Transcript Pooled fund meeting - University of Minnesota

From IDS to CICAS:
Rural Intersection Crash Avoidance
“Towards a Multi-state Consensus on
Rural Intersection Decision Support”
Pooled Fund Meeting
Minong, Wisconsin
June 12, 2006
National Motivation




2.6 million intersection related crashes annually
Represents 41% of all 6.33 million police reported
crashes
In Minnesota, 129 out of 583 (22.1%) fatal crashes are at
intersections
In the US, 8,659 of 38,252 (22.6%) of fatal crashes were
intersection related
 31.7% occurred at signalized intersections
 68.3% occurred at unsignalized intersections (stop
sign, no controls, other sign).
NHTSA, Traffic Safety Facts 2003, January 2005
Minnesota Office of Traffic Safety, Minnesota Motor Vehicle Crash Facts, 2003
Intersection Decision Support (IDS)

Focus on driver error causal factors
 Fatal and life changing intersection crashes
 Provide the driver with information that will improve
judgment of gap clearance and timing
 Keep major corridors flowing
 Deploy where the fatalities/crashes warrant
deployment
 New tool for the traffic engineer
Focused on Recognized National Problem
Guidelines for Implementation of
AASHTO Strategic Highway Safety Plan

NCHRP Report 500:
Vol. 5 Unsignalized Intersections
 Identifies objectives and strategies for dealing with
unsignalized intersections
 Objective 17.1.4 Assist drivers in judging gap sizes
at Unsignalized Intersections
 High speed at grade intersections
Approach

Measure gaps that drivers take under actual road
conditions. Collect data regarding intersection entry
behavior.

Evaluate suite of sensors to ensure that they are able to
measure those gaps accurately and able to distinguish
between unsafe and safe gaps at the level that the
existing literature specifies.

Develop set of interface concepts with which to
communicate the existence of an unsafe vs safe gap in the
intersection to the driver.

Evaluate selected set of interface concepts.
Unsafe gap
is main risk
factor
TCD
Traffic Signal
Stop Sign
None
Factor
Gap
Violate
Gap
Violate
Gap
LTAP/OD LTAP/LD LTIP
RTIP
SCP
16.11%
1.09%
2.59%
4.34%
1.25%
0.50%
14.86%
1.25%
9.43%
2.17%
2.09%
14.44%
0.08%
9.35%
0.58%
0.25%
5.18%
7.68%
2.09%
0.83%
0.92%
2.92%
Percentage of all crossing path crashes based on Najm W G, Koopmann J A, and Smith D L (2001) Analysis of Crossing Path Crash
Countermeasure Systems. Proc. 17th Intl Conference on Enhanced Safety of Vehicles
Goal

Design and evaluate information “concepts” for sign
elements to support detection and acceptance of safe
gaps in mainline traffic.

Explore out of the “toolbox” concepts.

Prohibitive frame: Provide information regarding unsafe
gaps.

Final judgment of safety and responsibility for action must
remain with driver.
Concepts
Detect
Baseline
Driver recognize
hazard, gather
information, decide on
safety condition, and
choose action
Inform
Alert
Display
Warn
Advise
Driver must gather
information, decide on
safety condition, and
choose action.
Driver must decide on
safety condition, and
choose action.
Driver must choose
action.
Driver must choose to
comply.
System detects hazard.
System detects hazard
& presents information
relevant to vehicle gap.
Prohibited actions also
indicated.
System detects hazard
and provides warning
levels based on gap
information. Prohibited
actions also indicated.
Prohibited actions
indicated (unsafe
action advisory).
Safe Gap Definition
2-stage crossing strategy
- Driver stops in median
1-stage crossing strategy
- Driver does not stop in median
12.5 s
8.0 s
7.5 s
7.5 s
System accounts for worst-case scenario of an older
driver making a left turn (in 1-stage).
AASHTO Green Book, 2001; FHWA Older Driver Handbook, 2001
Assumptions






