The general objective of AdaptIVe is to develop and demonstrate new functionalities provided by p... more The general objective of AdaptIVe is to develop and demonstrate new functionalities provided by partially-automated and highly-automated vehicles. These applications cover different speed regimes and driving scenarios and aim at improving safety, energy efficiency, dependability and user-acceptance of automated driving. The introduction of supervised automated driving is now posing new and specific questions: in particular, the functions embodying automated driving do influence not only a certain defined scenario (for example accidents, near accidents, or safety related situations) but the whole traffic flow. Therefore, the existing evaluation methods are insufficient, and new comprehensive approaches are required. SP7 “Evaluation” is a horizontal activity within AdaptIVe supporting the vertical subprojects. Its main objective is to develop a common evaluation framework for supervised automated driving applications which is described within this deliverable. This framework addresses...
The aim of the user related assessment was to study perceived advantages, disadvantages, usefulne... more The aim of the user related assessment was to study perceived advantages, disadvantages, usefulness, trust, acceptance, willingness to have and pay for the driver assistance system: Enhanced Dynamic Pass Predictor developed by BMW within the framework of the SECONDS subproject. Due to restrictions of driving by naive drivers in real traffic conditions, assessment activities were limited to a demonstration of the function by video and an oral description. Seventeen persons took part in two focus groups, twelve males and five females. At the end of the focus group discussions the participants were asked to individually fill in a short questionnaire with specific questions about the system. The participants found one of the main advantages of the system that it would help the driver to make a decision when and where to overtake another car. The system would help especially indecisive drivers. They were of the opinion that the system will only be used on rural roads. They stated that it makes no sense to use it in urban areas and on motorways they thought that it hardly will help them. They thought that the risk to be involved in an accident would decrease and the comfort would increase on rural roads, it was the opposite regarding motorways and urban areas. Hardly anybody would use it on motorways or in urban areas. It was expected that it would be an advantage to use the system while driving in the night. The fact that the system could detect other cars and objects earlier than the driver and also knows the characteristic of the road ahead was seen as helpful. The warning signal of the system to warn the driver of an oncoming car, when an overtaking manoeuvre has started was seen as advantage of the system. As a weakness, the participants stated that not everything can be detected by the system. Especially on rural roads, one will find groups of people who are hiking or a herd of cows. It was stated that the situations where one can use the system are getting less and less frequent. One point mentioned was that most of the people drive anyway according to the limits on rural roads, so that an overtaking manoeuvre would not be necessary or possible. The participants thought that at the moment the costs for such a system would be too high to have it implemented in their own car as well as that in the near future it will only be available in high class cars. They also stated that they would hardly implement the system as a single feature in their car but mentioned that they could imagine to have it implemented together with other systems (like a comfort packages). Bad weather conditions, including, rain, snow or black ice, were mentioned as conditions under which the participants would not use the system. The participants were concerned that the system cannot take these conditions into account and therefore cannot calculate the overtaking manoeuvres correctly. It was mentioned several times, that drivers can relax more due to the fact that they get the information that it will not be possible to overtake for the next three kilometres. Therefore, they can concentrate also on other things. Also, one does not have to be nervous to find the right moment to overtake and to take any risks. The participants were also of the opinion that the traffic safety would be enhanced while using the system. The warning signal was seen as a good function. Some participants had the opinion that they would trust the system more than their own or their passenger’s judgment of the situation. The head-up display was seen as a good way to inform the driver and it was thought to enhance the safety of the driver. The participants were of the opinion that it will depend on the driver how the system will be used and that those drivers who already now stay calmly behind another car waiting for the right moment to overtake will do this also when using the system. On the other hand, more aggressive drivers will still keep less distance to the car ahead and just be waiting for the information of the system when to overtake. Furthermore, participants mentioned situations where drivers might not use the system in a wished for way. This might happen intentionally e.g. to show the system that one can overtake even when the system would not recommend it or in an unintentional way when the information reinforce the urge to overtake another car. A participant stated that this might happen in situations when the driver is waiting for system to give him/her the “okay” to overtake and immediately start that overtaking manoeuvre without checking on his/her own if the manoeuvre would be safe. The participants thought that there might be already too much information with which the driver has to deal with and that this is also getting more difficult and more confusing for the driver. The participants had the fear that they might get overloaded with information and that they might confuse different signals given by different systems. More systems would also…
interactIVe has the objective to develop new integrated Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS)... more interactIVe has the objective to develop new integrated Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS). In order to evaluate these ADAS, an evaluation framework is required. Therefore, a horizontal subproject called “Evaluation and Legal Aspects” is part of interactIVe, with the main objective to provide this framework and give support to the vertical subprojects in their evaluation work. The purpose of this deliverable is to define the relevant aspects for the development of the common and centralized evaluation framework. The goal is not to have the final document for evaluating the systems and functions, but to define and establish available methods and tools. Based on the defined Use Cases and the description of the developed interactIVe functions,research questions are formulated and included in this deliverable 7.1. Based on these research questions, corresponding hypothesis will be included in Deliverable 7.2. Evaluation has been divided in three main categories: • Technical Assessment, with the objective to evaluate the performance of the developed functions of interactIVe and to collect information and data for safety impact assessment. • User-Related Assessment has the goal to evaluate the functions from the user perspective, and also to provide further input to the safety impact assessment. • Impact Assessment will estimate how and how much the functions influence traffic safety. The challenge when dealing with the above-mentioned assessments is the fact that every system (SECONDS, INCA and EMIC) includes various functions. These different functions can be assessed individually or being part of the complete system, so interactions between them have to be taken into account. Moreover, the availability of tools and prototype vehicles has to be assured. The outcome of this deliverable is a list of methods, tools and research questions. (Less)
