Search Results

In this study we collect and analyze data on how hands-free automated lane centering systems affect the controllability of a hazardous event during an operational situation by a human operator. Through these data and their analysis, we seek to answer the following questions: Is Level 2 and Level 3 automated driving inherently uncontrollable as a result of a steering failure? Or, is there some level of operator control of hazardous situations occurring during Level 2 and Level 3 automated driving that can reasonably be expected, given that these systems still rely on a driver as the primary fall back. The controllability focus group experiments were carried out using an instrumented MY15 Jeep® Cherokee with a prototype Level 2 automated driving system that was modified to simulate a hands-free steering system on a closed track with speeds up to 110kph. The vehicle was also fitted with supplemental safety measures to ensure experimenter control.

This study evaluated the effectiveness of alternative workload-based interventions intended to restore driver alertness following drowsy episodes. Unlike traditional drowsy driving studies, this experiment did not target sleep-deprived individuals, but rather studied normally rested drivers under the assumption that low-workload environments could trigger drowsy driving episodes. The study served as a proof of concept for varying the nature and onset of countermeasure interventions intended to disrupt the drowsiness cycle. Interventions to combat drowsiness attempted to target driver workload, either physical or cognitive, and included two primary treatment conditions: 1) physical workload to increase driver steering demands and 2) trivia-based interactive games to mentally challenge drivers. A benchmark comparison condition using music was also investigated to contrast the relative influence of workload-based interventions with passive listening to musical arrangements.

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.