Many factors determine gap safety.
As a non-cooperative system, these sign concepts do not
have “preview” of all these factors.
Therefore, system is “blind” and must make assumptions
about condition.
With vehicle classification, will be able to adjust gap for
vehicle.
For liability reasons, sign concepts must assume worstcase condition.
 Left turns + older drivers + 1-stage
This may be perceived as non-credible to drivers in all
other conditions.
Virtual Environment for Surface
Transportation Research
• Ability to model precise reproductions
of geo-specific locations
• Resolution = 2.5 arc-minutes per
pixel
•8 channels
•3D surround sound
•Car body vibration
•Force feedback steering
•Power-assist feel on the brakes
•3-axis electric motion system
Methods
5
sign conditions

2
Within-subjects
age groups

24 young; 24 old
 Gender
balanced
 2 light conditions

 12
Day vs. night
participants per
group/condition
Main Lessons


Additional information can be used.
All sign concepts resulted in shifts towards the safe gap
threshold


Compliance increases when visibility of traffic condition
is reduced.


Old drivers, night condition
Dynamic aspects of (Icon and Split-hybrid) signs
facilitate comprehension.


However, threshold was perceived as too conservative (not
personalized)
Map sign changes to changes in environment
Young drivers may “calibrate” system.
Next Steps

“Personalized” gap thresholds


MUTCD compliant formats





Cooperative systems
Close interaction with MnDOT engineers
Test compliant formats in simulator
Validate with test site experiment
Field operational testing
Consider role of signs in larger safety programs
(Training & Education).


Older drivers must perceive own limitations to appreciate need
for decision support
Drivers need understanding of functions (include in licensing
tests)
Pooled Fund Study
(CA, GA, IA, MI, MN, NC, NH, NV, WI)


Goals:
 Characterize rural intersection crashes throughout
USA
 Identify regional differences in driver behavior
 Use information to design ubiquitous system
deployable throughout US
 Setup a broad base for a field operational test
Key Tasks:
 Crash analysis in each partner state
 Driver behavior data collection in each partner state
 Analyze and archive driver behavior data
Cooperative Intersection Collision
Avoidance System (CICAS):
Stop Sign Assist
CICAS
CICAS Work Plan (5 Years)
Years One thru Three
IDS
Years Four and Five
CICAS
Situation
Analysis
Translation
Study
Compliant Signs
Gap
Model
Alert / Timing
Algorithms
CAMP
DVI
Validation
Study
Deployable Signs
Pre-FOT
Protocol Evaluation
Sign Concepts
Protocol Standardization
Concept
Study
FOT
Situation Analysis
 Macroscopic
Common scenarios
 Outliers

 Onsite
observation
Context
 Atypical cases

 Crash

reports
Common risk factors
Gap Model / Algorithms

4.7
5.0

Gap (s) - 5th Percentile
4.3
4.0
3.8
Macroscopic

3.9

Microscopic


3.0



1.0

0
.01 - .25
.25 - .9
.9 - 1.5
Precipitation (cm/hr)
Sensitivity analysis
Practical analysis
Algorithms

0.0
Instrumented vehicle
Process stages
Predictive models

2.0
License plate reader
Demographics
Gap threshold, timing
Complete logic
• Platoons, non-cooperative
cases, etc.
Translation Study
Integrate algorithm
 Convert “concepts” to
compliant signs

• Inform, warn, and advise
Test legibility and
comprehension.
 Replicate sim evaluation

• Do compliant signs retain
concept benefits?

Interaction with DVI?
Technical Steps to FOT/Deployment

Minimal Sensor Sets
 Mainline: Function of variation in mainline traffic speed
and sensitivity of driver to timing (HF phase)
• Have data showing speed variation and comparison
to point sensors.
 Minor road: Function of sensitivity of vehicle type to
gap alert/warning timing
• Definition of gap previously used shows little
sensitivity to vehicle type.
• Microscopic study of driver behavior needed to
resolve this issue.
Technical Steps to FOT/Deployment
 Driver
behavior data
 Macroscopic
data
• Pooled fund: data collection in eight states with
portable intersection surveillance system
 Validation
Study: Microscopic Data
• Fully instrumented passenger car
• Fully instrumented heavy truck
• Fully instrumented intersections
Testing in Minnesota
Technical Steps to FOT/Deployment


