Session 22 Trent Victor


Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Session 22 Trent Victor

  1. 1. - some preliminary project results Trent Victor SAFER and Volvo Technology 2009-01-08
  2. 2. Background
  3. 3. Background Motivations• What causes accidents? – Greatly increased knowledge of driver behavior, ”the Human Factor”, as a contributor to crashes. – Study how driver interacts with vehicle, safety systems, road, traffic, weather, etc• What can we do about them? – Evaluation of new technology (e.g. active safety systems) – Development of new technology and countermeasures based on the findings – How to improve crash-avoidance behaviors“Naturalistic driving studies are defined as those undertaken using unobtrusive observationor with observation taking place in a natural setting” (Dingus, et al. 2006).Field Operational Tests are defined as “a study undertaken to evaluate a function, orfunctions, under normal operating conditions in environments typically encountered by thehost vehicle(s) using quasi-experimental methods” (FESTA, 2008)Naturalistic Field Operational Tests combine both – this is the focus of SAFERs partners
  4. 4. Naturalistic driving (ND) data collection - Natural driving, no special instructions, own vehicles, no experimenter present, unobtrusive data collection instrumentation… is used to Driver Factors Crash Risk - Permanent: Age, Experience, Style… - Relative risk, Population attributable - Transient: Drunk, Tired, Distracted… risk… assess theDVE Factors Vehicle Factors relationship Driver Behavior - Permanent: Vehicle type, Spec… between - Control behavior (lat, long), Attention, -Transient: Active Safety, Nomadic Dev… Decisions, Usage/adoption, Event involvement… Environment Factors Countermeasure effectiveness - Permanent: Speeds, Road type… - Active Safety, Road treatments, etc - Transient: Weather, Lighting… “Naturalistic driving (ND) data collection is used to assess the relationship of (permanent and transient) Driver-Vehicle-Environment (DVE) factors with crash risk, driving behavior, and countermeasure effectiveness.” Naturalistic Field Operational Tests
  5. 5. UMTRI: FCW UMTRI: LDW Japan1: Crossing RoadJapan2: Frontal Collision Japan3: Drowsiness Japan4: Near miss VTTI: 100-Car study SAFER: TSS FOT
  6. 6. Lane position Lane exceedence20 Steering angle Eyes on road Eyes off road 0 Lamp pole Inform Warn Warn Act here? here? here? here?-20 t
  7. 7. Collision Front O Directly Safety Related: Crash Near CrashTime to Longitudinal Collision Incident Indirectly Safety Related: Events of Interest Infinity Undisturbed Passages X Crash avoidance Collision Back behaviors O O Infinity O Collision Left Time to Lateral Collision Collision Right
  8. 8. Event of relevance for research (e.g. Accidentology) Event of relevance for evaluation of Safey System X Fatal Crashes as defined in databases Injury (police/ambulance-reported) (light/moderate/severe) Crashes as defined in the 15 100-Car study Police-Reported Property Damage Only Non-police-reported Property Damage Only 5 x police-reported (PR) Crashes Non-police-reported Physical contact or tire strike 67 50 x PR crashes X Near crash 761 stemFOT/NDS 550 x PR ty sy Incidents crashes 8295 Safe Events of interest Exposure/occurancy
  9. 9. SHRP2 (USA)• Extensive observations of driving • Representative sample of crash behavior data and near-crash data• >2500 cars for 2 yrs • Databases available for “the next generation of traffic safety• Active Safety subset of 500 cars… researchers” 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Track 1: In-Vehicle Study Study S06: Technical Coordination and Independent Quality Assurance forDesign & S05: Design of the In-Vehicle Driving Behavior Field Study--$3MField Data and Crash Risk Study--$3MCollection S07: In-Vehicle Driving Behavior Field Study--$28M S03: Roadway Roadway Measurement System S04: Acquisition of Roadway Information--$3.5M Data Evaluation $0.5M S01: Development of Analysis Methods Using S08: Analysis of In-Vehicle Field Study Data and Analysis Recent Data--$1.5M (multiple Countermeasure Implications--$4M awards, two phases) (multiple awards, different letting schedules) S02: Integrate Methods and Develop Analysis Plan--$0.5M S11: Analysis of Site-Based Field Study Data and Countermeasure Implications--$2MTrack 2: Site-Based Study (contingent project) Study S10: Design and Conduct of the Site-BasedDesign & S09: Site-Based Video System Design Field Study--$11MField Data and Development--$1M (contingent project)Collection Revised December 2007
