Search Results

Level 2 (L2) partial driving automation systems are rapidly emerging in the marketplace. L2 systems provide sustained automatic longitudinal and lateral vehicle motion control, reducing the need for drivers to continuously brake, accelerate and steer. Drivers, however, remain critically responsible for safely detecting and responding to objects and events. This paper summarizes variations of L2 systems (hands-on and/or hands-free) and considers human drivers’ roles when using L2 systems and for designing Human-Machine Interfaces (HMIs), including Driver Monitoring Systems (DMSs). In addition, approaches for examining potential unintended consequences of L2 usage and evaluating L2 HMIs, including field safety effect examination, are reviewed. The aim of this paper is to guide L2 system HMI development and L2 system evaluations, especially in the field, to support safe L2 deployment, promote L2 system improvements, and ensure well-informed L2 policy decision-making.

This paper provides an analysis of how communication performance between vehicles using Dedicated Short-range Communication (DSRC) devices varies by antenna mounting, vehicle relative positions and orientations, and between receiving devices. DSRC is a wireless technology developed especially for vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) and vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I) communications. A frequency band near 5.9 GHz has been set aside in the US and other countries for exploring safety and other uses for road vehicles. DSRC devices installed onboard vehicles broadcast their location using global navigation space systems (GNSS), speed, heading, and other information. This can be used to study communication performance in many scenarios including: car-following situations, rear-end crash avoidance, oncoming traffic situations, left turn advisory, head-on crash avoidance and do-not-pass warnings.

Pre-collision systems (PCS) use forward-looking sensors to detect the location and motion of vehicles ahead and provide a sequence of actions to help the driver either avoid striking the rear-end of another vehicle or mitigate the severity of the crash. The actions include driver alerts, amplification of driver braking as distance decreases (dynamic brake support, DBS), and automatic braking if the driver has not acted or has not acted sufficiently (crash imminent braking, CIB). Recent efforts by various organizations have sought to define PCS objective test procedures and test equipment in support of consumer information programs and potential certification. This paper presents results and insights from conducting DBS and CIB tests on two production vehicles sold in the US. Eleven scenarios are used to assess the systems' performance. The two systems' performance shows that commercial systems can be quite different.

This paper reviews the field operational test (FOT) methodology adopted in recent years for the evaluation of driver-assistance systems. The Road Departure Crash Warning System program is used both for illustration and as a case study. This project involved an extensive field operational test of a driver-assistance system using volunteers from the general public who drove instrumented research vehicles in place of their normal cars. Objective and subjective data were collected in these trials, and comparisons were made between driving behavior under conditions where the systems were either enabled or disabled. This paper presents sample results from the analyses and draws conclusions on the strengths and weaknesses of the FOT method.

Forward collision warning (FCW) systems are intended to provide drivers with crash alerts to help them avoid or mitigate rear-end crashes. To facilitate successful deployment of FCW systems, the Ford-GM Crash Avoidance Metrics Partnership (CAMP) developed preliminary minimum functional requirements for FCW systems implemented on light vehicles (passenger cars, light trucks, and vans). This paper summarizes one aspect of the CAMP results: minimum requirements and recommendations for when to present rear-end crash alerts to the driver. These requirements are valid over a set of kinematic conditions that are described, and assume successful tracking and identification of a legitimate crash threat. The results are based on extensive closed-course human factors testing that studied drivers' last-second braking preferences and capabilities. The paper reviews the human factors testing, modeling of results, and the computation of FCW crash alert timing requirements and recommendations.