Driver-Infrastructure Interface
 Mechanical & electrical design
 Placement
 Cost
 Reliability
Communication Mechanism
 Dedicated short range
Communications (DSRC)
 Wireless Access for Vehicular
Environments (WAVE; 802.11p)
 FCC allocated Oct. 21, 1999
 75 MHz of spectrum at 5.9 GHz
 7 licensed channels
 Hardware and protocols under
development
Technical Steps to FOT/Deployment

Definition/Implementation of ‘Cooperation’
 Driver-Infrastructure Cooperative: demographic,
personal preference data
• Storage (on person, in-vehicle?)
• Broadcast (from person, through the vehicle?)
• Auto manufacturers seem opposed to personal data
broadcast and used by infrastructure system
 Vehicle-Infrastructure Cooperative: vehicle
performance, weight, size, etc.
• Driver intent (turn signal, steering wheel position,
foot on clutch, brake, throttle, gear selection, etc.)
Validation Study:
Support of On-site Human Factors Testing
 Build
Instrumented Vehicle
 Wave-DSRC
radios
 Integrated eye tracker
 Steering, brake, throttle measurements
 Full traffic data
 Day, night testing
 Support
analysis
 Location,
speed, etc. of all other vehicles in
vicinity of intersection
Validation Study:
On-site Human Factors Testing
Driver Data
(Eye Gaze, hand, feet,
face cameras, etc. )
Vehicle DAQ
(vehDAQ)
Vehicle Data
(Throttle, brake, steering,
turn signal, position,
speed, accel., etc. )
Traffic Data
(position, speeds, lane of
travel, etc.)
NTP
(synch)
Intersection
DAQ (iDAQ)
Environmental Data
(Weather (R/WIS) data,
Sun location (glare), road
conditions)
FOT
Pre-FOT Years One thru Three
IDS
FOT Years Four and Five
CICAS
Situation
Analysis
Gap
Model
Translation
Study
Compliant Signs
Validation
Study
Deployable Signs
Pre-FOT
Protocol Evaluation
Sign Concepts
Protocol Standardization
Concept
Study
Alert / Timing
Algorithms
FOT
Goal
 Provide
real world data of system effect
on gap acceptance and driver
perceptions to support policy decisions
for deployment trials.
Method
 Recruit
N
local residents using own vehicles
= 30
 Male and female
 Young and old
 Compare behavior before and after
installation of system.
Plan

Methodology



Pilot FOT



Data
Harmonization
Evaluate methodology
Final design iteration
Full FOT


Naturalistic scenario
Macroscopic
• Microscopic?

Deployment verdict
Intersection
Controller
DII
FOT Instrumentation:
Vehicle Cooperative System
DSRC
Radio
(iDAQ)
L. Turn
Signal
Brake
Light
R. Turn
Signal
Trailer
Interface
Kit
Driver
Intent
Estimator
Driver
Demo
Information
Vehicle Computer
Vehicle
Information
(size, type, ID)
Vehicle
DSRC
Radio
CICAS-GAP Timeline and Critical Path
0
Month
24
12
48
36
60
Task 1: Project Management and Coordination
Task 2: Research
2A: Driver Behavior Research
2B: Driver Interface Research
2C: Models, Algorithms
Task 3: System Design
Tasks
3A: DII Design
3B: Minimal Sensor Sets
3C: Mechanisms for Cooperation
3D: Design Documentation
Task 4: System Development and
Prototype Testing
4A: Dev. Plan
4B: Integration
4C: Objective Testing
4D: iDAQ
4E: FOT Plan & Design
Task 5: FOT Plan
and Design
5A: FOT Vehicle & Intersection
Tests
5B: Final FOT
Design
Task 6: Conduct FOT
Task 7: Outreach
Critical point 1
DII MUTCD
approval
Critical point 2
DSRC: $,
license,
performance
Critical point 3
Instrumentation
(gaze vector
precision,
accuracy)
Critical point 4
Government GO/
NO GO decision
6A: Pilot
FOT
Critical point 5
Recruitment of Pilot and
FOT Subjects
Critical point 6
Liability (risk management,
IRB, subpoenas)
6B: Conduct FOT