Benefit Evaluation of Crash Avoidance Systems

A five-layer hierarchy to integrate models, data, and tools is proposed for benefits assessment and requirements development for crash avoidance systems. The framework is known as HARTCAS: Hierarchical Assessment and Requirements Tools for Crash Avoidance Systems. The analysis problem is multifaceted and large-scale. The driving environment is diverse and uncertain, driver behavior and performance are not uniform, and the range of applicable collision avoidance technologies is wide. Considerable real-world data are becoming available on certain aspects of this environment, although the collection of experimental data on other aspects is constrained by technological and institutional issues. Therefore, analyses of collision avoidance systems are to be conducted by collecting data on nominal operating conditions to the greatest extent possible and by using such data to build models for analysis of the rare, abnormal conditions. HARTCAS provides a framework within which to structure the collection and use of such knowledge. It is described in general terms, and its use is illustrated by analysis of a forward collision warning system. How to quantify the relationships between the effectiveness of a warning and the probability that the warning is a nuisance is shown. System benefits are also quantified.

[1]  G T Taoka BREAK REACTION TIMES OF UNALERTED DRIVERS , 1989 .

[2]  John Lygeros,et al.  Capacity Analysis of Traffic Flow Over a Single-Lane Automated Highway System , 1998, J. Intell. Transp. Syst..

[3]  Louis Tijerina,et al.  Examination of Reduced Visibility Crashes and Potential IVHS Countermeasures , 1995 .

[4]  F. Hawkins Human factors in aviation. , 1979, Journal of psychosomatic research.

[5]  G. Taoka Brake Reaction Times ofUnalerted Drivers , 1997 .

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

[7]  R W Allen,et al.  DEVELOPMENT OF PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS FOR COLLISION AVOIDANCE SYSTEMS FOR LANE CHANGE, MERGING AND BACKING. TASK 4 INTERIM REPORT: DEVELOPMENT OF PRELIMINARY PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS , 1995 .

[8]  Eugene Farber,et al.  Using the REAMACS model to compare the effectiveness of alternative rear end collision warning algorithms , 1994 .

[9]  Paul S. Fancher,et al.  Evaluating Headway Control Using Range Versus Range-Rate Relationships , 1994 .

[10]  P S Fauncher A COMPARISON OF MANUAL VERSUS AUTOMATIC CONTROL OF HEADWAY AS A FUNCTION OF DRIVER CHARACTERISTICS , 1996 .

[11]  Thomas A. Dingus,et al.  Warning Signal Design: A Key Human Factors Issue in an In-Vehicle Front-To-Rear-End Collision Warning System , 1992 .

[12]  Paul S. Fancher,et al.  FOSTERING DEVELOPMENT, EVALUATION, AND DEPLOYMENT OF FORWARD CRASH AVOIDANCE SYSTEM (FOCAS) , 1995 .

[13]  Petros A. Ioannou,et al.  Spacing and capacity evaluations for different AHS concepts , 1997, Proceedings of the 1997 American Control Conference (Cat. No.97CH36041).

[14]  Thomas A. Dingus,et al.  Forward-Looking Collision Warning System Performance Guidelines , 1997 .

[15]  R. Wade Allen,et al.  DRIVER CAR FOLLOWING BEHAVIOR UNDER TEST TRACK AND OPEN ROAD DRIVING CONDITION , 1997 .