Filtern
Dokumenttyp
- Wissenschaftlicher Artikel (6) (entfernen)
Sprache
- Englisch (6) (entfernen)
Schlagworte
- Safety (6) (entfernen)
Institut
- Abteilung Fahrzeugtechnik (6) (entfernen)
There is considerable evidence for the negative effects of driver distraction on road safety. In many experimental studies, drivers have been primarily viewed as passive receivers of distraction. Thus, there is a lack of research on the mediating role of their self-regulatory behavior. The aim of the current study was to compare drivers' performance when engaged in a system-paced secondary task with a self-paced version of this task and how both differed from baseline driving performance without distraction. Thirty-nine participants drove in a simulator while performing a secondary visual"manual task. One group of drivers had to work on this task in predefined situations under time pressure, whereas the other group was free to decide when to work on the secondary task (self-regulation group). Drivers' performance (e.g., lateral and longitudinal control, brake reaction times) was also compared with a baseline condition without any secondary task. For the system-paced secondary task, distraction was associated with high decrements in driving performance (especially in keeping the lateral position). No effects were found for the number of collisions, probably because of the lower driving speeds while distracted (compensatory behavior). For the self-regulation group, only small impairments in driving performance were found. Drivers engaged less in the secondary task during foreseeable demanding or critical driving situations. Overall, drivers in the self-regulation group were able to anticipate the demands of different traffic situations and to adapt their engagement in the secondary task, so that only small impairments in driving performance occurred. Because in real traffic drivers are mostly free to decide when to engage in secondary tasks, it can be concluded that self-regulation should be considered in driver distraction research to ensure ecological validity.
Although cruise control (CC) is available for most cars, no studies have been found which examine how this automation system influences driving behaviour. However, a relatively large number of studies have examined adaptive cruise control (ACC) which compared to CC includes also a distance control. Besides positive effects with regard to a better compliance to speed limits, there are also indications of smaller distances to lead vehicles and slower responses in situations that require immediate braking. Similar effects can be expected for CC as this system takes over longitudinal control as well. To test this hypothesis, a simulator study was conducted at the German Aerospace Center. Twenty-two participants drove different routes (highway and motorway) under three different conditions (assisted by ACC, CC and manual driving without any system). Different driving scenarios were examined including a secondary task condition. On the one hand, both systems lead to lower maximum velocities and less speed limit violations. There was no indication that drivers shift more of their attention towards secondary tasks when driving with CC or ACC. However, there were delayed driver reactions in critical situations, e.g., in a narrow curve or a fog bank. These results give rise to some caution regarding the safety effects of these systems, especially if in the future their range of functionality (e.g., ACC Stop-and-Go) is further increased.
It is commonly agreed that active safety will have a significant impact on reducing accident figures for pedestrians and probably also bicyclists. However, chances and limitations for active safety systems have only been derived based on accident data and the current state of the art, based on proprietary simulation models. The objective of this article is to investigate these chances and limitations by developing an open simulation model. This article introduces a simulation model, incorporating accident kinematics, driving dynamics, driver reaction times, pedestrian dynamics, performance parameters of different autonomous emergency braking (AEB) generations, as well as legal and logical limitations. The level of detail for available pedestrian accident data is limited. Relevant variables, especially timing of the pedestrian appearance and the pedestrian's moving speed, are estimated using assumptions. The model in this article uses the fact that a pedestrian and a vehicle in an accident must have been in the same spot at the same time and defines the impact position as a relevant accident parameter, which is usually available from accident data. The calculations done within the model identify the possible timing available for braking by an AEB system as well as the possible speed reduction for different accident scenarios as well as for different system configurations. The simulation model identifies the lateral impact position of the pedestrian as a significant parameter for system performance, and the system layout is designed to brake when the accident becomes unavoidable by the vehicle driver. Scenarios with a pedestrian running from behind an obstruction are the most demanding scenarios and will very likely never be avoidable for all vehicle speeds due to physical limits. Scenarios with an unobstructed person walking will very likely be treatable for a wide speed range for next generation AEB systems.
Established in 1997, the European New Car Assessment Programme (Euro NCAP) provides consumers with a safety performance assessment for the majority of the most popular cars in Europe. Thanks to its rigorous crash tests, Euro NCAP has rapidly become an important driver safety improvement to new cars. After ten years of rating vehicles, Euro NCAP felt that a change was necessary to stay in tune with rapidly emerging driver assistance and crash avoidance systems and to respond to shifting priorities in road safety. A new overall rating system was introduced that combines the most important aspects of vehicle safety under a single star rating. The overall rating system has allowed Euro NCAP to continue to push for better fitment and higher performance for vehicles sold on the European market. In the coming years, the safety rating is expected to play an important role in the support of the roll-out of highly automated vehicles.
To improve vehicle safety in frontal collisions, the crash compatibility between the colliding vehicles is crucial. Compatibility aims to improve both the self and partner protection properties of vehicles. Although compatibility has received worldwide attention for many years, no final assessment approach has been defined. Within the Frontal Impact and Compatibility Assessment Research (FIMCAR) project, different frontal impact test procedures (offset deformable barrier [ODB] test as currently used for Economic Commission for Europe [ECE] R94, progressive deformable barrier test as proposed by France for a new ECE regulation, moveable deformable barrier test as discussed worldwide, full-width rigid barrier test as used in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard [FMVSS] 208, and full-width deformable barrier test) were analyzed regarding their potential for future frontal impact legislation. The research activities focused on car-to-car frontal impact accidents based on accident investigations involving newer cars. Test procedures were developed with both a crash test program and numerical simulations. The proposal from FIMCAR is to use a full-width test procedure with a deformable element and compatibility metrics in combination with the current offset test as a frontal impact assessment approach that also addresses compatibility. By adding a full-width test to the current ODB test it is possible to better address the issues of structural misalignment and injuries resulting from high acceleration accidents as observed in the current fleet. The estimated benefit ranges from a 5 to 12 percent reduction of fatalities and serious injuries resulting from frontal impact accidents. By using a deformable element in the full-width test, the test conditions are more representative of real-world situations with respect to acceleration pulse, restraint system triggering time, and deformation pattern of the front structure. The test results are therefore expected to better represent real-world performance of the tested car. Furthermore, the assessment of the structural alignment is more robust than in the rigid wall test.
The goal of the project FIMCAR (Frontal Impact and Compatibility Assessment Research) was to define an integrated set of test procedures and associated metrics to assess a vehicle's frontal impact protection, which includes self- and partner-protection. For the development of the set, two different full-width tests (full-width deformable barrier [FWDB] test, full-width rigid barrier test) and three different offset tests (offset deformable barrier [ODB] test, progressive deformable barrier [PDB] test, moveable deformable barrier with the PDB barrier face [MPDB] test) have been investigated. Different compatibility assessment procedures were analysed and metrics for assessing structural interaction (structural alignment, vertical and horizontal load spreading) as well as several promising metrics for the PDB/MPDB barrier were developed. The final assessment approach consists of a combination of the most suitable full-width and offset tests. For the full-width test (FWDB), a metric was developed to address structural alignment based on load cell wall information in the first 40 ms of the test. For the offset test (ODB), the existing ECE R94 was chosen. Within the paper, an overview of the final assessment approach for the frontal impact test procedures and their development is given.