access icon free Surrogate safety measures as aid to driver assistance system design of the cognitive vehicle

The driver assistance system part of the cognitive vehicle design can prevent rear, lateral and other collisions by using a collision warning system that integrates intelligent technology and human factors. To be effective, such a system should be able to analyse driving states including driver distraction and driver intent, assess the likelihood of collisions by working with surrogate safety measures and issue warnings to the driver. This study presents a longitudinal and lateral collision warning model that allows the inclusion of key surrogate safety measures such as distance between vehicles in longitudinal vehicle-following mode or envelopes of vehicles in the lateral direction during lane migration/change/merge movements. The model can take into account values of driver distraction and driver intent variables obtained on-line or from off-line devices. The formulation is also applicable to time-to-crash surrogate safety measure. A pattern recognition method is used for the identification of pre-crash condition while minimising false alarms. The surrogate safety model is presented and illustrative examples are provided. The surrogate safety measure-based warning system is mainly intended for on-line use in actual driving conditions. In addition, it can be used in driving simulators or for off-line safety studies in association with microsimulators of traffic.

Inspec keywords: road safety; road vehicles; traffic engineering computing; cognition

Other keywords: driver intent variables; pattern recognition method; human factors; lateral direction; cognitive vehicle design; collision warning system; driver assistance system design; surrogate safety measurement; driver distraction; intelligent technology; driver intent