The aim of the user related assessment was to study perceived advantages, disadvantages, usefulne... more The aim of the user related assessment was to study perceived advantages, disadvantages, usefulness, trust, acceptance, willingness to have and pay for the driver assistance systems: Safe Cruise and Speed Support developed by VCC within the framework of SECONDS subproject. Due to restrictions in driving in real traffic, assessment activities were limited to driving on a test track by naive test drivers to be demonstrated the system. Ten persons (6 males and 4 females took part in the assessment. After test driving, they individually filled in a short questionnaire with specific questions about the system. Most participants found the Safe Cruise function well-functioning and easy to use. The function was perceived as both Useful (“useful”, “good”, “effective”, “assisting” and “raising alertness”) and Satisfactory (“pleasant”, “nice”, “likable” and “desirable”). The participants rated the function’s visual and haptic information/warning as clear. All participants thought the Safe Cruise function would reduce the risk of being involved in an accident. Regarding travel time and joy of driving, the participants did not expect any differences. Six out of ten answered they would trust the Safe Cruise function in all situations, but some commented that they first needed to get used to the function, and that they still needed to be prepared to take manual control of the vehicle. Three participants answered they wouldn’t trust the function, the reason being that some situations demand manual control. One participant answered that he/she would partly trust the function. The highest usage rate of the Safe Cruise function was indicated for motorways, day time and clear weather. The estimated usage would be less on urban roads, in rain or in snowy weather and during night time. Four of the participants would be willing to pay between 5,000 and 10,000 SEK. One was willing to pay between 2,500 and 5,000 SEK and one answered that he/she would buy the function if it cost less than 2,500 SEK. Four participants answered “don’t know”. All of the 10 participants would recommend the Safe Cruise function to a friend. Most participants found the Speed Support function well-functioning, easy to use it, they felt confident using the function and they thought most people would quickly learn to use the function. They disagreed to a large extent that the function would be unnecessarily complex or inconsistent, difficult to use, and that they would need to learn a lot about the function before beginning to use it, or that they would need the help of a technical person to use it. The Speed Support function was perceived as both Useful (“useful”, “good”, “effective”, “assisting” and “raising alertness”) and Satisfactory (“pleasant”, “nice”, “likable”, “desirable”). The participants rated the function’s visual and haptic information/warning as clear. All participants thought the Speed Support function would reduce the risk of being involved in an accident and the Risk of getting a speeding ticket. Regarding travel time, joy of driving and image, the participants did not expect any differences. Five out of ten answered they would trust the Speed Support function, but some commented that they first needed to get used to the function, and that they still needed to be prepared to take manual control of the vehicle. Three participants answered they wouldn’t trust the function, the reason being that some situations demand manual control. One participant answered that he/she would partly trust the function. The highest usage rate of the Speed Support function was indicated for motorways and during night time. It would be used equally frequently in clear weather and in rainy or snowy weather conditions. Two of the participants answered that they would be willing to pay between 5,000 and 7,500 SEK. One was willing to pay between 2,500 and 5,000 SEK and three answered that they would buy the function if it cost less than 2,500 SEK. Four participants answered “don’t know”. All of the 10 participants would recommend the Speed Support function to a friend. (Less)
interactIVe introduces safety systems that autonomously brake and steer. The driver is continuous... more interactIVe introduces safety systems that autonomously brake and steer. The driver is continuously supported by interactIVe assistance systems. They warn the driver in potentially dangerous situations. The systems do not only react to driving situations, but are also able to actively intervene in order to protect occupants and vulnerable road users. The objective of interactIVe is to develop new integrated Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) for safer and more efficient driving. Seven demonstrator vehicles – six passenger cars of different vehicle classes and one truck is being built up within this project to develop, test, and evaluate the next generation of safety systems. The evaluation of the interactIVe functions has been divided in three main categories: • Technical Assessment to evaluate the performance of the developed functions and collect information and data for safety impact assessment. • User-Related Assessment to assess the functions from the user perspective, and also to provide further input to the safety impact assessment. Impact Assessment to estimate how and how much the functions influence traffic safety. When dealing with the above-mentioned assessments, the challenge is the fact that every Vertical Sub Project (VSP) SECONDS, INCA and EMIC, includes various functions and address different kind of situations where some are just supportive for normal driving and some intervenes in emergency situations. These different functions can be assessed individually or being part of a complete system, so interactions between them have to be taken into account. Moreover, the availability of tools and prototype vehicles has to be assured. The evaluation framework, which is described in more detail in D7.2, is built on the results and experiences from previous European projects, especially from the PReVAL project. Starting from the research questions, which have been described in D7.1, hypotheses were defined in D7.2. The research questions and hypotheses have been updated through feedback from the VSPs. The next step is the definition of the indicators and the development of the test and validation plans. In order to evaluate the developed ADAS, an evaluation framework is required. Therefore, a horizontal subproject called “Evaluation and Legal Aspects” is part of interactIVe which main objective is to provide this framework and give support to the vertical subprojects in their evaluation work. The purpose of this deliverable is to present the test and validation plans for the specific functions and outline the assessment of the test procedures which includes studying the feasibility of conducting test scenarios, setting up and running tests and obtaining data on the indicators. It also includes a methodology for safety impact assessment and an overview of the tools and equipment that will be used during the process. The tests will reveal how the functions work according to function description, requirements and also how the functions are accepted and received from a user perspective by accepting or rejecting the proposed hypotheses and obtained answers for the research questions about the definition of relevant aspects to develop Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS). (Less)