  10. 10. Consumer SystemsRisk management systems Japanese systems (for e.g. fleets, parents) (insurance-driven - taxi, fleet) Pay-as-you-drive Remote diagnostics (insurance-driven) and fleet management
  11. 11. Field Operational Test (FOT) start-up at SAFER Europe FESTA EuroFOT (150*) FOTNet INTEND Methodology Impacts Coordination Methodology Establish BASFOT SAFER FOT Competence build-up TSSFOT (2*) Sweden Methodology SeMiFOT (18*) Methodology USA UMTRI UMTRI SHRP2 2006 (3MSEK) 2007 2008 (100MSEK)Competence Project Proposal * Swedish vehicles
  12. 12. • Part of Sweden-Michigan partnership agreement• Main Goals: – to further develop the Naturalistic FOT method into a powerful tool for a) Accidentology b) Evaluation of safety, efficiency, and usage & acceptance c) Countermeasure innovation and development• 18 vehicles in Sweden and 2 vehicles in USA, ca 6 months data collection, duration Jan 2008-June 2009
  13. 13. WP2 – Methodology and FOT Design
  14. 14. WP2 – Methodology and FOT Design• Identification of function and vehicles – The selection of systems is more guided by what systems are available and what systems the manufacturers wanted to include in this project – On-market vehicle-integrated systems and one after market system• Definition of objectives, hypotheses, and performance indicators for each function – Next slides• Specification of experimental procedures – FESTA Handbook – Study plan was submitted for ethical review – Data and personal integrity, data ownership and sharing, much more complicated and multi-faceted than assumed. Many legal issues, e.g. responsible for filming. Decision from ethical committee in Gothenburg – this study does not need ethical approval. – Flexibility in experimental procedures is rather constrained by practical issues, OEM, and safety requirements – Vehicles and drivers selected from manufacturers or manufacturer-associated companies – Primary car drivers (and family members) vs truck drivers – Comparable scenarios in the baseline data, when the function is turned off, and in the treatment data, when the function is turned on. Changes over time. – AB design, no baseline for some functions (e.g. ESC) – a relatively large number of questionnaires
  15. 15. y l og nto i de S A cc A CC LD W B LI FCW E SC IW CR-Events-Prevented AnalysisSafety -””What-if” no system acted?” analysis Crash-Relevent Event Analysis 25 45 5 50 65 10 315 -Multiple regression etc, relating 115 (40%) Precursor, Outcome, Mediating factorsAcceptance Usage Attention Visual Behavior Analysis -Glance behavior ”function”, Distraction 45 75 35 30 75 0 30 290 events (37%) Usage Analysis -Quantify usage in select situations 19 59 4 4 19 4 109 (14%) Acceptance Analysis -Quantify acceptance, relate to usage 11 41 6 6 2 0 66 (8%) 160 130 180 45 135 86 44 780 (21%) (17%) (23%) (6%) (17%) (11%) (6%) (100%)
  16. 16. Hypothesis example (ACC)
  17. 17. Conclusions on Hypothesis Prioritizations• Safety and Attention analyses should be prioritized as they received 77% of the prioritization points, whereas the Usage and Acceptance analyses received 22%.• LDW, Accidentology, ACC, and FCW should be the prioritized applications of the analysis.• Further prioritizations: – Within Safety analyses, prioritize analysis of crash-relevant events (i.e. kinematic- and system triggers) – Within Attention analyses, prioritize analysis of eyetracker data in selected situations – Within Usage analyses, prioritize analysis of usage for the LDW, ACC, and ESC functions. – Within Acceptance analyses, prioritize analysis of acceptance questionnaires.
