Search Results

The ISO 26262 standard specifies the requirement for functional safety of electrical and electronic systems within road vehicles. We have accumulated case studies based on actual riding tests by subjective judgment of expert riders to define a method for determining the controllability class (C class). However, the wide variety of practical traffic environments and vehicle behaviors in case of malfunction make it difficult to evaluate all C classes in actual running tests. Furthermore, under some conditions, actual riding tests may cause unacceptable risks to test riders. In Part 12 Annex C of ISO/DIS 26262, simulation is cited as an example of a technique for comprehensive evaluations by the Controllability Classification Panel. This study investigated the usefulness of mathematical simulations for evaluating the C class of a motorcycle reproducing a malfunction in either the front or rear brakes.

For applying ISO 26262 to motorcycles, controllability classification (C class evaluation) by expert riders is considered an appropriate technique. Expert riders have evaluated commercial product development for years and can appropriately conduct vehicle tests while observing safety restrictions (such as avoiding the risk of falling). Moreover, expert riders can ride safely and can stably evaluate motorcycle performance even if the test conditions are close to the limits of vehicle performance. This study aims to construct a motorcycle C class evaluation method based on an expert rider’s subjective evaluation. On the premise that expert riders can rate the C class, we improved a test procedure that used a subjective evaluation sheet as the concrete C class evaluation method for an actual hazardous event.

ISO26262 was intended only for passenger cars but can be applied to motorcycles if the Controllability (C) is subjectively evaluated by expert riders. Expert riders evaluate motorcycle performance from the viewpoint of ordinary riders. However, riding maneuvers of ordinary riders have not been confirmed by objective data. For this reason, it is important to understand the basic characteristics of riding maneuvers of both expert and ordinary riders. This study seeks to confirm the compatibility between the riding maneuvers of expert riders and those of ordinary riders. The riding maneuvers and vehicle behavior of four expert riders and 16 ordinary riders were compared using the results of a test assuming normal running.

Controllability (C) is the parameter that determines the Automotive Safety Integrity Level (ASIL) of each hazardous event based on an international standard of electrical and/or electronic systems within road vehicles (ISO 26262). C is classified qualitatively in ISO 26262. However, no specific method for classifying C is described. It is useful for C classification to define a specific classification based on objective data. This study assumed that C was classified using the percentage of drivers who could reduce Severity (S) in one or more classes compared with the S class in which the driver did not react to a hazardous event. An experiment simulated a situation with increased risk of collision with a leading vehicle due to insufficient brake force because of brake-assist failure when the experiment vehicle decelerated from 50 km/h on a straight road.

Naturalistic driving data has been accumulated by driving data recorders to understand factors that contribute to collisions. Among the rear end conflicts at signalized intersections in the data, conflict data between the following vehicles and suddenly stopping lead vehicles were frequently observed just after their start. To investigate the following drivers' behavior in a realistic driving situation without collision danger, an instrumented vehicle equipped with a liquid-crystal display ahead of the windshield was developed, and an experiment reproducing such conflict on the display was conducted. It was found that a lead vehicle's rapid start (2.8 m/s₂ on average) before quitting its right turn caused the following vehicle's brake reaction time to be longer than a slow start (0.8 m/s₂ on average) did. This result suggests that a following driver's premature decision to start rapidly increases the risk of rear end collisions.