| 1. |
- Jacobson, Jan, et al.
(författare)
-
Final testing protocols
- 2011
-
Rapport (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- This report is the final document summarizing the inspection and testing protocols of the eVALUE project. It describes principles, inspection protocols and testing protocols for performance testing of ICT-based safety systems. The inspection protocols (published earlier in D2.2) and the testing protocols introduced in D3.1 are replaced by the ones in D3.2. The older versions are obsolete and should be disregarded. The inspection protocols cover the definition of the test vehicle, HMI aspects, environmental conditions, and functional safety. The inspection protocols are used to prepare for the physical tests as well as evaluating the performance of the vehicle. The testing protocols address longitudinal, lateral, and stability-oriented traffic scenarios. The longitudinal scenarios include a pedestrian crossing the road in front of the vehicle, or the situation where a driver approaches a stationary queue of cars. Involuntarily lane departures and cars in the blind spot during a lane change are situations covered by the lateral scenarios. Exiting a highway, avoiding an obstacle, and braking on a partially ice-covered road surface are examples of traffic scenarios related to stability.
|
|
| 2. |
- Karlsson, MariAnne, 1956, et al.
(författare)
-
D1.1. Integrated Framework. Deliverable to the MeBeSafe project
- 2018
-
Rapport (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- The MeBeSafe project intends to develop, implement and validate interventions that direct road users (drivers and cyclists) towards safer behaviour in common traffic situations which carry an elevated risk. More specifically, the aim is to change habitual traffic behaviour using different nudging interventions, i.e. subconsciously pushing road users in a desired direction without being prohibitive against alternative choices of action. The project will also compare different ways of coaching and evaluate the effect of a combination of nudging and coaching. This deliverable, D1.1 Integrated Framework, describes the work completed within WP1 of the MeBeSafe project. Based on literature reviews, interviews with academic and non-academic experts, discussions and workshops, the deliverable: (i) describes the key characteristics of nudging and coaching respectively; (ii) presents a framework that integrates the two, taking into consideration (in particular) time and frequency; (iii) describes underlying theories and models of relevance for understanding road user behaviour; (iii) explains road user profiles or characteristics of relevance to consider in the design of the interventions (i.e., in WP2, WP3, and WP4), as well as the design and interpretation of the outcome of the field trials (in WP5); and (iv) presents design considerations, i.e. factors that should be observed when improving on the initial ideas and further develop the design of the nudging and coaching interventions. More detailed design guidelines must be developed as part of the work to be completed in WP2, WP3, and WP4.
|
|
| 3. |
- Bakri, Taoufik, et al.
(författare)
-
Requirements for the Evaluation Framework.
- 2011
-
Rapport (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- 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.
|
|
| 4. |
- Fahrenkrog, Felix, et al.
(författare)
-
Impact Assessment Methodology in InteractIVe.
- 2013
-
Ingår i: ; , s. 1-11
-
Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)abstract
- This paper describes the safety impact assessment methodology that is developed and used for the evaluation of safety related Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) in the interactIVe project. The used method builds on the assessment method that was developed in the projects eIMPACT and PReVAL, and is refined in interactIVe. With this method the safety effects of the developed functions on road fatalities and injuries in Europe are calculated, based on safety mechanisms and the results of the technical and user-related tests in the project. This paper presents the safety mechanisms and refinements of the method that are made by interactIVe.
|
|
| 5. |
- Fahrenkrog, Felix, et al.
(författare)
-
Impact Assessment of Developed Applications – Overall interactIVe Assessment
- 2013
-
Rapport (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- 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.
|
|
| 6. |
- Kaufmann, Clemens, et al.
