Safety Assessment of Driver Assistance Systems

This paper reviews issues in and procedures for the safety evaluation of in-vehicle Advanced Driver Assistance Systems. Contrasts are drawn between the two main areas of driver assistance systems — on the one hand information systems which interact with the driver and on the other hand intervening systems which interact directly with the vehicle. Navigation systems are typical of the former category and adaptive cruise control of the latter. It is argued that, for information systems it is possible to develop a “generic” safety assessment procedure, with a single generic test. A contrast is drawn with In the area of intervening systems (driver warning and vehicle control systems), where no such generic evaluation by means of a single test is possible. Such systems differ widely in their purpose, in their intended operating environment, in their functionality and in their operating envelope. The authors propose a structured procedural approach for the safety assessment of intervening systems.

[1]  P J Zwaneveld.  DEPLOYMENT SCENARIOS FOR ADVANCED DRIVER ASSISTANCE SYSTEMS , 1999 .

[2]  Oliver Carsten,et al.  New Evaluation Methods: Progress or Blind Alley? , 1999 .

[3]  R D Ervin,et al.  ADAPTIVE CRUISE CONTROL FIELD OPERATIONAL TEST , 1998 .

[4]  Andrew Parkes.  THE CONTRIBUTION OF HUMAN FACTORS GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS TO USABLE AND SAFE IN-VEHICLE SYSTEMS , 1995 .

[5]  Thomas A. Dingus,et al.  Strategic Use Of Visual Resources By The Driver While Navigating With An In-Car Navigation Display System , 1988 .

[6]  Raja Parasuraman,et al.  Performance Consequences of Automation-Induced 'Complacency' , 1993 .

[7]  Paul Green,et al.  Estimating Compliance with the 15-Second Rule for Driver-Interface Usability and Safety , 1999 .

[8]  D. Norman,et al.  New technology and human error , 1989 .

[9]  Thomas A. Dingus,et al.  Attentional demand requirements of an automobile moving-map navigation system , 1989 .

[10]  D. M. Hoedemaeker.  Driving with intelligent vehicles: driving behaviour with Adaptive Cruise Control and the acceptance by individual drivers , 1999 .

[11]  Claude Valot.  A METHOD OF DESIGNING ERGONOMICS FOR ACTIVITY DYNAMICS: AN AERONAUTICAL EXAMPLE. , 1997 .

[12]  Karel Brookhuis,et al.  Behavioural research in road safety. , 1995 .

[13]  Mica R. Endsley,et al.  Toward a Theory of Situation Awareness in Dynamic Systems , 1995, Hum. Factors.

[14]  G Nirschl,et al.  MODEL-BASED DIALOGUE EVALUATION FOR DIALOGUE SYSTEMS IN VEHICLES , 1993 .

[15]  Karel Brookhuis,et al.  ASSESSING BEHAVIORAL EFFECTS OF IN-VEHICLE INFORMATION SYSTEMS , 1999 .

[16]  Paul Green,et al.  THE 15-SECOND RULE FOR DRIVER INFORMATION SYSTEMS , 1999 .

[17]  H Summala,et al.  Cognitive load and detection thresholds in car following situations: safety implications for using mobile (cellular) telephones while driving. , 1999, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[18]  P. Fancher.  Intelligent cruise control field operational test. Final report. Volume I: Technical report , 1998 .

[19]  L. Bainbridge.  Ironies of Automation , 1982 .

[20]  C. Wickens.  Engineering psychology and human performance, 2nd ed. , 1992 .

[21]  H T Zwahlen,et al.  Safety aspects of cellular telephones in automobiles , 1988 .

[22]  R West,et al.  DECISION MAKING, PERSONALITY AND DRIVING STYLE AS CORRELATES OF INDIVIDUAL ACCIDENT RISK , 1992 .

[23]  Mark S. Young,et al.  Drive-by-wire: The case of driver workload and reclaiming control with adaptive cruise control , 1997 .

[24]  Omj Carsten.  FROM BEHAVIOURAL ADAPTATION TO SAFETY MODELLING: PREDICTING THE SAFETY IMPACTS OF NEW TECHNOLOGIES , 2002 .

[25]  P Fancher,et al.  Intelligent Cruise Control Field Operational Test , 1997 .

[26]  Alan Stevens,et al.  A SAFETY CHECKLIST FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF IN-VEHICLE INFORMATION SYSTEMS , 1999 .

[27]  G Nirschl,et al.  DIADEM: AN ADVANCED INTEGRATED DESIGN AND EVALUATION TOOL FOR DIALOGUE SYSTEMS IN VEHICLES , 1994 .

[28]  Lena Nilsson.  Safety effects of adaptive cruise controls in critical traffic situations , 1995 .

[29]  Y Ian Noy.  TOWARDS PROCESS-ORIENTED REQUIREMENTS FOR ITS SAFETY ASSURANCE , 1998 .

[30]  Peter A. Hancock,et al.  Fatigue and Automation-Induced Impairments in Simulated Driving Performance , 1998 .