This document outlines the specifications for the evaluation framework on the basis of the requir... more This document outlines the specifications for the evaluation framework on the basis of the requirements as described in D7.1. The framework will be further developed in D7.4 (“Test and evaluation plans”). Based on the use cases from deliverable D1.5 and the requirements from D7.1, hypotheses, indicators and test scenarios are formulated and included in this deliverable D7.2. Evaluation has, as in D7.1, been divided in three main categories: • Technical Assessment evaluates the performance of the developed interactIVe functions and collects information and data for safety impact assessment. • User-Related Assessment assesses the functions from the user perspective, and also to provide further input to the safety impact assessment. • Impact Assessment, estimates how and how much the functions influence traffic safety. This deliverable has further defined the evaluation framework by: • Hypotheses definition based on the research questions of D7.1. The hypotheses are set up in two categories per assessment (technical, user related and impact): o General o System specific (SECONDS, INCA, and EMIC). • Indicator definition based on the hypotheses of this deliverable. The indicators are set up per assessment (technical, user related and impact). • Test scenarios definition based on the use cases defined in D1.5. Summarizing, the outcome of this deliverable is a list of hypotheses, indicators and test cases, which will be used to define specific test plans for the interactIVe functions in D7.4. The current status of the project is that the functions that will be developed in interactIVe are not yet totally outlined. This document has D1.5 (v16, Annex1 v2 and Annex2 v12) and D1.6 (v0998) as a basis. Meanwhile these documents may have been updated to newer versions, which is not dealt with in this version of D7.2 but will be integrated into D7.4 (due in M22). Moreover a process of reviewing the hypotheses and test scenarios by the VSPs has started (M17) and may result in an update of some of the hypotheses, indicators and test scenarios. These will also be part of D7.4. The results of the April 2011 SP workshop have been mostly integrated into this deliverable, further discussion will lead to other changes which will be reported in D7.4. (Less)
Search for scientific references on long-term effects of intelligent vehicle systems was carried ... more Search for scientific references on long-term effects of intelligent vehicle systems was carried out in the Transport (Ovid SP) database, produced by OECD, TRB (US) and ECMT (EU), as well as finding related articles on Google Scholar. Methods used in the reviewed studies include instrumented vehicles, field operations tests, in-car observation, cohort studies, interview studies, focus groups and driving test vehicles for shorter periods of time. There are some indications, that system effects are greater in the beginning of a study, stabilising at a lower level later on. This seems to be the case for ISA systems and there is some such tendency for Roll Stability Advisor/Control on trucks. On the other hand, one study on ACC showed that usage increased in the long term (9 month’s use, compared to 2-3 months use). Some adverse effects such as more speeding can also be found after a longer time period with systems such as forward collision warning, but it is unclear whether this persists after longer than 15 months. Speed-limit supporting systems such as ISA were found to have an effect when using the system up to three years later. Studies of this length have not been conducted with other systems. (Less)
User-related effects of a Driver Assistance System for Continuous Support on driver behaviour, we... more User-related effects of a Driver Assistance System for Continuous Support on driver behaviour, were evaluated in a field test carried out in 2013. Twenty four drivers took part in test drives with a within-subject design along a 53 km test route containing motorway and rural-road sections. Driving data was logged and the test drivers were observed by means of an in-car observation method (Wiener Fahrprobe), i.e., by two observers in the car along with the driver. Questionnaires were used to assess the drivers’ comprehension of and experiences with the system, experienced usefulness of and satisfaction with the system, as well as willingness to have and pay for the system. The results showed that there was no difference in general speed behaviour while driving with the system compared to driving without. The Curve Speed Warnings gave the expected effect. There were less dangerous lane changes with the system in active mode, but there were slightly more late adaptations of speed before intersections and obstacles. The test drivers were of the opinion that the system was useful, and that it would enhance safety especially in overtaking situations on motorways. The blind-spot warning was found especially useful in the overtaking process. The drivers appreciated the fact that the system did not give information all the time. The system was perceived as useful, while satisfactoriness was not statistically significantly different from zero. The findings provide important information that can be used by the system developer to improve system performance. (Less)
The aim of the user related assessment was to study perceived advantages, disadvantages, usefulne... more The aim of the user related assessment was to study perceived advantages, disadvantages, usefulness, trust, acceptance, willingness to have and pay for the driver assistance system: Continuous Support & Curve Speed Control developed by FFA within the framework of the SECONDS subproject. Due to restrictions in driving in real traffic, assessment activities were limited to driving on a test track by naive test drivers to be demonstrated the system. Nineteen persons took part in two focus groups, ten males and nine females. At the end of the focus group discussions the participants were asked to individually fill in a short questionnaire with specific questions about the system. The participants think that the system helps the driver in situations where he/she is distracted or inattentive. Situations, like lane-departure, blind-spot and rear-end conflicts are stated as accident situations the system would help to avoid. The fact that the system recognises dangerous situations earlier than the driver is seen as an advantage. It was stated that the system can do things, a normal human being is not able to do and it also reacts faster than the driver. The system would enhance driver comfort and it also would educate drivers to use the indicator. As disadvantages and concerns were taken up that the driver might react wrongly on the warnings by the system, due to impulsive steering in the opposite direction when the steering wheel gives the impulse away from the danger. Some concerns were that drivers would rely too much on the system, they would drive more relaxed and not with full attention of what is going on around them and it might be a problem when the system does not work. If the system gives too many warnings or stimuli, the driver might get confused. After some time, if the warnings come too often one would not pay any attention anymore. It was discussed if one really wants to be warned in all situations and that