Counterfactual simulations applied to SHRP2 crashes: The effect of driver behavior models on safety benefit estimations of intelligent safety systems.

As the development and deployment of in-vehicle intelligent safety systems (ISS) for crash avoidance and mitigation have rapidly increased in the last decades, the need to evaluate their prospective safety benefits before introduction has never been higher. Counterfactual simulations using relevant mathematical models (for vehicle dynamics, sensors, the environment, ISS algorithms, and models of driver behavior) have been identified as having high potential. However, although most of these models are relatively mature, models of driver behavior in the critical seconds before a crash are still relatively immature. There are also large conceptual differences between different driver models. The objective of this paper is, firstly, to demonstrate the importance of the choice of driver model when counterfactual simulations are used to evaluate two ISS: Forward collision warning (FCW), and autonomous emergency braking (AEB). Secondly, the paper demonstrates how counterfactual simulations can be used to perform sensitivity analyses on parameter settings, both for driver behavior and ISS algorithms. Finally, the paper evaluates the effect of the choice of glance distribution in the driver behavior model on the safety benefit estimation. The paper uses pre-crash kinematics and driver behavior from 34 rear-end crashes from the SHRP2 naturalistic driving study for the demonstrations. The results for FCW show a large difference in the percent of avoided crashes between conceptually different models of driver behavior, while differences were small for conceptually similar models. As expected, the choice of model of driver behavior did not affect AEB benefit much. Based on our results, researchers and others who aim to evaluate ISS with the driver in the loop through counterfactual simulations should be sure to make deliberate and well-grounded choices of driver models: the choice of model matters.

[1]  Hrafnhildur Hekla Eiríksdóttir Quantitative analysis of rear-end crash causation mechanisms based on naturalistic crash data , 2016 .

[2]  Rebecca L Olson,et al.  Distraction in Commercial Trucks and Buses: Assessing Prevalence and Risk in Conjunction with Crashes and Near-Crashes , 2009 .

[3]  David L. Strayer,et al.  Driven to Distraction , 2015, Hum. Factors.

[4]  Hampton C Gabler,et al.  Evaluation of the Accuracy of NASS/CDS Delta-V Estimates from the Enhanced WinSmash Algorithm. , 2010, Annals of advances in automotive medicine. Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine. Annual Scientific Conference.

[5]  Marco Dozza,et al.  How does glance behavior influence crash and injury risk? A ‘what-if’ counterfactual simulation using crashes and near-crashes from SHRP2 , 2015 .

[6]  Martin Fränzle,et al.  A comprehensive and harmonized method for assessing the effectiveness of advanced driver assistance systems by virtual simulation: The P.E.A.R.S , 2015 .

[7]  Emma Tivesten,et al.  A Method for Estimating the Benefit of Autonomous Braking Systems Using Traffic Accident Data , 2006 .

[8]  Anders Kullgren,et al.  Dose-response models and edr data for assessment of injury risk and effectiveness of safety systems , 2008 .

[9]  T. Dingus,et al.  Distracted driving and risk of road crashes among novice and experienced drivers. , 2014, The New England journal of medicine.

[10]  Lars Danielsson,et al.  Tracking and radar sensor modelling for automotive safety systems , 2010 .

[11]  Ola Benderius,et al.  Modelling driver steering and neuromuscular behaviour , 2014 .

[12]  Hampton C. Gabler,et al.  ESTIMATING CRASH SEVERITY: CAN EVENT DATA RECORDERS REPLACE CRASH RECONSTRUCTION? , 2003 .

[13]  Kip Smith,et al.  Using Manual Measurements on Event Recorder Video and Image Processing Algorithms to Extract Optical Parameters and Range , 2017 .

[14]  Daniel V. McGehee,et al.  Using Naturalistic Driving Data toAssess the Prevalence of EnvironmentalFactors and Driver Behaviors in TeenDriver Crashes , 2015 .

[15]  Gustav Markkula,et al.  Driver behavior models for evaluating automotive active safety: From neural dynamics to vehicle dynamics , 2015 .

[16]  Jonathan M Hankey,et al.  A method for evaluating collision avoidance systems using naturalistic driving data. , 2008, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[17]  Mark Western,et al.  Expecting the unexpected , 2012 .

[18]  Marco Dozza,et al.  Drivers anticipate lead-vehicle conflicts during automated longitudinal control: Sensory cues capture driver attention and promote appropriate and timely responses. , 2016, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[19]  I. White,et al.  Review of inverse probability weighting for dealing with missing data , 2013, Statistical methods in medical research.

[20]  J. G. Hollands,et al.  Engineering Psychology and Human Performance , 1984 .

[21]  E. Coelingh,et al.  A situation and threat assessment algorithm for a rear-end collision avoidance system , 2008, 2008 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium.

[22]  Hampton C. Gabler,et al.  Safety Benefits of Forward Collision Warning, Brake Assist, and Autonomous Braking Systems in Rear-End Collisions , 2012, IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems.

[23]  Marco Dozza,et al.  Driving context and visual-manual phone tasks influence glance behavior in naturalistic driving , 2014 .

[24]  Wassim G. Najm,et al.  Pre-Crash Scenario Typology for Crash Avoidance Research , 2007 .

[25]  Marc Green,et al.  "How Long Does It Take to Stop?" Methodological Analysis of Driver Perception-Brake Times , 2000 .

[26]  Johan Engström,et al.  Analysis of the role of inattention in road crashes based on naturalistic on-board safety monitoring data , 2013 .

[27]  Matthias Althoff,et al.  Comparison of Markov Chain Abstraction and Monte Carlo Simulation for the Safety Assessment of Autonomous Cars , 2011, IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems.

[28]  Marco Dozza,et al.  Analysis of Naturalistic Driving Study Data: Safer Glances, Driver Inattention, and Crash Risk , 2014 .

[29]  James R. Sayer,et al.  Integrated vehicle-based safety systems heavy-truck field operational test key findings report , 2010 .

[30]  John M. Scanlon,et al.  Using Event Data Recorders from Real-World Crashes to Investigate the Earliest Detection Opportunity for an Intersection Advanced Driver Assistance System , 2016 .

[31]  A Lie,et al.  Effectiveness of low speed autonomous emergency braking in real-world rear-end crashes. , 2015, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[32]  Irene Isaksson-Hellman,et al.  The effect of a low-speed automatic brake system estimated from real life data. , 2012, Annals of advances in automotive medicine. Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine. Annual Scientific Conference.

[33]  John Hourdos,et al.  Outline for a causal model of traffic conflicts and crashes. , 2011, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[34]  Lotta Jakobsson,et al.  City Safety - A System Addressing Rear-End Collisions at Low Speeds , 2009 .

[35]  Gustav Markkula,et al.  A farewell to brake reaction times? Kinematics-dependent brake response in naturalistic rear-end emergencies. , 2016, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[36]  David N. Lee,et al.  A Theory of Visual Control of Braking Based on Information about Time-to-Collision , 1976, Perception.

[37]  Anders Kullgren,et al.  COMBINING CRASH RECORDER AND PAIRED COMPARISON TECHNIQUE: INJURY RISK FUNCTIONS IN FRONTAL AND REAR IMPACTS WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO NECK INJURIES , 2003 .

[38]  Rune Elvik,et al.  The Handbook of Road Safety Measures , 2009 .

[39]  Krister Wolff,et al.  A Review of Near-Collision Driver Behavior Models , 2012, Hum. Factors.

[40]  Richard Bishop,et al.  Intelligent Vehicle Technology and Trends , 2005 .