View
29
Download
0
Category
Tags:
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
From IDS to CICAS: Rural Intersection Crash Avoidance. “Towards a Multi-state Consensus on Rural Intersection Decision Support” Pooled Fund Meeting Minong, Wisconsin June 12, 2006. National Motivation. 2.6 million intersection related crashes annually - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
“Towards a Multi-state Consensus on Rural Intersection Decision Support”
Pooled Fund MeetingMinong, Wisconsin
June 12, 2006
From IDS to CICAS:Rural Intersection Crash Avoidance
National Motivation
2.6 million intersection related crashes annually Represents 41% of all 6.33 million police reported
crashes In Minnesota, 129 out of 583 (22.1%) fatal crashes are at
intersections In the US, 8,659 of 38,252 (22.6%) of fatal crashes were
intersection related 31.7% occurred at signalized intersections 68.3% occurred at unsignalized intersections (stop
sign, no controls, other sign).
NHTSA, Traffic Safety Facts 2003, January 2005Minnesota Office of Traffic Safety, Minnesota Motor Vehicle Crash Facts, 2003
Intersection Decision Support (IDS)
Focus on driver error causal factors Fatal and life changing intersection crashes Provide the driver with information that will improve
judgment of gap clearance and timing Keep major corridors flowing Deploy where the fatalities/crashes warrant
deployment New tool for the traffic engineer
Focused on Recognized National Problem
NCHRP Report 500:Vol. 5 Unsignalized Intersections
Identifies objectives and strategies for dealing with unsignalized intersections
Objective 17.1.4 Assist drivers in judging gap sizes at Unsignalized Intersections
High speed at grade intersections
Guidelines for Implementation ofAASHTO Strategic Highway Safety Plan
Approach
Measure gaps that drivers take under actual road conditions. Collect data regarding intersection entry behavior.
Evaluate suite of sensors to ensure that they are able to measure those gaps accurately and able to distinguish between unsafe and safe gaps at the level that the existing literature specifies.
Develop set of interface concepts with which to communicate the existence of an unsafe vs safe gap in the intersection to the driver.
Evaluate selected set of interface concepts.
Percentage of all crossing path crashes based on Najm W G, Koopmann J A, and Smith D L (2001) Analysis of Crossing Path Crash Countermeasure Systems. Proc. 17th Intl Conference on Enhanced Safety of Vehicles
TCD Factor LTAP/OD LTAP/LD LTIP RTIP SCPGap 16.11% 1.09%Violate 2.59% 4.34% 1.25% 0.50% 14.86%Gap 1.25% 9.43% 2.17% 2.09% 14.44%Violate 0.08% 9.35% 0.58% 0.25% 5.18%
None Gap 7.68% 2.09% 0.83% 0.92% 2.92%Stop Sign
Traffic Signal
Unsafe gap is main risk
factor
Goal
Design and evaluate information “concepts” for sign elements to support detection and acceptance of safe gaps in mainline traffic.
Explore out of the “toolbox” concepts.
Prohibitive frame: Provide information regarding unsafe gaps.
Final judgment of safety and responsibility for action must remain with driver.
Concepts
BaselineDriver recognize hazard, gather information, decide on safety condition, and choose action
AlertDriver must gather information, decide on safety condition, and choose action.
DisplayDriver must decide on safety condition, and choose action.
WarnDriver must choose action.
AdviseDriver must choose to comply.
System detects hazard.
System detects hazard & presents information relevant to vehicle gap. Prohibited actions also indicated.
System detects hazard and provides warning levels based on gap information. Prohibited actions also indicated.
Prohibited actions indicated (unsafe action advisory).
InformDetect
Safe Gap Definition
12.5 s8.0 s
7.5 s
AASHTO Green Book, 2001; FHWA Older Driver Handbook, 2001
7.5 s
2-stage crossing strategy- Driver stops in median
1-stage crossing strategy- Driver does not stop in median
System accounts for worst-case scenario of an older driver making a left turn (in 1-stage).
