A conceptual framework for requirement specification and evaluation of active safety functions

Active safety functions intended to prevent vehicle crashes are becoming increasingly prominent in traffic safety. Successful evaluation of their effects needs to be based on a conceptual framework, i.e. agreed-upon concepts and principles for defining evaluation scenarios, performance metrics and pass/fail criteria. The aim of this paper is to suggest some initial ideas toward such a conceptual framework for active safety function evaluation, based on a central concept termed ‘situational control’. Situational control represents the degree of control jointly exerted by a driver and a vehicle over the development of specific traffic situations. The proposed framework is intended to be applicable to the whole evaluation process, from ‘translation’ of accident data into evaluation scenarios and definition of evaluation hypotheses, to selection of performance metrics and criteria. It is also meant to be generic, i.e. applicable to driving simulator and test track experiments as well as field operational tests.

[1]  John A. Michon,et al.  A critical view of driver behavior models: What do we know , 1985 .

[2]  Jan Theeuwes,et al.  Visual search at intersections : An eye-movement analysis , 1996 .

[3]  W. Haddon Energy damage and the ten countermeasure strategies. , 1973, Human factors.

[4]  J R Treat,et al.  TRI-LEVEL STUDY OF THE CAUSES OF TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS: FINAL REPORT , 1979 .

[5]  Wassim G. Najm,et al.  SYNTHESIS REPORT: EXAMINATION OF TARGET VEHICULAR CRASHES AND POTENTIAL ITS COUNTERMEASURES. FINAL REPORT , 1995 .

[6]  S Fosser,et al.  An investigation of behavioural adaptation to airbags and antilock brakes among taxi drivers. , 1997, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[7]  Heikki Summala,et al.  Accident risk and driver behaviour , 1996 .

[8]  Mica R. Endsley,et al.  Designing for Situation Awareness : An Approach to User-Centered Design , 2003 .

[9]  Thomas A. Dingus,et al.  The 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study Phase II – Results of the 100-Car Field Experiment , 2006 .

[10]  Andy Shea,et al.  Traffic Safety and the Driver , 1992 .

[11]  Brett R Fajen,et al.  Perceiving Possibilities for Action: On the Necessity of Calibration and Perceptual Learning for the Visual Guidance of Action , 2005, Perception.

[12]  Takayuki Watanabe,et al.  A Study of Drivers' Trust in a Low-Speed Following System , 2005 .

[13]  J. E. Groves,et al.  Made in America: Science, Technology and American Modernist Poets , 1989 .

[14]  Nancy G. Leveson,et al.  A new accident model for engineering safer systems , 2004 .

[15]  Daniel J. Garland,et al.  Situation Awareness Analysis and Measurement , 2009 .

[16]  Lotta Jakobsson,et al.  The Influence of Study Design on Results in Hmi Testing for Active Safety , 2007 .

[17]  René Amalberti,et al.  The paradoxes of almost totally safe transportation systems , 2001 .

[18]  Neville A. Stanton,et al.  Human error taxonomies applied to driving: A generic driver error taxonomy and its implications for intelligent transport systems , 2009 .

[19]  D Fleury,et al.  Accident prototypical scenarios, a tool for road safety research and diagnostic studies. , 2001, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[20]  Zheng-Guo Wang,et al.  Road traffic injuries. , 2003, Chinese journal of traumatology = Zhonghua chuang shang za zhi.

[21]  Gene I. Rochlin,et al.  Safe operation as a social construct , 1999 .

[22]  R Kulmala COMPARISON BETWEEN THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT REGISTERS OF THE CITY OF HELSINKI AND THE TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMITTEE OF INSURANCE COMPANIES , 1983 .

[23]  Lotta Jakobsson,et al.  Requirements and data sources needed for validation of component properties and performance in simulation based benefit assessment of driver assistance technologies , 2009 .

[24]  Wassim G. Najm,et al.  Development of Crash Imminent Test Scenarios for Integrated Vehicle-Based Safety Systems , 2007 .

[25]  Erik Hollnagel,et al.  Joint Cognitive Systems: Foundations of Cognitive Systems Engineering , 2005 .

[26]  Johan Engström,et al.  A General Conceptual Framework for Modelling Behavioural Effects of Driver Support Functions , 2007 .

