Text als PDF

Transcrição

Text als PDF

IEEE IV'12 INTELLIGENT VEHICLES SYMPOSIUM
Effectiveness of Forward Collision Warnings for
Different Driver Attention States
1, Dr. Michael
Neli
li Ovcharova
h
i h l Fausten1, Prof.
f Frank
k Gauterin
i 2
1)
2)
Alcalá de Henares, June 6, 2012
Chassis Systems Control
1
Neli Ovcharova | 06.06.2012 | © Robert Bosch GmbH 2012. Alle Rechte vorbehalten, auch bzgl. jeder Verfügung, Verwertung, Reproduktion,
Bearbeitung, Weitergabe sowie für den Fall von Schutzrechtsanmeldungen.
I t d ti
Introduction
n = 310
310,806
806
accidents with casualties

2%
15%
4%
7%
15%
9%

28%
collision with ...
parked vehicle
vehicle moving ahead or waiting
vehicle moving laterally in same direction
oncoming vehicle
vehicle which turns into or crosses a road
pedestrian
fixed Object or vehicle leaving carriageway
Accident of another kind
(unknown, not fixed object, animal …)
Sources: StBA, GIDAS, Year 2009
70
60
50
40
[% ]
20%
Rear-end
Rear
end crashes: second largest
collision type
One main reason for rear
rear-end
end
collisions is driver inattentiveness
30
20
10
0
Inattentive
driver
Distracted
driver
Poor
visibility
Source: LeBlanc et al. 2001
2
Aggressive
driver
Tailgate
Cut-in
C lli i W
Collision
Warning
i S
Systems
t



Aim of collision warning
g systems:
y
help
p the driver to p
prevent or mitigate
g
collisions
Challenge: to convey the same urgency and to obtain a high effectiveness
for attentive and inattentive driver state at the same time.
Approach: Adaptive Collision Warning System
 Target:
T
t Benefit
B
fit and
d acceptance
t
increase
i
off common collision
lli i warning
i
systems.
Data
Criticality
Driver state
Warning
S t
System
Warning 1 for attentive drivers
Warning 2 for inattentive drivers
Attentiveness
dependent on
Assumption
p
for driver reaction time
3
P
Proceedings
di
ffor HMI E
Evaluation
l ti
Requirements
q
 A warning should
 attract the driver’s attention to the dangerous situation
 generate a collision mitigating driver reaction
 possess a minimum of intensity, multimodality and appropriate
warning
i point
i t iin time
ti
 be compatible to the critical event
 be not too complex and be consistent with other indication signals
 be acceptable by the driver
Procedure
 The investigation of the driver behavior with selected HMIs was
carried out in two stages in a fixed based simulator.
Stage 1
• Acoustical Warning
Stage 2
• Visual Warning
4
M th d l
Methodology

58 p
participants
p
((32 first stage,
g , 26 second stage)
g ) completed
p
two drives
 First drive: inattentive driver state
 Second drive: attentive driver state

Secondary task: Navigation Instruction

Design of the most frequent rear-end crash scenario (Wiacek et.al. (1999))
Leading Vehicle
(Braking)
Subject Vehicle
d_x = 40 m
5
St
ti l W
i
Stage 1
1: A
Acoustical
Warning
Stage 1
Stage 2
• Visual Warning

Target of Stage 1: Determination of an acoustical HMI, which provokes
short reaction times for attentive and inattentive driver state.

Selected acoustical Signals for the evaluation:
evaluation
 Earcon: Alarm 1, Alarm 2
 Auditory Icon: tire screeching
 Hybricon: Combination of earcon and auditory icon (tire screeching)
 Speech Message:
g “Bremsen”, which means “to brake” in g
german
6
R
Results:
lt IInattentive
tt ti driver
di
state
t t
Stage 1
• Acoustical
Warning
Stage 2
• Visual
Warning
Inattentive
29
2500
Rea
action Time [ms]
Indicative
reduction
off reaction
d
d
times by the Speech Message (p
= 0.130
0 130 > 0.05).
0 05)
 An analysis was performed with
the best two tones (Speech
Message & Alarm2) and the
control group revealed an
indicative reaction time reduction
(p = 0.093 > 0.05)
 An acousticall warning with
h a clear
l
message such as the speech
message is necessary to guide
the drivers attentiveness to the
imminent danger.

