Search Results

While various Advanced Driver Assistance System (ADAS) features have become more prevalent in passenger vehicles, their ability to potentially avoid or mitigate vehicle crashes has limitations. Due to current technological limitations, forward collision mitigation technologies such as Forward Collision Warning (FCW) and Automated Emergency Braking (AEB) lack the ability to consistently perform in many unique and challenging scenarios. These limitations are often outlined in driver manuals for ADAS equipped vehicles. One such scenario is the case of a stationary lead vehicle at the side of the road. This is generally considered to be a challenging scenario for FCW and AEB to address because it can often be difficult for the system to discern this threat accurately and consistently from non-threatening roadway infrastructure without unnecessary or nuisance system activations.

Lane Departure Warning (LDW) systems, along with other types of Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS), are becoming more common in passenger vehicles, with the general aim of improving driver safety through automation of various aspects of the driving task. Drivers have generally reported satisfaction with ADAS with the exception of LDW systems, which are often rated poorly or even deactivated by drivers. One potential contributor to this negative response may be an increase in the cognitive load associated with lane-keeping when LDW is in use. The present study sought to examine the relationship between LDW, lane-keeping behavior, and concurrent cognitive load, as measured by performance on a secondary task. Participants drove a vehicle equipped with LDW in a demarcated lane on a closed-course test track with and without the LDW system in use over multiple sessions.

As a result of the development of Event Data Recorders (EDR) and the recent FMVSS regulation 49 CFR 563, today’s automobiles provide a limited subset of electronic data measurements of a vehicle’s state before and during a crash. Prior to this data, the only information available about the vehicle movements before or during a collision had come from physical evidence (e.g. tire marks), witnesses, aftermarket camera systems on vehicles, and ground-based cameras that were monitoring vehicle traffic or used for security surveillance. Today’s vehicles equipped with Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) have vehicle-based sensors that measure information about the environment around a vehicle including other vehicles, pedestrians, and fixed wayside objects.

The primary function of an airbag control module is to detect crashes, discriminate and predict if a deployment is necessary, then deploy the restraint systems including airbags and where applicable, pretensioners. At General Motors (GM), the internal term for airbag control module is Sensing and Diagnostic Module (SDM). In the 1994 model year, GM introduced its SDM on some of its North American airbag-equipped vehicles. A secondary function of that SDM and all subsequent SDMs is to record crash related data. This data can include data regarding impact severity from internal accelerometers and pre-crash vehicle data from various chassis and powertrain modules. Previous researchers have addressed the accuracy of both the velocity change data, recorded by the SDM, and the pre-crash data, but the assessment of the timing of the pre-crash data has been limited to a single family of modules (Delphi SDM-G).