Subjects: Traffic engineering computing

References

    1. 1)
      • 20. Meldon Associates: ‘Sideswipe accidents – fault, general causes, and possible ways to avoid a lane departure crash’. Jeffrey Meldon Associates, Accident Attorney, Gainesville, Florida, USA. Available at http://www.meldonlaw.com, accessed1 August 2013.
    2. 2)
    3. 3)
    4. 4)
      • 3. Guo, F., Klauer, S.G., McGill, M.T., Dingus, T.A.: ‘Evaluating the relationship between near-crashes and crashes: can near-crashes serve as a surrogate safety metric for crashes’. DOT HS811 382. National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), US DOT2010.
    5. 5)
      • 6. Smith, M., Zhang, H.: ‘Safety vehicle using adaptive interface technology and intent inference’. SAVE-IT, US Department of Transportation, November 2004.
    6. 6)
      • 12. Janssen, W., Kaptein, N., Claessens, M.: ‘Behaviour and safety when driving with in-vehicle devices that provide real-time traffic information’. TNO Human Factors Research Institute, Kampweg 5, 3769 DE Soesterberg, The Netherlands, 2003.
    7. 7)
      • 15. Lethaus, F., Baumann, M.R.K., Köster, F., Lemmer, K.: ‘Using pattern recognition to predict driver intent’, in Dobnikar, A., Lotrič, U., Šter, B. (Eds.): ‘Adaptive and natural computing algorithms’ , Part I, ICANNGA (Springer, Heidelberg, 2011) (LNCS, 6593), pp. 140149.
    8. 8)
      • 14. Lethaus, F., Harris, R.H., Baumann, M.R.K., Köster, F., Lemmer, K.: ‘Windows of driver gaze data: how early and how much for robust predictions of driver intent?’, in Tomassini, M., Antonioni, A., Daolio, F., Buesser, P. (Eds.): ‘Adaptive and natural computing algorithms’, ICANNGA (Springer, Heidelberg, 2013) (LNCS, 7824), pp. 446455.
    9. 9)
      • 4. Hoch, S., Schweigert, M., Althoff, F.: ‘The BMW SURF project: a contribution to the research on cognitive vehicles’. Proc. 2007 IEEE Intelligent Vehicle Symp., 13–15 June 2007, ThB1.26, pp. 692697).
    10. 10)
      • 13. Burgett, A.L., Miller, R.J.Jr.: ‘A new paradigm for rear-end crash prevention driving performance’. Intelligent Vehicle Initiative (IVI) Technology and Navigation Systems, SAE SP-1593, 2001, pp. 1127.
    11. 11)
      • 5. Donmez, B., Boyle, L.N., Lee, J.D.: ‘Designing feedback to mitigate distraction’, in: Regan, M.A., Lee, J.D., Young, K.L. (Eds.): ‘Driver distraction: theory, effects, and mitigation’, (CRC Press, 2008).
    12. 12)
      • 22. Hwang, S.Y., Park, C.H.: ‘Modelling of gap acceptance behavior at a merging section of urban freeway’. Proc. Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, 2005, vol. 5, pp. 16411656.
    13. 13)
      • 3. Guo, F., Klauer, S.G., McGill, M.T., Dingus, T.A.: ‘Evaluating the relationship between near-crashes and crashes: can near-crashes serve as a surrogate safety metric for crashes’. DOT HS811 382. National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), US DOT2010.
    14. 14)
      • 16. Lethaus, F., Rataj, J.: ‘Do eye movements reflect driving manoeuvres?’, IET Intell. Transp. Syst., 2007, 1, (3), pp. 199204 (doi: 10.1049/iet-its:20060058).
    15. 15)
      • 2. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration: ‘FARS encyclopaedia-vehicles involved in single- and two-vehicle fatal crashes by vehicles maneuver’. (Online 2009), US Department of Transportation (DOT).
    16. 16)
      • 17. Gettman, D., Head, L.: ‘Surrogate safety measures from traffic simulation models’. Final Report, Publication No. FHWA-RD-03-050, US. DOT, 2003.
    17. 17)
      • 7. Heide, A., Henning, K.: ‘The ‘cognitive car’: a roadmap for research issues in the automotive sector’, Annu. Rev. Control, 2006, 30, pp. 197203 (doi: 10.1016/j.arcontrol.2006.09.005).
    18. 18)
      • 18. Smith, B., Venkatanarayana, R.: ‘Development of crash prediction models using real time safety surrogate measures’. Research Report, No. UVACTS-15-0-104, Center for Transportation Studies, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA, 2008.
    19. 19)
      • 8. Khan, A.M.: ‘Bayesian-Monte Carlo model for collision avoidance system design of cognitive connected vehicle’, Int. J. Intell. Transp. Syst. Res., 2013, 11, (1), pp. 2333.
    20. 20)
      • 1. Morris, B., Doshi, A., Trivedi, M.: ‘Lane change intent prediction for driver assistance: on road design and evaluation’. 2011 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symp. (IV), Baden-Baden, Germany, 5–9 June, 2011.
    21. 21)
      • 21. LeBlanc, D., Sayer, J., Winkler, C., et al: ‘Road departure crash warning system field operational test: methodology and results’. UMTRI-2006-9-2, University of Michigan, 2006.
    22. 22)
      • 10. Najm, W., Ference, J.: ‘Safety assessment of a rear-end crash avoidance system’. ITS World Congress 2006, London, Paper id 1319, 2006.
    23. 23)
      • 9. Khan, A.M.: ‘Design of adaptive longitudinal control for cognitive connected vehicle’. Proc. ITS World Congress 2011, Orlando, USA, 2011.
    24. 24)
      • 19. Khan, A.M., Fukutomi, A., Taylor, S.J., Armstrong, J.M.: ‘Microsimulation of traffic for safety study of in-vehicle intelligent transportation systems’, in Dorn, L. (Ed.): ‘Driver behaviour and training’ (Ashgate Pub. Ltd., UK, 2005) volume II.
    25. 25)
      • 11. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD): ‘Road safety, impact of new technologies’ (Paris, 2003).
    26. 26)
      • 20. Meldon Associates: ‘Sideswipe accidents – fault, general causes, and possible ways to avoid a lane departure crash’. Jeffrey Meldon Associates, Accident Attorney, Gainesville, Florida, USA. Available at http://www.meldonlaw.com, accessed1 August 2013.
http://iet.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1049/iet-its.2013.0022
Loading

Related content

content/journals/10.1049/iet-its.2013.0022
pub_keyword,iet_inspecKeyword,pub_concept
6
6
Loading