Assumptions
Many factors determine gap safety. As a non-cooperative system, these sign concepts do not
have “preview” of all these factors. Therefore, system is “blind” and must make assumptions
about condition. With vehicle classification, will be able to adjust gap for
vehicle. For liability reasons, sign concepts must assume worst-
case condition. Left turns + older drivers + 1-stage
This may be perceived as non-credible to drivers in all other conditions.
Virtual Environment for Surface Transportation Research
•8 channels •3D surround sound•Car body vibration•Force feedback steering•Power-assist feel on the brakes•3-axis electric motion system
• Ability to model precise reproductions of geo-specific locations
• Resolution = 2.5 arc-minutes per pixel
Methods
5 sign conditions Within-subjects
2 age groups 24 young; 24 old
Gender balanced 2 light conditions
Day vs. night
12 participants per group/condition
Main Lessons
Additional information can be used. All sign concepts resulted in shifts towards the safe gap
threshold However, threshold was perceived as too conservative (not
personalized) Compliance increases when visibility of traffic condition
is reduced. Old drivers, night condition
Dynamic aspects of (Icon and Split-hybrid) signs facilitate comprehension. Map sign changes to changes in environment
Young drivers may “calibrate” system.
Next Steps
“Personalized” gap thresholds Cooperative systems
MUTCD compliant formats Close interaction with MnDOT engineers
Test compliant formats in simulator Validate with test site experiment Field operational testing Consider role of signs in larger safety programs
(Training & Education). Older drivers must perceive own limitations to appreciate need
for decision support Drivers need understanding of functions (include in licensing
tests)
Pooled Fund Study(CA, GA, IA, MI, MN, NC, NH, NV, WI)
Goals: Characterize rural intersection crashes throughout
USA Identify regional differences in driver behavior Use information to design ubiquitous system
deployable throughout US Setup a broad base for a field operational test
Key Tasks: Crash analysis in each partner state Driver behavior data collection in each partner state Analyze and archive driver behavior data
Cooperative Intersection Collision Avoidance System (CICAS):
Stop Sign Assist
CICAS
CICAS Work Plan (5 Years)
IDS CICAS
GapModel
SituationAnalysis
Concept Study
TranslationStudy
Sign Concepts
Paramete
rs
Functional Scope
ValidationStudy Pre-FOT
FOT
Protocol S
tandardization
Protocol E
valuation
Compliant Signs Deployable Signs
Alert / TimingAlgorithms
CAMPDVI
Years One thru Three Years Four and Five
Situation Analysis
Macroscopic Common scenarios Outliers
Onsite observation Context Atypical cases
Crash reports Common risk factors
Gap Model / Algorithms
3.8 3.94.3
4.7
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
0 .01 - .25 .25 - .9 .9 - 1.5
Precipitation (cm/hr)
Gap
(s)
- 5
th P
erce
nti
le
Macroscopic License plate reader Demographics
Microscopic Instrumented vehicle Process stages
Predictive models Sensitivity analysis Practical analysis
Algorithms Gap threshold, timing Complete logic
• Platoons, non-cooperative cases, etc.
Translation Study
Integrate algorithm Convert “concepts” to
compliant signs• Inform, warn, and advise
Test legibility and comprehension.
Replicate sim evaluation• Do compliant signs retain
concept benefits?
Interaction with DVI?
Technical Steps to FOT/Deployment
Minimal Sensor Sets Mainline: Function of variation in mainline traffic speed
and sensitivity of driver to timing (HF phase)• Have data showing speed variation and comparison
to point sensors. Minor road: Function of sensitivity of vehicle type to
gap alert/warning timing• Definition of gap previously used shows little
sensitivity to vehicle type. • Microscopic study of driver behavior needed to
resolve this issue.