the system might get on ones nerves if one is corrected all the time. When one changes between cars with and without the system, one might expect to get a warning which will not come. The possible costs of the system and how they would be distributed were seen as problematic. When the costs are too high in relation to the total costs of the car, it would be a problem. Possible compulsoriness in all cars might be made by law or by subvention by the state or insurance companies should offer advantages when such a system is implemented in the car. It was stated that the system has to work completely correctly all the time and it has to inform the driver if it does not work. When one trusts the system, one would use it all the time but the trust will be built with time. The participants would fully trust the system as they believe that car manufacturers have tested it and erased all mistakes. They thought that the system would only be sold if it was 100% reliable. The system would be more useful on motorways or on roads with higher speed limits due to the fact that one would have less time to react there in a dangerous situation. More severe accidents occur there and therefore it would have a better effect there. On urban roads during rush hours there might be too many warnings by the system. However, it would have advantages in urban areas where the rear-end and the blind-spot warning would be helpful, as well as in situations when a car overtakes unexpectedly or a cyclist comes from behind and passes on the right side. The system was seen useful especially when driving in the night when drivers get tired quicker and more inattentive. Some participants believed that they would use the system all the time as they would be afraid to forget to turn the system on again. A possible situation when the system would be turned off is the use a rented car for only a short time period. Also, bad weather conditions, like heavy rain, were mentioned in this respect and that one would not trust the system that it would work correctly and therefore would not use it. The system would be more useful for older drivers as it would compensate for physical handicaps e.g. when one cannot move his/her head so easily. On the other hand, due to the higher accident risk of younger drivers, it would be more useful for them. The different types of warnings were seen as positive. The vibration of the steering wheel can be very effective and it has the potential to get the attention of the driver. Non-visual warning signals are very good, as one has his eyes on the road and it would cost too much time to check the display to see what to do. The visual warning does not do any harm as one can ignore it anyway. Some concerns regarding the haptic signals were mentioned. The participants were not sure how they would react when the steering wheel starts moving on its own. Some thought that, especially for the first time, they would be distracted or would react intuitively and try to steer in the other direction. The system should not…
interactIVe introduces active intervention safety systems in order to increase traffic safety. Th... more interactIVe introduces active intervention safety systems in order to increase traffic safety. The interactIVe functions are – depending on their purpose – able to brake and steer autonomously. Furthermore, the driver is continuously supported by interactIVe assistance systems which warn the driver in potentially dangerous situations. Seven demonstrator vehicles – six passenger cars of different vehicle classes and one truck - are built up in interactIVe to develop, test, and evaluate the next generation of safety systems. The three vertical subprojects in interactIVe SECONDS, INCA and EMIC have developed 11 different functions with a wide range of target areas. The developed advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) comprise the following systems: • SP4 “SECONDS” dealing with functions, which support the driver continuously in the driving process. These functions should not only support the driver in dangerous situations, but help the driver to avoid them. • SP5 “INCA” dealing with functions, which combine longitudinal and lateral control of the vehicle in order to prevent imminent accidents. The INCA functions’ focus is not only on the collision avoidance in rear-end conflicts, but also on other types of conflicts, such as blind-spot and road departure situations. • SP6 “EMIC” deals with critical pre-crash applications, where collision mitigation can be realised at a reasonable cost. In order to evaluate the ADAS developed, an evaluation framework is required. Therefore, the subproject “Evaluation and Legal Aspects” is part of the interactIVe project, which has as main objective to provide this framework and to support the vertical subprojects in their evaluation work. The evaluation of the interactIVe functions has been divided into three main categories: • Technical Assessment to evaluate the performance of the developed functions and collect information and data for safety impact assessment. • User-Related Assessment to assess the functions from the user perspective, and also to provide further input to the safety impact assessment. • Impact Assessment to estimate how and how much the functions influence traffic safety. In this deliverable, the results of the evaluation in interactIVe are presented. (Less)
Konfliktobservation och hastighetsmatningar med radar genomfordes i landsvagskorsningen mellan va... more Konfliktobservation och hastighetsmatningar med radar genomfordes i landsvagskorsningen mellan vag E20 och 2623 utanfor Jung. Tolv konflikter registrerades. Fortkorning ar en vanlig foreteelse genom korsningen. Det forekommer aven andra regelbrott, t.ex. da fordon inte stannar vid stopplinjen.
Within the framework of the Swedish national trial with Intelligent Speed Adaptation (ISA) in urb... more Within the framework of the Swedish national trial with Intelligent Speed Adaptation (ISA) in urban areas, 225 cars are equipped with an active gas pedal for a period of 10 months in the city of Lund. In order to evaluate the systems a number of studies are being carried out. The driving data of all equipped vehicles is logged with regard to time and speed, both before and after activating the system. Driver behaviour and workload is studied with the help of an instrumented vehicle. Possible system effects, such as speeds, interactions with other road-users and driving against red are studied in the field. Possible changes in driver attitudes and acceptance are studied by interviews.
This report aims at providing information on principles that should be considered during planning... more This report aims at providing information on principles that should be considered during planning, establishment and maintenance of work zones, and inspection works. An extensive literature review has been done within the project and some of the results, e.g. of previous CEDR-projects, are included in IRIS. However, not all findings of recent studies are mentioned, as the goal was to keep the report short and recommendations concise. The report builds on literature reviews, interviews with practitioners and experts in eight European countries (Austria, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, Ireland, Slovenia, Sweden, and United Kingdom), and discussions with stakeholders. The report corresponds to the current situation. It does not cover probable future problems like the big topic of autonomous vehicles. These vehicles might pose a problem at work zones in the future, as autonomous vehicles, at current state, have difficulties in detecting road works where signage and road marking have ...