(författare)
-
User related assessment of Continuous Support & Curve Speed Control (FFA)
- 2013
-
Rapport (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- 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 naïve 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 warn the driver too often. When there are too many, especially acoustic warnings then it might disturb or get on ones nerves. If this would be the case, one would turn off the system. The participants had different opinions regarding if the system should only warn and give recommendations how to react or if it should automatically act by steering or braking. A combination of modalities was discussed and that the system should warn the driver as long as possible but if an appropriate reaction of the driver does not come then it should automatically take over. It was stated that it would be good to get an introduction by the car seller about how the system works. The introduction would especially be needed for older drivers as they are not so familiar with new technologies. Also, the possibility that novice drivers can get information in driving schools was discussed. Nevertheless, the system should be self-explaining, because one does not always has the opportunity to get an introduction to it or can test it during a test ride. It was stated that the handbook is not needed at all because it is only for specific questions, on the other hand it was also mentioned that there are people who read the handbook and therefore it is needed anyway. A suggestion was made to implement a demo-mode so that the warnings can be shown while the car stands still. This would especially have the advantage to see how the haptic signals work. Some participants criticised the fact that different car manufacturers develop different systems but with the same aim. Some of the systems brake automatically while others give warnings or use different acoustic signals. It is important that all manufacturers develop one system because in the end the many different systems are a problem for the customers as they have to adapt every time they change to another car. Some recommendations were made regarding the different types of warnings: all situations should be treated equally and therefore the acoustic warning should come in all situations. Furthermore, the situations could be divided due to their potential danger. The system should only give a gentle sound in the beginning when the situation is not critical, but as soon as it becomes unsafe, there should be a loud signal. Other stimuli, like the phone or radio should be turned off when the warning comes so that it is sure that the driver receives the warning. Some participants would appreciate if different parts of the system could be turned off and they could choose to use the systems which they want to use. Only one display should be used so one does not have to move eyes between the navigation display and the display of the warning system. While almost all participants had the opinion that the system would decrease the risk to be involved in an accident on motorways and rural roads „only“ two third agreed (totally) that the system would decrease the accident risk on urban roads. The participants thought comfort would mostly be enhanced on motorways followed by rural roads and urban roads. The disagreement with the statement was highest for urban roads. Some participants were undecided if the system would enhance their comfort on rural roads and motorways or even disagreed with the statement for this type of roads. More than three-fourth thought that they would use the system almost all the time on motorways. Almost two-thirds thought they would use it between 80 and 100% of the time on rural roads while “only” one third thought they would use it almost all the time in urban areas. Fifteen participants (more than three-fourth) would be willing to pay more than 500 Euros to implement the system in their car. Six participants would pay between 750 and 1.000 Euros and one participant would pay even more than 1.000 Euros. Three participants stated that they would pay between 250 and 500 Euros and one participant stated that he/she would not be willing to spend more than 250 Euros on the system. Eighteen participants stated that they would recommend the system to a friend.
|
|
| 7. |
- Kaufmann, Clemens, et al.
(författare)
-
User related assessment of Enhanced Dynamic Pass Predictor (BMW)
- 2013
-
Rapport (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- 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 naïve 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 mean to spend more time for the drivers to check the different systems and therefore would have their eyes less time on the road. Also, a concern was mentioned that two different systems might give contradictory information to the driver which would confuse the driver and would lead to not trusting the system anymore. A concern was stated that drivers might follow the system information blindly and will not check the situation on their own. Being unsure if the system is updated all the time, it would be necessary for the driver to check every time if it is possible to overtake or not, but it was doubted by the participants that every driver will do this. The questionnaire answers revealed the following: While the great majority of the participants had the opinion that the system would decrease the risk to be involved in an accident on rural roads, only two participants agreed (totally) that the system would decrease the risk of an accident on motorways or on urban roads while almost all other participants disagreed with this statement. The participants thought that the comfort will be mostly enhanced on rural roads (more than three-fourth agreed) and four participants undecided. The disagreement with the statement was highest for motorways (two thirds disagreed) and urban roads (three-fourth disagreed). Almost half of the participants thought that they would use the system almost every time on rural roads, while one-third stated that they would use the system 40-60% of their driving time on rural roads. A different picture was shown again regarding motorways and urban roads. Only two participants thought they would use the system more than 20% of the driving time on urban roads, while all others stated that they would hardly use the system on such roads. Similarly to that, three-fourth of the participants stated that they would hardly use the system on motorways, while two participants mentioned that they would use it 20-40% of their driving time and one participant each 40-60% and 80-100%. Eleven participants (more than two-third) stated that they would only be willing to pay 250 Euros to implement the system in their car. Three participants would pay between 250 and 500 and two participants would pay between 250 and 500 Euros. One participant stated that he/she would not be willing to spend any money on the system. Two third of the participants stated that they would recommend the system to a friend.
|
|
| 8. |
- Larsson, Pontus, et al.
(författare)
-
Test and evaluation plans
- 2012
-
Rapport (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- 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).
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
- Willemsen, Dehlia, et al.
(författare)
-
Specifications of the Evaluation Framework.
- 2011
-
Rapport (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- 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.
|
|
