Search Results

This research examined driver acceptance and behavior associated with Speed Limit and Curve Advisor systems, including influences on speed choice. Drivers experienced messages from an emulated Speed Limit and Curve Advisor system during a 2-hour public road drive. Driver tolerance for system errors and message conflicts was also studied by manipulating the accuracy of the information provided by the system. Messages were presented using either a Head-Up Display or on an in-dash Driver Information Center. Results indicate that drivers liked having speed limit information continuously available to them while driving, but the information provided by the Speed Limit Advisor did not significantly influence or alter drivers' speed choice or deceleration profiles in comparison to driving without the system.

An analysis of the first 35 back-over crashes reported by NHTSA's Special Crash Investigations unit was undertaken with two objectives: (1) to test a hypothesized classification of backing crashes into types, and (2) to characterize scenario-specific conditions that may drive countermeasure development requirements and/or objective test development requirements. Backing crash cases were sorted by type, and then analyzed in terms of key features. Subsequent modeling of these SCI cases was done using an adaptation of the Driving Reliability and Error Analysis Methodology (DREAM) and Cognitive Reliability and Error Analysis Methodology (CREAM) (similar to previous applications, for instance, by Ljung and Sandin to lane departure crashes [10]), which is felt to provide a useful tool for crash avoidance technology development.

Alternative implementations of a Rear Cross Traffic Alert (RCTA) system intended to actively notify drivers of the presence of rear cross-path traffic when backing were evaluated in naturalistic settings. The feature is one of several emerging technologies designed to assist drivers when backing - in this case, enhancing drivers' awareness of traffic approaching from the rear. The study allowed performance under a range of RCTA system driver interface implementations to be contrasted with conventional and wide Field of View (FOV) Rear Vision systems. Evaluations were conducted using a sample of 70 drivers under naturalistic settings and environments with repeated exposures to backing tasks. The study also made use of a staged conflict situation with a confederate vehicle in order to more precisely quantify driver behavior and system usage across drivers under controlled conflict situations.

Sixteen participants aged 55–65yrs provided deBoer scale ratings of discomfort glare for a vehicle with horizontally swiveling HID headlamps and a vehicle with the same headlamps that did not swivel in eight scenarios staged in a darkened parking lot. Participants, who were seated in the driver’s position of a stationary vehicle and instructed when to look, viewed the oncoming test vehicles in scenarios of 180m left turn, 180m right turn, 80m left turn, 80m right turn, left turn beside participant vehicle, crossing left in front of participant vehicle, right turn beside participant vehicle, and straightaway, in counterbalanced presentation orders. The swiveling headlamp vehicle provided statistically lower glare ratings in both 180m curves and the 80m right curve and statistically lower or similar in the intersection scenarios than the fixed headlamp vehicle.

Twent-two participants of varying ages detected roadside targets in two consecutive dynamic evaluations of a horizontally swiveling headlamp vehicle and a vehicle with the same headlamps that did not swivel. Participants detected targets as they drove unlighted low-speed public roads. Scenarios encountered were intersection turns, and curves with approximate radii of 70-90m, 120-140m, 170-190m, and 215-220m. Results from the first study found improved detection distances from the swiveling headlamps in left curves, but unexpectedly decreased detection distances in larger radius right hand curves. The swiveling algorithm was altered for the second study, and the headlamps used did not have the same beam pattern as in the first study. Results from the second study again found improved detection distances from the swiveling headlamps while in the larger radius right hand curves fixed and swivel were not statistically different.

Partially automated driving involves the relinquishment of longitudinal and/or latitudinal control to the vehicle. Partially automated systems, however, are fallible and require driver oversight to avoid all road hazards. Researchers have expressed concern that automation promotes extended eyes-off-road (EOR) behavior that may lead to a loss of situational awareness (SA), degrading a driver’s ability to detect hazards and make necessary overrides. A potential countermeasure to visual inattention is the orientation of the driver’s glances towards potential hazards via cuing. This method is based on the assumption that drivers are able to rapidly identify hazards once their attention is drawn to the area of interest regardless of preceding EOR duration. This work examined this assumption in a simulated automated driving context by projecting hazardous and nonhazardous road scenes to a participant while sitting in a stationary vehicle.

General Motors (GM) and the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute (VTTI) have partnered to conduct a series of studies characterizing the use and effectiveness of technologies designed to assist drivers while backing. A major emphasis of this research has been on Rear Vision Camera (RVC) systems that provide drivers with an enhanced view of the area behind the vehicle. RVC systems are intended to aid in positioning the vehicle when executing low-speed parking and backing-related tasks and are not necessarily well suited for detecting unexpected in-path obstacles (particularly if the RVC image is not coupled with object detection alerts issued to the driver).

Research was conducted to assess driver acceptance and performance associated with a spotter mirror feature intended to reduce the incidence of lane-change conflicts by enhancing drivers' ability to detect vehicles in their side blind zone. The spotter mirror consisted of an integrated spherical convex blind zone mirror inset within a larger planar mirror. The spotter mirror's field-of-view was designed to target the vehicle's side blind zone area and to help drivers quickly detect the presence or absence of a vehicle in the blind zone. The study captured normative lane-change behavior during an extended drive on public roadways, with and without access to the spotter mirror system, for a sample of familiar and unfamiliar supplemental mirror users. In order to capture more naturalistic lane-change behavior, drivers were informed that the purpose of the study was to evaluate the adequacy of existing road signs for navigating to a destination.

General Motors has pursued research to develop systems intended to assist drivers in recognizing people or objects behind them when they are backing, and this paper summarizes results from this research. We are currently working with ultrasonic rear parking assist systems, rear radar backing warning systems, and rear camera systems, which are briefly described and their utility for assisting drivers in recognizing people or objects behind them discussed. Our research on driver performance with a prototype long range backing warning system found that audible and visual warning combinations may not be effective in warning distracted drivers about unexpected objects. Driver expectancy is thought to play a significant role in this result. However, further research found drivers were more likely to notice an unexpected obstacle behind their vehicle with a prototype rear view video camera system compared to ultrasonic rear parking assist and trials that had no system.