[27]  Yu-Hsing Huang,et al.  Having a New Pair of Glasses: Applying Systemic Accident Models on Road Safety , 2007 .

[28]  Heikki Summala,et al.  Towards Understanding Motivational and Emotional Factors in Driver Behaviour: Comfort Through Satisficing , 2007 .

[29]  Sean A. Spence,et al.  Descartes' Error: Emotion, Reason and the Human Brain , 1995 .

[30]  Johan Engström,et al.  Adaptive Behavior in the Simulator: Implications for Active Safety System Evaluation , 2011 .

[31]  C I Howarth,et al.  TOWARDS A THEORETICAL MODEL FOR BEHAVIOURAL ADAPTATIONS TO CHANGES IN THE ROAD TRANSPORT SYSTEM , 1992 .

[32]  Sidney Dekker,et al.  Ten Questions About Human Error : A New View of Human Factors and System Safety , 2004 .

[33]  Ray Fuller,et al.  Motivational Determinants of Control in the Driving Task , 2007 .

[34]  P. Carlo Cacciabue,et al.  Modelling Driver Behaviour in Automotive Environments: Critical Issues in Driver Interactions with Intelligent Transport Systems , 2007 .

[35]  G. R. J. Hockey Compensatory control in the regulation of human performance under stress and high workload: A cognitive-energetical framework , 1997, Biological Psychology.

[36]  J. Engström A model of attention selection in driving , 2008 .

[37]  John D Lee,et al.  Technology and teen drivers. , 2007, Journal of safety research.

[38]  Truls Vaa,et al.  Modelling Driver Behaviour on Basis of Emotions and Feelings: Intelligent Transport Systems and Behavioural Adaptations , 2007 .

[39]  Erik Hollnagel,et al.  Cognitive reliability and error analysis method : CREAM , 1998 .

[40]  R. Näätänen,et al.  Road user behavior and traffic accidents , 1976 .

[41]  Jesper Sandin,et al.  Accident investigations for active safety at CHALMERS – new demands require new methodologies , 2007 .

[42]  W. Haddon The changing approach to the epidemiology, prevention, and amelioration of trauma: the transition to approaches etiologically rather than descriptively based. , 1968, American journal of public health and the nation's health.

[43]  Wynn C. Stirling,et al.  Satisficing Revisited , 2000, Minds and Machines.

[44]  James A. Caviness,et al.  Persistent Fear Responses in Rhesus Monkeys to the Optical Stimulus of "Looming" , 1962, Science.

[45]  T M Allen,et al.  DRIVER INFORMATION NEEDS , 1971 .

[46]  J Rasmussen,et al.  Human error and the problem of causality in analysis of accidents. , 1990, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[47]  E. Hollnagel,et al.  What-You-Look-For-Is-What-You-Find - The consequences of underlying accident models in eight accident investigation manuals , 2009 .

[48]  E. Boer Car following from the driver’s perspective , 1999 .

[49]  H. Simon,et al.  A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice , 1955 .

[50]  Linda Ng Boyle,et al.  DEVELOPMENT OF TEST SCENARIOS FOR OFF-ROADWAY CRASH COUNTERMEASURES BASED ON CRASH STATISTICS , 2002 .

[51]  E. Hollnagel Handbook of Cognitive Task Design , 2009 .

[52]  J. Gibson,et al.  A theoretical field-analysis of automobile-driving , 1938 .

[53]  B E Sabey,et al.  INTERACTING ROLES OF ROAD ENVIRONMENT VEHICLE AND ROAD USER IN ACCIDENTS , 1975 .

[54]  Marieke Hendrikje Martens,et al.  Do Familiarity and Expectations Change Perception? Drivers' Glances and Response to Changes , 2007 .

[55]  Erik Hollnagel,et al.  Barriers And Accident Prevention , 2004 .

[56]  J S Baker EXPERIMENTAL CASE STUDIES OF TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS - A GENERAL DISCUSSION OF PROCEDURES AND CONCLUSIONS , 1960 .

[57]  Dot Hs,et al.  The 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study Phase II - Results of the 100-Car Field Experiment , 2006 .

[58]  B Brehmer,et al.  Variable errors set a limit to adaptation. , 1990, Ergonomics.

[59]  F. Tango,et al.  An integrated evaluation framework for preventive safety applications , 2008, 2008 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium.