IVBSS Data Collection and Analyses - NHTSA · 2016. 11. 22. · 2009 ITS America Annual Meeting - Session SS09 – June 1, 2009 Example - Forward Conflict – Analysis Steps* 17-1.5

IVBSS Data Collection and AnalysesScott Bogard

UMTRI

2009 ITS AmericaAnnual Meeting

Session SS09

June 1, 2009

2009 ITS America Annual Meeting - Session SS09 – June 1, 2009

Outline

• Descriptions of the types of analyses being performed

• Overview of the IVBSS data collection process and archiving

• Sample data from the car and truck platforms

2


FOT Analysis Themes

• UMTRI team– Drivers’ experience

• Exposure and alert rates– Safety impacts & driver interactions

• Changes in baseline and treatment condition driver behaviors

– Driver acceptance • Subjective assessment

– System performance• Categorization of alerts, alert rates

2009 ITS America Annual Meeting - Session SS09 – June 1, 2009 44

Alerts Per 100 Mi (161 Km)

Individual drivers Mean

0.0

2.5

5.0

7.5

10.0

12.5

15.0

17.5

Overall Alert Rate by Individual Drivers


Alert Experience Varies by Driver

38%

6% 31%

4%

21%

Driver 20113%

11%

51%

2%

23%

Driver 2028%

12%

61%

15%3%

Driver 203

17%

36%

37%

6%4%

Driver 204

14%

31% 48%

< 1%6%Driver 205

7%

21%

49%

4%

18%

Driver 206

20%

14%

50%

2%

14%Driver 207

41%

20%

29%

3%6%

Driver 208

16%

30% 51%

3%< 1%Driver 209

22%

9%

52%

11%6%

Driver 210

21%

34%

27%

4%

14%Driver 211

6%6%

44%

< 1%

44%

Driver 212

LDW-unoccupiedLDW-occupiedLCMFCWCSW


Example - Forward Conflict –Analysis Steps*

17

-1.5

-0.8

Dec

el-to

-avo

id (m

/sec

^2)

Time to collision(sec)0 0

Region defining candidateconflict episodes

0.5

continues

10

0

5

10

15

20

25

4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10

Driver's mean enhanced TTC at brake onset (sec)

Num

ber o

f driv

ers

Week 1

Weeks 3, 4

* ACAS FOT [USDOT HS 809 901]


Subjective Data

• Pre-drive questionnaires

• Post-drive questionnaires– On-site

• Driver debriefs• Focus groups

• Driver style • Driver behavior• General impressions,

combinatorial effects of warnings, acceptance, display & controls, ease of learning, individual warning types

• Events from their own driving

2009 ITS America Annual Meeting - Session SS09 – June 1, 2009 8

Subjective Results(LV Extended Pilot Test)

Questionnaire topic MeanHelpful 6.3Attention‐getting 6.6Not annoying 6.1Not distracting 5.7Will increase driving safety 6.3

Selected results: mean ratings“Overall, how satisfied were you with the integrated system?”


Data Acquisition & Archiving

On-Board Data sources: CAN buses – IVBSS, OEM 5 cameras with video capture &

compression 6 or 7 radars Onboard map match (LV) Second GPS Vehicle motion IMU Microphone GPRS cellular modem

• Driving records• Highway information:

– Michigan state base maps (e.g., intersections)– FHWA’s HPMS roadway information– Southeast Michigan Council of Government

maps (e.g., traffic signals)– Roadways mapped in previous FOTs

• Weather databases

Off-board Data Sources:

Onboard dataarchive

Offboard data


Example DAS Performance


Example Database Structure

Design optimized for:• Back-up • Query efficiency• Data loading

Views link tables in HtFotRadar and HtFotRaw to HtFot

Lv Design is similar


Example SnapShot Viewer

Time 206133400 bytesFrame 411Avg. Size 3208 bytes


Vehicle Data Signals and Volume Estimates

• 500+ data channels, plus 7 radar tracks• Primary: vehicle state, system measures • Summary: histograms, counts, aggregates• Diagnostic and health

13


Light Vehicle Camera Views

• Insert LV EPT video clip of choice


Heavy Truck Camera Views

• Insert HT EPT video clip of choice

Documents

IVBSS Data Collection and Analyses - NHTSA · 2016. 11. 22. · 2009 ITS America Annual Meeting - Session SS09 – June 1, 2009 Example - Forward Conflict – Analysis Steps* 17-1.5