The general objective of AdaptIVe is to develop and demonstrate new functionalities provided by p... more The general objective of AdaptIVe is to develop and demonstrate new functionalities provided by partially-automated and highly-automated vehicles. These applications cover different speed regimes and driving scenarios and aim at improving safety, energy efficiency, dependability and user-acceptance of automated driving. The introduction of supervised automated driving is now posing new and specific questions: in particular, the functions embodying automated driving do influence not only a certain defined scenario (for example accidents, near accidents, or safety related situations) but the whole traffic flow. Therefore, the existing evaluation methods are insufficient, and new comprehensive approaches are required. SP7 “Evaluation” is a horizontal activity within AdaptIVe supporting the vertical subprojects. Its main objective is to develop a common evaluation framework for supervised automated driving applications which is described within this deliverable. This framework addresses...
The aim of the user related assessment was to study perceived advantages, disadvantages, usefulne... more The aim of the user related assessment was to study perceived advantages, disadvantages, usefulness, trust, acceptance, willingness to have and pay for the driver assistance system: Enhanced Dynamic Pass Predictor developed by BMW within the framework of the SECONDS subproject. Due to restrictions of driving by naive drivers in real traffic conditions, assessment activities were limited to a demonstration of the function by video and an oral description. Seventeen persons took part in two focus groups, twelve males and five females. At the end of the focus group discussions the participants were asked to individually fill in a short questionnaire with specific questions about the system. The participants found one of the main advantages of the system that it would help the driver to make a decision when and where to overtake another car. The system would help especially indecisive drivers. They were of the opinion that the system will only be used on rural roads. They stated that it makes no sense to use it in urban areas and on motorways they thought that it hardly will help them. They thought that the risk to be involved in an accident would decrease and the comfort would increase on rural roads, it was the opposite regarding motorways and urban areas. Hardly anybody would use it on motorways or in urban areas. It was expected that it would be an advantage to use the system while driving in the night. The fact that the system could detect other cars and objects earlier than the driver and also knows the characteristic of the road ahead was seen as helpful. The warning signal of the system to warn the driver of an oncoming car, when an overtaking manoeuvre has started was seen as advantage of the system. As a weakness, the participants stated that not everything can be detected by the system. Especially on rural roads, one will find groups of people who are hiking or a herd of cows. It was stated that the situations where one can use the system are getting less and less frequent. One point mentioned was that most of the people drive anyway according to the limits on rural roads, so that an overtaking manoeuvre would not be necessary or possible. The participants thought that at the moment the costs for such a system would be too high to have it implemented in their own car as well as that in the near future it will only be available in high class cars. They also stated that they would hardly implement the system as a single feature in their car but mentioned that they could imagine to have it implemented together with other systems (like a comfort packages). Bad weather conditions, including, rain, snow or black ice, were mentioned as conditions under which the participants would not use the system. The participants were concerned that the system cannot take these conditions into account and therefore cannot calculate the overtaking manoeuvres correctly. It was mentioned several times, that drivers can relax more due to the fact that they get the information that it will not be possible to overtake for the next three kilometres. Therefore, they can concentrate also on other things. Also, one does not have to be nervous to find the right moment to overtake and to take any risks. The participants were also of the opinion that the traffic safety would be enhanced while using the system. The warning signal was seen as a good function. Some participants had the opinion that they would trust the system more than their own or their passenger’s judgment of the situation. The head-up display was seen as a good way to inform the driver and it was thought to enhance the safety of the driver. The participants were of the opinion that it will depend on the driver how the system will be used and that those drivers who already now stay calmly behind another car waiting for the right moment to overtake will do this also when using the system. On the other hand, more aggressive drivers will still keep less distance to the car ahead and just be waiting for the information of the system when to overtake. Furthermore, participants mentioned situations where drivers might not use the system in a wished for way. This might happen intentionally e.g. to show the system that one can overtake even when the system would not recommend it or in an unintentional way when the information reinforce the urge to overtake another car. A participant stated that this might happen in situations when the driver is waiting for system to give him/her the “okay” to overtake and immediately start that overtaking manoeuvre without checking on his/her own if the manoeuvre would be safe. The participants thought that there might be already too much information with which the driver has to deal with and that this is also getting more difficult and more confusing for the driver. The participants had the fear that they might get overloaded with information and that they might confuse different signals given by different systems. More systems would also…
interactIVe has the objective to develop new integrated Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS)... more interactIVe has the objective to develop new integrated Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS). In order to evaluate these ADAS, an evaluation framework is required. Therefore, a horizontal subproject called “Evaluation and Legal Aspects” is part of interactIVe, with the main objective to provide this framework and give support to the vertical subprojects in their evaluation work. The purpose of this deliverable is to define the relevant aspects for the development of the common and centralized evaluation framework. The goal is not to have the final document for evaluating the systems and functions, but to define and establish available methods and tools. Based on the defined Use Cases and the description of the developed interactIVe functions,research questions are formulated and included in this deliverable 7.1. Based on these research questions, corresponding hypothesis will be included in Deliverable 7.2. Evaluation has been divided in three main categories: • Technical Assessment, with the objective to evaluate the performance of the developed functions of interactIVe and to collect information and data for safety impact assessment. • User-Related Assessment has the goal to evaluate the functions from the user perspective, and also to provide further input to the safety impact assessment. • Impact Assessment will estimate how and how much the functions influence traffic safety. The challenge when dealing with the above-mentioned assessments is the fact that every system (SECONDS, INCA and EMIC) includes various functions. These different functions can be assessed individually or being part of the complete system, so interactions between them have to be taken into account. Moreover, the availability of tools and prototype vehicles has to be assured. The outcome of this deliverable is a list of methods, tools and research questions. (Less)