  18. 18. WP3 – Data Management
  19. 19. Virginia Tech Naturalistic Driving Equipment (SHRPII study) 2600 vehicles!! Presentation by Tom Dingus as SHRP 2 Safety Research Symposium, July 17-18,2008, Washington, DC
  20. 20. Virginia Tech Naturalistic FOT Equipment (100-car study)
  21. 21. UMTRI Naturalistic FOT Equipment
  22. 22. SAFER Data Acquisition System Extra ”external” sensors Accelerometers Eyetrackers – SeeingMachines/SmartEye (13units total) Lanetracker/ForwardDistVel – MobilEye (15 units) Tw GPS (1 Hz) dat o diffe sys a acq rent eva tePC ustio m lua s n CAN ted Steering Wheel Angle Turn Indicator Gear Level Position Accelerations Etc ….. Hard Video (Analogue) drives 6 Cameras in total
  23. 23. Data Collection and Storage Technologies
  24. 24. Database and Storage• Very large data volumes!• SeMiFOT: Data – Video: 8 Terabyte – Data: 1 Terabyte Video• euroFOT (Sweden only): – Video: 50-100 Terabyte – Data: 6 Terabyte
  25. 25. Analysis tools– Direct database use/searching Data– Event identification– Synchronized data with video Video– Easy manual and automatic annotations [Show video]
  26. 26. WP4 – Vehicle and Test Management
  27. 27. Current status:• 3 VTEC – 2 trucks running• 3 SAAB – 2 cars running• 4 SCANIA – currently installing• 8 VCC-6-7 cars running with TSS-FOT loggerSome aspects:• Installation and verification• Pickup of data in vehicles• On-line quality control• Hotline and support organization• Data uploading
  28. 28. WP5 – Evaluation of Methodology
  29. 29. WP5 – Evaluation of Methodology• Consultations with UMTRI, SHRP2, Guest researcher visit from IOWA (SHRP2 Analysis), FESTA, FOT-NET, EuroFOT• Daunting, complex task but there are some true opportunities, e.g. eyetracker data, events- prevented analyses, etc.
  30. 30. Collaboration with SHRP2SHRP2 is within the Transportation Research Board (TRB) of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS)1. SeMiFOT as a collaboration probect with SHRP2 – Loan staff visit to SHRP2, Technical Expert Group participation2. Memorandum of Understanding regarding information exchange between NAS (TRB) and Sweden (SRA and VINNOVA for SAFER) Return visit by SHRP2 to Sweden in Feb/March
  31. 31. Conclusions• Ongoing project, new methods and technology are being developed for the first time in Europe. Has more of a methods development character.• Has given Sweden and SAFER partners a leading position in EU and internationally• Good collaboration with Michigan (UMTRI)• Complex project in many regards
  32. 32. Borderless research to save lives
  33. 33. Method Chain in Relation to NDS & FOT Experimental Collection Analysis Design Phase Phase Phase NDS Low Naturalistic Driving Studies Different Analysis Goals Naturalistic (NDS) Driving StudiesLevel of experimental control (NDS) FOTs Naturalistic FOT Naturalistic Tools FOT Other FOTs Other e.g. test routes FOTs High
  34. 34. Naturalistic Methodology in Relation to Existing Methods Aggregated data of Pre-Crash behaviour, initiated by Crash Events (e.g. questionnaires) In-depth studies of Pre-Crash behaviour, initiated by Crash Events (e.g. on-site investigations and interviews) Enabled by new data collection technologyNaturalistic Methodology – Objective longitudinal data (high km), large number of cases, unobtrusive instrumentation, no experimenter present, driving their own vehicles, tens to thousands of vehicles, etc Experimental Field Studies – low km, short time-scale,Experimental control, specific routes, few cases, ca. (1-10 cars) etc Experimental Lab-, Simulator-, and Test Track Studies
  35. 35. Factors Influencing Choice of Objectives1. Opportunities • Study new issues, develop innovative methods,2. Resources • Time (hrs and calendar) • People with the right competence3. Diverging partner interests • Especially OEM constraints (e.g. y-data)4. Data reduction limitations • Ease of implementation limited by technology, difficulty of Performance Indicator calculation etc, manual data-reduction