Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Speed regulation systems evaluation the eurofot example

1,500 views

Published on

Talk made during Transportation Research Arena 2014 (Paris). This talk present the lessons learned by the French team during the first Large Scale Field Operational Test in Europe (EuroFOT).

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Speed regulation systems evaluation the eurofot example

  1. 1. Impact evaluation of speed regulation systems using naturalistic driving data: The EuroFOT example. Saint Pierre, Guillaume, IFSTTAR, France Tattegrain, Hélène, IFSTTAR, France Val, Clément, CEESAR, France * guillaume.saintpierre@ifsttar.fr STS N°48 TRA2014 Paris 14-17 avril 2014
  2. 2. Saint Pierre G., Tattegrain H., Val C. Introduction  Increasing penetration of driving assistance systems  Needs to measure theirs impacts during real uses  Several projects launched recently (FP7 funded) Field operational tests (FOT) FESTA methodology Naturalistic driving data  Many challenges were adressed, and many lessons learned  Let’s come back to the french EuroFOT experience The first large scale FOT, ended in 2012 STS N°48 TRA2014 Paris 14-17 avril 2014 2
  3. 3. Saint Pierre G., Tattegrain H., Val C.
  4. 4. Saint Pierre G., Tattegrain H., Val C. EuroFOT in France  VMC handled by CEESAR • 35 drivers using their own car in the west of Paris, during 6 months • Light instrumentation  5 identical cars replaced the subject ones three times  Full instrumentation (incl. Video)  545 000 km of data analysed STS N°48 TRA2014 Paris 14-17 avril 2014 4 Low Level High Level Vehicles used 35 drivers’ owned vehicles. 5 vehicles owned by CEESAR and loaned to participants CTAG datalogger 2 Max 4 CAN Channels GPS GPRS data transfer ● 2 channels used ● ● ● 4 channels used ● (not used : manual transfer) TRW AC20 radar (not part of standard vehicle equipment) ● ● VideoLogger (custom made for CEESAR, H.264) ● Cameras (B&W, SuperHAD Exview) 4 Mobileye AWS (added, with special firmware) ● Smarteye Eyetracker ●
  5. 5. Saint Pierre G., Tattegrain H., Val C. Experimental design  Dream  Reality STS N°48 TRA2014 Paris 14-17 avril 2014 5  Questionnaires were administred 4 times  Rotation of fully equiped vehicules among participants Month 1 Month 2 Month 3 Month 4 Month 5 Month 6 Month 7 Month 8 Month 9 Month 10 Month 11 Month 12 Baseline Treatment Treatment Screening, Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 (a) Time 3 (b) Time 4, Debriefing
  6. 6. Saint Pierre G., Tattegrain H., Val C. Lessons learned (1)  Recruitment needs car owners database acces to be efficient  GPRS data transfert problematic, consider UMTS instead,  Simplify experimental plan NDS style « instrument and forget » STS N°48 TRA2014 Paris 14-17 avril 2014 6
  7. 7. Saint Pierre G., Tattegrain H., Val C. Some issues for ND data  Data reduction • Reduce or aggregate continuous data to a significant level  Data modelling • Avoid comparisons between heterogeneous datasets • Control for exposure • Take into account the intrinsic correlation present in the data (repeated measures framework)  Deal with rare events • Post processing detection of “safety related events”  Results extrapolation • Transform events based analyses into casualties reduction STS N°48 TRA2014 Paris 14-17 avril 2014 7
  8. 8. Saint Pierre G., Tattegrain H., Val C. EuroFOT « solutions »  Data reduction  Identify homogeneous sections of data  Split sections in identical time epochs (10-30 sec.)  Data modelling  Use suitable statistical models (GEE, GLMM, instead of ANOVA)  Produce Odds ratios results  Deal with rare events  Automatically detect candidates events (triggers, system use etc...)  Confirm identification by video + Annotation  Extract corresponding baseline and do some stats...  Results extrapolation  Speed & Accidents relationships STS N°48 TRA2014 Paris 14-17 avril 2014 8
  9. 9. Saint Pierre G., Tattegrain H., Val C. Key results Behavior, acceptance, usage  CC usage does not vary significantly over time.  SL usage does not vary significantly over time.  Drivers tend to use more one of the two systems.  CC usage favorable driving conditions  SL usage adverse conditions (ex. Night) STS N° TRA2014 Paris 14-17 avril 2014 9
  10. 10. Saint Pierre G., Tattegrain H., Val C. Safety: Events based analysis STS N° TRA2014 Paris 14-17 avril 2014 10  Safety events are rare: Odds ratios can be interpreted as relative risk  SL associated with less frequent safety related events (SRE)  CC associated with less SRE, except over-speeding
  11. 11. Saint Pierre G., Tattegrain H., Val C. Lessons learned (2)  Baseline selection/definition for each RQ hypothesis is crucial Needs to control for external factors (traffic, visibility)  A data aggregation method is needed It has an impact on the analysis  Scaling up proove to be very difficult Various methods tried during FOTs None is perfect  Events based analysis (EBA) applicable to any system which impact is related to the occurrence of this event STS N°48 TRA2014 Paris 14-17 avril 2014 11
  12. 12. Saint Pierre G., Tattegrain H., Val C. Conclusion & recommendations for future FOT  Why using NDS ?  To get precise estimates of safety related events frequency (with/without system)  Identify systems usage context  Identify systems misuses and potential countermeasures  Limitations  Difficult to get a representative panel  Very hard to extrapolate to casualties reductions  Further works  Identify important measures for road safety  Increase panel size and representativity  Define/quantify safety critical events STS N°48 TRA2014 Paris 14-17 avril 2014 12
  13. 13. Saint Pierre G., Tattegrain H., Val C.STS N°48 TRA2014 Paris 14-17 avril 2014 13 Thank you for your attention Guillaume SAINT PIERRE Guillaume.saintpierre@ifsttar.fr COSYS/LIVIC Components & systems department Interaction vehicles/drivers/infrastructure research unit

×