The aim of the user related assessment was to study perceived advantages, disadvantages, usefulne... more The aim of the user related assessment was to study perceived advantages, disadvantages, usefulness, trust, acceptance, willingness to have and pay for the driver assistance systems: Safe Cruise and Speed Support developed by VCC within the framework of SECONDS subproject. Due to restrictions in driving in real traffic, assessment activities were limited to driving on a test track by naive test drivers to be demonstrated the system. Ten persons (6 males and 4 females took part in the assessment. After test driving, they individually filled in a short questionnaire with specific questions about the system. Most participants found the Safe Cruise function well-functioning and easy to use. The function was perceived as both Useful (“useful”, “good”, “effective”, “assisting” and “raising alertness”) and Satisfactory (“pleasant”, “nice”, “likable” and “desirable”). The participants rated the function’s visual and haptic information/warning as clear. All participants thought the Safe Cruise function would reduce the risk of being involved in an accident. Regarding travel time and joy of driving, the participants did not expect any differences. Six out of ten answered they would trust the Safe Cruise function in all situations, but some commented that they first needed to get used to the function, and that they still needed to be prepared to take manual control of the vehicle. Three participants answered they wouldn’t trust the function, the reason being that some situations demand manual control. One participant answered that he/she would partly trust the function. The highest usage rate of the Safe Cruise function was indicated for motorways, day time and clear weather. The estimated usage would be less on urban roads, in rain or in snowy weather and during night time. Four of the participants would be willing to pay between 5,000 and 10,000 SEK. One was willing to pay between 2,500 and 5,000 SEK and one answered that he/she would buy the function if it cost less than 2,500 SEK. Four participants answered “don’t know”. All of the 10 participants would recommend the Safe Cruise function to a friend. Most participants found the Speed Support function well-functioning, easy to use it, they felt confident using the function and they thought most people would quickly learn to use the function. They disagreed to a large extent that the function would be unnecessarily complex or inconsistent, difficult to use, and that they would need to learn a lot about the function before beginning to use it, or that they would need the help of a technical person to use it. The Speed Support function was perceived as both Useful (“useful”, “good”, “effective”, “assisting” and “raising alertness”) and Satisfactory (“pleasant”, “nice”, “likable”, “desirable”). The participants rated the function’s visual and haptic information/warning as clear. All participants thought the Speed Support function would reduce the risk of being involved in an accident and the Risk of getting a speeding ticket. Regarding travel time, joy of driving and image, the participants did not expect any differences. Five out of ten answered they would trust the Speed Support function, but some commented that they first needed to get used to the function, and that they still needed to be prepared to take manual control of the vehicle. Three participants answered they wouldn’t trust the function, the reason being that some situations demand manual control. One participant answered that he/she would partly trust the function. The highest usage rate of the Speed Support function was indicated for motorways and during night time. It would be used equally frequently in clear weather and in rainy or snowy weather conditions. Two of the participants answered that they would be willing to pay between 5,000 and 7,500 SEK. One was willing to pay between 2,500 and 5,000 SEK and three answered that they would buy the function if it cost less than 2,500 SEK. Four participants answered “don’t know”. All of the 10 participants would recommend the Speed Support function to a friend. (Less)
interactIVe introduces safety systems that autonomously brake and steer. The driver is continuous... more interactIVe introduces safety systems that autonomously brake and steer. The driver is continuously supported by interactIVe assistance systems. They warn the driver in potentially dangerous situations. The systems do not only react to driving situations, but are also able to actively intervene in order to protect occupants and vulnerable road users. The objective of interactIVe is to develop new integrated Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) for safer and more efficient driving. Seven demonstrator vehicles – six passenger cars of different vehicle classes and one truck is being built up within this project to develop, test, and evaluate the next generation of safety systems. The evaluation of the interactIVe functions has been divided in three main categories: • Technical Assessment to evaluate the performance of the developed functions and collect information and data for safety impact assessment. • User-Related Assessment to assess the functions from the user perspective, and also to provide further input to the safety impact assessment. Impact Assessment to estimate how and how much the functions influence traffic safety. When dealing with the above-mentioned assessments, the challenge is the fact that every Vertical Sub Project (VSP) SECONDS, INCA and EMIC, includes various functions and address different kind of situations where some are just supportive for normal driving and some intervenes in emergency situations. These different functions can be assessed individually or being part of a complete system, so interactions between them have to be taken into account. Moreover, the availability of tools and prototype vehicles has to be assured. The evaluation framework, which is described in more detail in D7.2, is built on the results and experiences from previous European projects, especially from the PReVAL project. Starting from the research questions, which have been described in D7.1, hypotheses were defined in D7.2. The research questions and hypotheses have been updated through feedback from the VSPs. The next step is the definition of the indicators and the development of the test and validation plans. In order to evaluate the developed ADAS, an evaluation framework is required. Therefore, a horizontal subproject called “Evaluation and Legal Aspects” is part of interactIVe which main objective is to provide this framework and give support to the vertical subprojects in their evaluation work. The purpose of this deliverable is to present the test and validation plans for the specific functions and outline the assessment of the test procedures which includes studying the feasibility of conducting test scenarios, setting up and running tests and obtaining data on the indicators. It also includes a methodology for safety impact assessment and an overview of the tools and equipment that will be used during the process. The tests will reveal how the functions work according to function description, requirements and also how the functions are accepted and received from a user perspective by accepting or rejecting the proposed hypotheses and obtained answers for the research questions about the definition of relevant aspects to develop Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS). (Less)