Technical Steps to FOT/Deployment
Driver behavior data Macroscopic data
• Pooled fund: data collection in eight states with portable intersection surveillance system
Validation Study: Microscopic Data• Fully instrumented passenger car• Fully instrumented heavy truck• Fully instrumented intersections
Testing in Minnesota
Technical Steps to FOT/Deployment
Driver-Infrastructure Interface Mechanical & electrical design Placement Cost Reliability
Communication Mechanism Dedicated short range
Communications (DSRC) Wireless Access for Vehicular
Environments (WAVE; 802.11p) FCC allocated Oct. 21, 1999 75 MHz of spectrum at 5.9 GHz 7 licensed channels Hardware and protocols under
development
Technical Steps to FOT/Deployment
Definition/Implementation of ‘Cooperation’ Driver-Infrastructure Cooperative: demographic,
personal preference data• Storage (on person, in-vehicle?)• Broadcast (from person, through the vehicle?)• Auto manufacturers seem opposed to personal data
broadcast and used by infrastructure system Vehicle-Infrastructure Cooperative: vehicle
performance, weight, size, etc.• Driver intent (turn signal, steering wheel position,
foot on clutch, brake, throttle, gear selection, etc.)
Validation Study:Support of On-site Human Factors Testing
Build Instrumented Vehicle Wave-DSRC radios Integrated eye tracker Steering, brake, throttle measurements Full traffic data Day, night testing
Support analysis Location, speed, etc. of all other vehicles in
vicinity of intersection
Validation Study:On-site Human Factors Testing
Intersection DAQ (iDAQ)
Traffic Data(position, speeds, lane of
travel, etc.)
Vehicle Data (Throttle, brake, steering,
turn signal, position, speed, accel., etc. )
Driver Data (Eye Gaze, hand, feet,
face cameras, etc. )
Environmental Data (Weather (R/WIS) data,
Sun location (glare), road conditions)
Vehicle DAQ(vehDAQ)
NTP (synch)
FOT
IDS CICAS
GapModel
SituationAnalysis
Concept Study
TranslationStudy
Sign Concepts
Paramete
rs
Functional Scope
ValidationStudy Pre-FOT
FOT
Protocol S
tandardization
Protocol E
valuation
Compliant Signs Deployable Signs
Alert / TimingAlgorithms
Pre-FOT Years One thru Three FOT Years Four and Five
Goal
Provide real world data of system effect on gap acceptance and driver perceptions to support policy decisions for deployment trials.
Method
Recruit local residents using own vehicles N = 30
Male and female Young and old
Compare behavior before and after installation of system.
Plan
Methodology Data Harmonization
Pilot FOT Evaluate methodology Final design iteration
Full FOT Naturalistic scenario Macroscopic
• Microscopic?
Deployment verdict
Vehicle Computer
L. Turn Signal
Brake Light
R. Turn Signal
Trailer Interface
Kit
DSRC Radio
Driver Demo
Information
Vehicle Information
(size, type, ID)
Driver Intent
Estimator
IntersectionController
(iDAQ)
DSRC Radio
DII
Vehicle
FOT Instrumentation:Vehicle Cooperative System
12 240 36 48 60Month
Task 1: Project Management and CoordinationTask 2: Research
2A: Driver Behavior Research
2B: Driver Interface Research
2C: Models, Algorithms
Task 3: System Design3A: DII Design
3B: Minimal Sensor Sets
3C: Mechanisms for Cooperation
3D: Design Documentation
Task 4: System Development and Prototype Testing
4A: Dev. Plan
4B: Integration
4C: Objective Testing
4D: iDAQ
4E: FOT Plan & Design
Task 5: FOT Plan and Design
5B: Final FOT Design
Task 6: Conduct FOT6A: Pilot
FOT6B: Conduct FOT
Task 7: Outreach
Critical point 1DII MUTCD
approval
Critical point 2DSRC: $, license,
performance
Critical point 3Instrumentation
(gaze vector precision, accuracy)
Critical point 4Government GO/NO GO decision
Critical point 5 Recruitment of Pilot and
FOT Subjects
Critical point 6 Liability (risk management,
IRB, subpoenas)
CICAS-GAP Timeline and Critical PathT
asks
5A: FOT Vehicle & Intersection Tests
Recommended