3000
35
41
P75
2000
P50
P25
1500
47
1000
39
500
Alarm1
Alarm2
(N = 5)
(N = 5)
Auditory Hybricon Speech Control
Icon
Message group
(N = 5)
(N = 5)
(N = 5)
(N = 7)*
o acoust
acoustical
ca signal,
s g a , stat
statical
ca warning
a
g triangle
t a ge
*)) no
7
Stage 1
• Acoustical
Warning
R
Results:
lt Attentive
Att ti driver
di
state
t t
Stage 2
• Visual
Warning
Attentive
1200
Rea
action Time
e [ms]
1000
26
800
600

400
200

0
Alarm1
Alarm2
(N = 5)
(N = 5)
Experiment set-up affect the
reaction of the drivers in the
second drive
No significant reduction of the
reaction times in attentive
driver state was observed.
Auditory Hybricon Speech Control
Icon
Message group
(N = 5)
(N = 5)
(N = 3)
(N = 7) *
o acoust
acoustical
ca signal,
s g a , stat
statical
ca warning
a
g triangle
t a ge
*)) no
8
St
i
Stage 2
2: Vi
Visuall W
Warning
Stage 1
Stage 2
• Visual Warning

Target of Stage 2: Determination of a visual HMI, which provokes short
reaction times for attentive and inattentive driver state.
state

Visual warning
g display
p y in HUD. Selected visual signals
g
for the evaluation:
 Warning triangle

Brake bar

Brake light

Collision notification
9
R
Results:
lt IInattentive
tt ti driver
di
state
t t
Stage 1
• Acoustical
Warning
Stage 2
• Visual
Warning
Inattentive
3000
22

Re
eaction Tim
me [ms]
2500
2000

12
1500
16

1000
Warning
triangle
(N = 5)
Brake bar Brake light
(N = 5)
(N = 5)
Collision
notification
(N = 5)
Control
group
(N = 6) *
No additional reaction time
reduction in an inattentive driver
state could be demonstrated for
the examined visual warnings (p
>> 0.05)
0 05)
The acoustical warning is the
main component of a multimodal
HMI for inattentive driver.
An intuitive and simple visual
warning could serve to affirm the
audible warning.
speech message,
essage, no
o visual
sua warning
a
g
*)) speec
10
R
Results:
lt Attentive
Att ti driver
di
state
t t
Stage 1
• Acoustical
Warning
Stage 2
• Visual
Warning
Attentive
1800
2
1600
Re
eaction Tim
me [ms]
Significant reaction time
reduction by the brake bar
compared
d to
t the
th collision
lli i
notification (p = 0.005 < 0.05).
 A comparison between brake bar
and control group revealed
statistical significance
g
(p = 0.017
< 0.05).
 A simple, intuitive visual signals
with a clear message can reduce
the reaction time of attentive
di
drivers.

1400
1200
1000
800
600
50
400
Warning
triangle
(N = 5)
Brake bar Brake light
(N = 5)
(N = 4)
Collision
notification
(N = 5)
Control
group
(N = 5) *
o acoust
acoustical
ca warning,
a
g, no
o visual
sua warning
a
g
*)) no
11
S
Summary


An acoustical warning
g with clear message
g reduces the reaction time
of inattentive drivers indicatively.
A simple, intuitive visual warning compatible with the critical event
and with a clear message reduces the response times of attentive
drivers significantly.
 An adaptation of the warning intensity and modalities to the driver’s
attention can be useful to increase the benefit and the customer
acceptance of collision warning systems.
12
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION
13

Text als PDF

Transcrição

Documentos relacionados

Temperature range, Fourchette de temperatures, Temperaturbereich

Toboggan 1,78 m

HL14-50 - ingl..cdr - PAM-pro

Expandible Core Pinza Expandible Spreizkern Pinza

Housing Lifter w/cooling Patín Kit Gehäuse Lifter mit

Tulip Ejector Expulsor Elástico Kreuzauswerfer Espulsore

Sprung Core Pinza Plana Federnder Auswerfer Pinza

Capazo Alcofa Sacca Carrycot Nacelle

DC Power Wiring Sequence Warning for EX 3200 and EX 4200

Snelstartinstallatie