This document outlines the specifications for the evaluation framework on the basis of the requir... more This document outlines the specifications for the evaluation framework on the basis of the requirements as described in D7.1. The framework will be further developed in D7.4 (“Test and evaluation plans”). Based on the use cases from deliverable D1.5 and the requirements from D7.1, hypotheses, indicators and test scenarios are formulated and included in this deliverable D7.2. Evaluation has, as in D7.1, been divided in three main categories: • Technical Assessment evaluates the performance of the developed interactIVe functions and collects information and data for safety impact assessment. • User-Related Assessment assesses the functions from the user perspective, and also to provide further input to the safety impact assessment. • Impact Assessment, estimates how and how much the functions influence traffic safety. This deliverable has further defined the evaluation framework by: • Hypotheses definition based on the research questions of D7.1. The hypotheses are set up in two categories per assessment (technical, user related and impact): o General o System specific (SECONDS, INCA, and EMIC). • Indicator definition based on the hypotheses of this deliverable. The indicators are set up per assessment (technical, user related and impact). • Test scenarios definition based on the use cases defined in D1.5. Summarizing, the outcome of this deliverable is a list of hypotheses, indicators and test cases, which will be used to define specific test plans for the interactIVe functions in D7.4. The current status of the project is that the functions that will be developed in interactIVe are not yet totally outlined. This document has D1.5 (v16, Annex1 v2 and Annex2 v12) and D1.6 (v0998) as a basis. Meanwhile these documents may have been updated to newer versions, which is not dealt with in this version of D7.2 but will be integrated into D7.4 (due in M22). Moreover a process of reviewing the hypotheses and test scenarios by the VSPs has started (M17) and may result in an update of some of the hypotheses, indicators and test scenarios. These will also be part of D7.4. The results of the April 2011 SP workshop have been mostly integrated into this deliverable, further discussion will lead to other changes which will be reported in D7.4. (Less)
Search for scientific references on long-term effects of intelligent vehicle systems was carried ... more Search for scientific references on long-term effects of intelligent vehicle systems was carried out in the Transport (Ovid SP) database, produced by OECD, TRB (US) and ECMT (EU), as well as finding related articles on Google Scholar. Methods used in the reviewed studies include instrumented vehicles, field operations tests, in-car observation, cohort studies, interview studies, focus groups and driving test vehicles for shorter periods of time. There are some indications, that system effects are greater in the beginning of a study, stabilising at a lower level later on. This seems to be the case for ISA systems and there is some such tendency for Roll Stability Advisor/Control on trucks. On the other hand, one study on ACC showed that usage increased in the long term (9 month’s use, compared to 2-3 months use). Some adverse effects such as more speeding can also be found after a longer time period with systems such as forward collision warning, but it is unclear whether this persists after longer than 15 months. Speed-limit supporting systems such as ISA were found to have an effect when using the system up to three years later. Studies of this length have not been conducted with other systems. (Less)
User-related effects of a Driver Assistance System for Continuous Support on driver behaviour, we... more User-related effects of a Driver Assistance System for Continuous Support on driver behaviour, were evaluated in a field test carried out in 2013. Twenty four drivers took part in test drives with a within-subject design along a 53 km test route containing motorway and rural-road sections. Driving data was logged and the test drivers were observed by means of an in-car observation method (Wiener Fahrprobe), i.e., by two observers in the car along with the driver. Questionnaires were used to assess the drivers’ comprehension of and experiences with the system, experienced usefulness of and satisfaction with the system, as well as willingness to have and pay for the system. The results showed that there was no difference in general speed behaviour while driving with the system compared to driving without. The Curve Speed Warnings gave the expected effect. There were less dangerous lane changes with the system in active mode, but there were slightly more late adaptations of speed before intersections and obstacles. The test drivers were of the opinion that the system was useful, and that it would enhance safety especially in overtaking situations on motorways. The blind-spot warning was found especially useful in the overtaking process. The drivers appreciated the fact that the system did not give information all the time. The system was perceived as useful, while satisfactoriness was not statistically significantly different from zero. The findings provide important information that can be used by the system developer to improve system performance. (Less)
The aim of the user related assessment was to study perceived advantages, disadvantages, usefulne... more The aim of the user related assessment was to study perceived advantages, disadvantages, usefulness, trust, acceptance, willingness to have and pay for the driver assistance system: Continuous Support & Curve Speed Control developed by FFA within the framework of the SECONDS subproject. Due to restrictions in driving in real traffic, assessment activities were limited to driving on a test track by naive test drivers to be demonstrated the system. Nineteen persons took part in two focus groups, ten males and nine females. At the end of the focus group discussions the participants were asked to individually fill in a short questionnaire with specific questions about the system. The participants think that the system helps the driver in situations where he/she is distracted or inattentive. Situations, like lane-departure, blind-spot and rear-end conflicts are stated as accident situations the system would help to avoid. The fact that the system recognises dangerous situations earlier than the driver is seen as an advantage. It was stated that the system can do things, a normal human being is not able to do and it also reacts faster than the driver. The system would enhance driver comfort and it also would educate drivers to use the indicator. As disadvantages and concerns were taken up that the driver might react wrongly on the warnings by the system, due to impulsive steering in the opposite direction when the steering wheel gives the impulse away from the danger. Some concerns were that drivers would rely too much on the system, they would drive more relaxed and not with full attention of what is going on around them and it might be a problem when the system does not work. If the system gives too many warnings or stimuli, the driver might get confused. After some time, if the warnings come too often one would not pay any attention anymore. It was discussed if one really wants to be warned in all situations and that the system might get on