulations and road infrastructure, it is recommended that the analysis be broadened to different regions and a wider variety of vehicles.

Response: The reviewer raises a valid point about the limited geographical and vehicle scope of the study. While this study focused on a single country and truck model to maintain control over variables, we agree that extending the analysis to other regions with different traffic regulations and road infrastructure is important. Future work will aim to incorporate data from multiple countries and a broader variety of vehicle types to enhance the generalizability of the results

 

Comment 3: Although the article provides an estimate of costs, a more detailed analysis of factors influencing costs, such as specific vehicle models or regional characteristics, could offer more practical and applicable insights for different scenarios

Response: We appreciate the suggestion for a more detailed cost analysis. While we provided an initial estimate of costs, a comprehensive breakdown considering specific vehicle models, regional economic factors, and maintenance costs would indeed yield more actionable insights. Future research will incorporate these elements to provide a more nuanced understanding of cost variations across different scenarios.

 

Comment 4: The study evaluates the immediate effects of ADAS, but a longitudinal analysis tracking drivers over time would help identify behavioural adaptations that could impact system effectiveness.

Response: The idea of conducting a longitudinal analysis is excellent. As the current study focuses on the immediate effects of ADAS, we agree that monitoring driver behaviour over time could uncover adaptations that influence the system’s effectiveness. Future research will aim to conduct long-term studies to assess how driver habits evolve with continued exposure to ADAS technology and how this affects overall safety and system efficiency.

 

Comment 5: In addition to the mentioned ADAS, it could be beneficial to explore emerging or complementary technologies, such as V2X (vehicle-to-everything), which could extend the benefits of a retrofitted system.

Response: We concur with the reviewer’s suggestion to explore emerging technologies like V2X. While this study was centred on the immediate benefits of ADAS, we recognize that V2X and other connected vehicle technologies could significantly enhance system performance and safety outcomes. We will consider integrating these technologies into future analyses to examine their complementary effects on ADAS-equipped vehicles.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I still believe that these findings deserve to be shared with readers as soon as possible, but I think the authors may need to pay attention to specifying how the improvements have been made in their responses, and that some issues could be quite serious. If not addressed, it would be difficult to regard the findings of this paper as valuable and trustworthy conclusions.

 

1. For the first issue, the authors have provided a response by including the relevant rules in Appendix B, which allows the reviewers to clearly find the modifications made.

2. For the second issue, I did not find any information about the description of more drivers in Section 2.3.4 Test Procedure. From the authors' response, it seems that you only had five participants? In that case, the representativeness of the results obtained is severely lacking, which could lead to the conclusions being unreliable. More importantly, the reviewers expect the authors to be honest about the research process. Even if this paper is eventually published, authors can still use their own experience to judge whether to accept your conclusions.

3. Similar to the second issue, regarding Comment 3, the authors should provide explanations in the paper to allow readers to make informed judgments.

4. For Comments 4 and 5, how have the authors revised the paper in response? Especially regarding the previous Comment 6, the authors should provide a good explanation in the paper or a good description in an appendix, rather than requiring your readers to read other literature themselves.

5. The authors should take Comment 8 seriously. Readers expect to gain more meaningful knowledge from reading a paper.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, thank you for your detailed review; we have integrated your suggestions (both from this review and the previous round) to enhance the clarity, and overall quality of our manuscript. We also provide responses below that outline our revisions and clarify each point to fully address your suggestions

Comment n°1: For the first issue, the authors have provided a response by including the relevant rules in Appendix B, which allows the reviewers to clearly find the modifications made.

Response: Thank you for your positive feedback. We’re pleased that including the relevant rules in Appendix B has made the modifications clear and accessible.

 

Comment n°2. For the second issue, I did not find any information about the description of more drivers in Section 2.3.4 Test Procedure. From the authors' response, it seems that you only had five participants? In that case, the representativeness of the results obtained is severely lacking, which could lead to the conclusions being unreliable. More importantly, the reviewers expect the authors to be honest about the research process. Even if this paper is eventually published, authors can still use their own experience to judge whether to accept your conclusions.

Response: In Section 2.3.4 Test Procedure we described the methods employed for recruiting the participants. In the results (section 3.3.1) we described the sample of participants included in the study (which are 9). In order to clarify the sample of participants, we added a new table in methods section and more detailed results with another new table in the results section. We acknowledge the limitations of the sample size and understand your concerns regarding the representativeness of the results, we also mentioned this in the discussion section. We are committed to maintaining transparency in our research process, and really sorry that this issue was intended as a lack of honesty.

 

Comment n°3:  Similar to the second issue, regarding Comment 3, the authors should provide explanations in the paper to allow readers to make informed judgments.

Response: Thank you for the suggestion, we acknowledge that we provided you a response while forgetting to add further information in the paper. In this second round we added a short paragraph to the paper to better clarify the criteria we employed to select the route.

 

Comment n°4: For Comments 4 and 5, how have the authors revised the paper in response? Especially regarding the previous Comment 6, the authors should provide a good explanation in the paper or a good description in an appendix, rather than requiring your readers to read other literature themselves.

Response: For comments 4 and 5 we added a paragraph in the results section to better clarify for readers the approach we employed. Regarding comment 6 we mentioned as limitation in the discussion section to clarify that the simplified method we used is linked to the limited sample size.

 

Comment n°5: The authors should take Comment 8 seriously. Readers expect to gain more meaningful knowledge from reading a paper.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s comment and agree that a broader context on both active and passive safety measures would enrich the introduction of our paper, which is however very long and includes also a systematic literature review which has many relevant references on safety technologies for trucks. We have reformulated some paragraphs of the introduction section to address this, trying to enlarge the overview of research in these areas. We also removed reference 5 as suggested by the author, fixing an error in referencing at line 50).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made all the necessary and requested adjustments. I believe the work can be accepted in its current form.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable time and insightful feedback during the review process. I truly appreciate your efforts in helping improve the quality of my work.

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All my concerns were addressed well. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer, many thanks for your valuable support in revising and improving the quality of our paper.