• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Session 61 Kkatja Kircher

Session 61 Kkatja Kircher






Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



0 Embeds 0

No embeds



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Session 61 Kkatja Kircher Session 61 Kkatja Kircher Presentation Transcript

    • Chalmers University of Technology Field Operational Tests –From Data Collection to Analysis With Focus on Distraction Katja Kircher, Chalmers Foto: Tedd Soost
    • Chalmers University of Technology FOT – a Hot Topic• In Sweden and Europe now many FOTs underway• Netherlands: Roads to the Future (ACC & LDW; 20 cars, 5 months, finished 2006???); LDWA FOT (35 trucks 1 coach, LDW)• Sweden: ISA, TSS-FOT, SeMiFOT, (Distraction Project)• EU: euroFOT, TeleFOT
    • Chalmers University of Technology In the US• completed (examples) – UMTRI (ACAS FOT, RDCW FOT) – Volvo FOT, Drowsy Driver Warning System FOT• ongoing (examples) – IVBSS, CICAS-V, SafeTrip 21 – (naturalistic driving: 100 car; SHRPII)
    • Chalmers University of Technology Evaluated Functions comfort systems decreasing activity frequency• ACC activity• ISA• Lane Change/Merge• LDW, CSW (RDCW) criticality• Drowsy Driver Warning• FCW (IVBSS) ”event” warning systems increasing criticality
    • Chalmers University of Technology Driver State• So far not often a main factor in FOTs (except Drowsy Driver Warning System FOT, VTTI).• However, FOT and naturalistic driving (ND) data useful to answer driver state questions (e. g. prevalence in different situations)
    • Chalmers University of TechnologyDriver State• Intoxication• Drowsiness• Distraction• Illness• Stress and Foto: Tedd Soost other ”mental states”
    • Chalmers University of TechnologyDriver State – Possible Questions• prevalence during different situations/ events• possible to warn before critical events occur?• effect of warnings?• general change of behaviour?• long-term effects, e. g. system abuse• validation of simulator/test track findings
    • Chalmers University of Technology Driver State – FOT Difficulties• not easy to log in real time (necessary to give real time warnings/info)• not even easy to log reliably at all (e. g. stress, intoxication, …)
    • Chalmers University of Technology FOT and Distraction• Visual distraction accessible via eye trackers (gaze direction), which by now are mature enough for field use• Distraction quite common in everyday driving (reasonable FOT duration enough)• Distraction difficult to ”provoke naturally” somewhere else than in field (FOT method of choice)
    • Chalmers University of Technology FOT and Drowsiness• Drowsiness accessible via eye trackers (blink behaviour), which by now are mature enough for field use• Drowsiness not so common in everyday driving (FOT duration? Special driver selection?)• Drowsiness in field/natural environ- ment qualitatively different than ”forced drowsiness” in simulators?
    • Chalmers University of Technology FOT for Studies of Driver State• + natural environment• + long-term observation of behaviour (adaptation)• + prevalence data obtainable• - not easy to collect data (sensors)
    • Chalmers University of Technology General FOT issues• ethical issues (integrity, data access)• legal issues (filming, data access)• logistics issues (data collection, upload, back-up)• analysis issues (retrieving relevant info, data loss, statistics)
    • Chalmers University of Technology