ones nerves if one is corrected all the time. When one changes between cars with and without the system, one might expect to get a warning which will not come. The possible costs of the system and how they would be distributed were seen as problematic. When the costs are too high in relation to the total costs of the car, it would be a problem. Possible compulsoriness in all cars might be made by law or by subvention by the state or insurance companies should offer advantages when such a system is implemented in the car. It was stated that the system has to work completely correctly all the time and it has to inform the driver if it does not work. When one trusts the system, one would use it all the time but the trust will be built with time. The participants would fully trust the system as they believe that car manufacturers have tested it and erased all mistakes. They thought that the system would only be sold if it was 100% reliable. The system would be more useful on motorways or on roads with higher speed limits due to the fact that one would have less time to react there in a dangerous situation. More severe accidents occur there and therefore it would have a better effect there. On urban roads during rush hours there might be too many warnings by the system. However, it would have advantages in urban areas where the rear-end and the blind-spot warning would be helpful, as well as in situations when a car overtakes unexpectedly or a cyclist comes from behind and passes on the right side. The system was seen useful especially when driving in the night when drivers get tired quicker and more inattentive. Some participants believed that they would use the system all the time as they would be afraid to forget to turn the system on again. A possible situation when the system would be turned off is the use a rented car for only a short time period. Also, bad weather conditions, like heavy rain, were mentioned in this respect and that one would not trust the system that it would work correctly and therefore would not use it. The system would be more useful for older drivers as it would compensate for physical handicaps e.g. when one cannot move his/her head so easily. On the other hand, due to the higher accident risk of younger drivers, it would be more useful for them. The different types of warnings were seen as positive. The vibration of the steering wheel can be very effective and it has the potential to get the attention of the driver. Non-visual warning signals are very good, as one has his eyes on the road and it would cost too much time to check the display to see what to do. The visual warning does not do any harm as one can ignore it anyway. Some concerns regarding the haptic signals were mentioned. The participants were not sure how they would react when the steering wheel starts moving on its own. Some thought that, especially for the first time, they would be distracted or would react intuitively and try to steer in the other direction. The system should not…
interactIVe introduces active intervention safety systems in order to increase traffic safety. Th... more interactIVe introduces active intervention safety systems in order to increase traffic safety. The interactIVe functions are – depending on their purpose – able to brake and steer autonomously. Furthermore, the driver is continuously supported by interactIVe assistance systems which warn the driver in potentially dangerous situations. Seven demonstrator vehicles – six passenger cars of different vehicle classes and one truck - are built up in interactIVe to develop, test, and evaluate the next generation of safety systems. The three vertical subprojects in interactIVe SECONDS, INCA and EMIC have developed 11 different functions with a wide range of target areas. The developed advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) comprise the following systems: • SP4 “SECONDS” dealing with functions, which support the driver continuously in the driving process. These functions should not only support the driver in dangerous situations, but help the driver to avoid them. • SP5 “INCA” dealing with functions, which combine longitudinal and lateral control of the vehicle in order to prevent imminent accidents. The INCA functions’ focus is not only on the collision avoidance in rear-end conflicts, but also on other types of conflicts, such as blind-spot and road departure situations. • SP6 “EMIC” deals with critical pre-crash applications, where collision mitigation can be realised at a reasonable cost. In order to evaluate the ADAS developed, an evaluation framework is required. Therefore, the subproject “Evaluation and Legal Aspects” is part of the interactIVe project, which has as main objective to provide this framework and to support the vertical subprojects in their evaluation work. The evaluation of the interactIVe functions has been divided into three main categories: • Technical Assessment to evaluate the performance of the developed functions and collect information and data for safety impact assessment. • User-Related Assessment to assess the functions from the user perspective, and also to provide further input to the safety impact assessment. • Impact Assessment to estimate how and how much the functions influence traffic safety. In this deliverable, the results of the evaluation in interactIVe are presented. (Less)
Konfliktobservation och hastighetsmatningar med radar genomfordes i landsvagskorsningen mellan va... more Konfliktobservation och hastighetsmatningar med radar genomfordes i landsvagskorsningen mellan vag E20 och 2623 utanfor Jung. Tolv konflikter registrerades. Fortkorning ar en vanlig foreteelse genom korsningen. Det forekommer aven andra regelbrott, t.ex. da fordon inte stannar vid stopplinjen.
Within the framework of the Swedish national trial with Intelligent Speed Adaptation (ISA) in urb... more Within the framework of the Swedish national trial with Intelligent Speed Adaptation (ISA) in urban areas, 225 cars are equipped with an active gas pedal for a period of 10 months in the city of Lund. In order to evaluate the systems a number of studies are being carried out. The driving data of all equipped vehicles is logged with regard to time and speed, both before and after activating the system. Driver behaviour and workload is studied with the help of an instrumented vehicle. Possible system effects, such as speeds, interactions with other road-users and driving against red are studied in the field. Possible changes in driver attitudes and acceptance are studied by interviews.
This report aims at providing information on principles that should be considered during planning... more This report aims at providing information on principles that should be considered during planning, establishment and maintenance of work zones, and inspection works. An extensive literature review has been done within the project and some of the results, e.g. of previous CEDR-projects, are included in IRIS. However, not all findings of recent studies are mentioned, as the goal was to keep the report short and recommendations concise. The report builds on literature reviews, interviews with practitioners and experts in eight European countries (Austria, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, Ireland, Slovenia, Sweden, and United Kingdom), and discussions with stakeholders. The report corresponds to the current situation. It does not cover probable future problems like the big topic of autonomous vehicles. These vehicles might pose a problem at work zones in the future, as autonomous vehicles, at current state, have difficulties in detecting road works where signage and road marking have ...
Uploads
Papers by András Várhelyi