| 1. |
- 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.
|
|
| 2. |
- 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.
|
|
| 3. |
- 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.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Varhelyi, Andras, et al.
(författare)
-
User related assessment of Continuous Support & Curve Speed Control (CRF)
- 2013
-
Rapport (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- The aim of the user related assessment is to evaluate the effects on driver behaviour, reactions to and acceptance of the driver assistance system: Continuous Support (CS) function developed by CRF within the framework of SECONDS subproject. The CS function continuously evaluates the status of the host vehicle as well as the surrounding traffic based on the information of the on-board sensors. When the CS function detects a hazard, the function issues a warning to the driver. The warning status increases continuously depending on the degree of the hazard (at higher degree of hazard also sounds and active feedbacks are activated in the safety belt). The CS function provides the following warning to the driver: - In a situation with the actual speed above the speed limit, the display shows the speed limit icon. - In a situation with too high speed when approaching a curve, as pre-warning, the visual display shows a yellow curve; as imminent warning, the display shows a red curve icon, alarm sound is activated and the safety belt is tensioned. - In a situation with risk for a forward collision, as pre-warning, the display shows a yellow obstacle icon; as imminent warning, the display shows a red obstacle icon, alarm sound is activated and the safety belt is tensioned. - In a situation with a vehicle in the blind spot, as pre-warning, the display shows a yellow blind-spot obstacle icon; as imminent warning, the display shows a red blind-spot obstacle icon. Twenty four persons (13 males and 11 females) - employees at CRF (persons not directly involved in the interactIVe project) took part in the test drives. The test drivers drove twice along the test route of an approximate length of 53 km, containing rural road and motorway sections. The order of driving was balanced in such a way that every other subject drove first with the system switched off and then with the system switched on. For the following subject the order of driving was reversed. The test vehicle was equipped with logging facilities and a number of variables were logged. The test drivers were observed by means of an in-car observation method (Wiener Fahrprobe) by two observers, riding along in the car with the driver, where one of the observers (called the coding observer) studies standardised variables such as speed behaviour, yielding behaviour, lane changes and interaction with other road users. The other observer carries out ‘‘free observations’’ such as conflicts, communication and special events that are hard to predict, let alone to standardise. Questionnaires were used to assess the drivers’ comprehension of and experiences with the system, their subjective workload, the usefulness and satisfaction of the system, perceived benefits of the system, as well as willingness to have and pay for the system. The findings revealed that the test drivers did not alter their general speed behaviour when driving with the system compared to driving without the system, see Table S.1. It has to be mentioned, that the speed warnings frequently displayed erroneous speed limits at some parts of the route, which also was commented by the test drivers. The legal speed limit was equal to the speed limit indicated by the system of approximately 60% of the route length. The speed limit reported by the system was over the legal speed limit along 28% of the route, and below the legal speed limit along 10% of the route. There was no change in the number or in the length of speed warnings when driving without and with the system. The profiles of speeds and accelerations before and after a forward collision warning was triggered illustrate, that when the warning was issued, the driver had already started to decrease the speed. This indicates that the warning was issued too late to have any effect on the driver. Consequently, driver reaction time to the warning could not be analysed. Due to curve speed warnings, the test drivers passed the roundabout with a statistically significantly (p<=0.05) lower speed when driving with the system. There was some tendency for increased number and length of forward collision warnings when driving with the system, but the difference was statistically not significant (p=0.5). There was no difference either in the number or in the length of the side collision warnings neither form left or right when driving without and with the system. Driving too fast according to the situation and/or the speed limits was observed statistically significantly less often during the rides with the system active. Driving too far to the right side and dangerous lane changes were observed statistically significantly less often on the rides with the system active. The test persons chose a wrong lane when driving through an intersection or roundabout less frequently, when driving with the system active. On the negative side, it can be noted that slightly more late adaptations of speed before intersections and obstacles were observed while driving with the system. Statistically significantly more errors regarding dangerous distance to the side were observed with the system active. Only during driving with the system active it was observed that the test persons turned with too high speed. No major differences were found regarding speed choice when driving with or without the system. The test persons drove over the speed limit (on rural roads and on highways) on both rides. Also, the test persons drove too fast through curves and approached a roundabout or drove through it too fast, as well as they accelerated before leaving the roundabout to the same extent on both rides. Bad adaptation of speed before intersections and obstacles, driving too slowly, incorrect lane choice before intersections and sticking to own priority was observed in equal numbers on both rides, with and without the system. No statistically significant differences between the two rides could be shown regarding dangerous distance keeping to the vehicle in front, illegal or aborted overtaking manoeuvres, correct indicating behaviour, driving too far to the left or drifting or crossing the solid line, late or hesitant lane change before an intersection, crossing a stop line at intersections or roundabouts, driving against yellow at a traffic light, yield behaviour and ignoring pedestrians/cyclists. Regarding interaction behaviour with other road users, hardly any differences could be observed. Situations on both rides were noted where the test persons either made errors in the interaction processes or showed respectful behaviour towards other road users. On both rides, situations were observed in which the test persons did not choose the correct speed, drove without foresight or too close to other road users, showed unclear behaviour to other road users or did not behave correctly in overtaking manoeuvres. The test persons also showed respectful behaviour towards other road users on both rides by giving way in different situations or adapted their speed and lateral position well.
|
|
| 6. |
- Varhelyi, Andras, et al.
(författare)
-
User-related Assessment of the Highway Automation System of VW
- 2017
-
Rapport (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- The aim of the user-related assessment was to evaluate the effects on driver behaviour, experiences, reactions, expected effects and acceptance of the Highway Automation” system, developed by VW in sub-project 6 of the AdaptIVe IP. The driving functions were developed as level 3 (conditional automation) functions so the driver does not have to monitor the system while driving. The system provides the following driving functions: following lane and lead vehicle, stop & go driving, lane change and overtaking.Twenty seven persons (12 males and 15 females) drove twice along the test route of approximately 95 km motorway sections, once with the system switched off and once with the system switched on. The order of driving was balanced in such a way that every other subject drove first with the system switched off and then with the system switched on. For the following subject, the order of driving was reversed. During the test rides, driving data was logged and driving behaviour was observed by two observers in the car. After the first drive, the drivers answered a short workload questionnaire and after the second drive, a more comprehensive questionnaire was filled out. The questionnaire covered issues, such as subjective workload, understanding the system, trust, usability, usefulness, satisfaction, HMI issues, experienced effects, expected benefits, expected usage, and willingness to pay.The results showed that the drivers used the system as intended. The system was used in almost all situations when it offered to drive automatically, nevertheless, some situations were observed in which the driver took over from the system because he/she got impatient with the system (e.g. long overtaking process, early preparation for exiting the motorway), or he/she or the safety driver had to react in a critical situation. Basically, the drivers did not interfere with the system settings. Only in situations in which the system did not recognise the change of the speed limit (variable overhead signs) they had to manually adapt to the speed limit.The system received both positive and negative comments. On the positive side, correct driving with regard to distance and speed, enhanced comfort and possible time “earnings” were mentioned. On the negative side, the participants took up the system failures (not or wrongly recognised vehicles, traffic signs or road markings), the reckless behaviour of the system (not letting others to merge to the motorway), problems while overtaking due to the system limitation to 130 km/h. Also, due to these issues some test persons felt more stressed while driving with the system. For some, this was okay, for others the system could have driven faster (especially in some situations where a higher acceleration would have been an advantage). Also, the setting that the system was driving 10 km/h over the actual speed limit was commented in both ways. For some participants, this was totally fine, while others did not agree with this setting and were wondering why it was sat in that way.
|
|
