Assessing Driver Acceptability of the PROSPECT Systems

Final Event of the European Projects on the Traffic Safety of Vulnerable Road Users, TARRAGONA, ESPAGNE, 12-/10/2018 - 12/10/2018Acceptance testing provides knowledge on users' perception of the systems developed within the PROSPECT project, and an indication of their likelihood to purchase such a system. Results show a high likelihood of acceptance of PROSPECT systems. Participants were most positive towards the warning function, but also indicated a high likelihood of using the braking and steering functions

Deliverable 7.2. Report on methodology for balancing user acceptance, robustness and performance

The primary goal of this deliverable is to provide an overview of the methodology for acceptance testing that will be used during the tests conducted in T7.1, T7.2 and T7.3 within the PROSPECT project. The report starts with a description of the main characteristics of the most relevant accident scenarios where safety improvements are necessary. Among all use cases identified in WP3, twelve have been especially selected by the project to be implemented in the demonstrators: 9 for cyclists and 3 for pedestrians. Behaviours such as the velocity, distance and offset of the vehicle and cyclist are defined, so that the Safe Scenario, Critical Scenario and Possible Critical Scenario can be realized on the test tracks or in simulator environments. A literature review covering acceptance evaluation issues is then presented, outlining the questionnaires that are generally used to evaluate subjective measures, such as acceptance and trust. The methodology developed for Task 7.3 is then based on such questionnaires to be administered in tests and experiments that will evaluate PROSPECT systems. By using common questionnaires, this task facilitates an overall evaluation of the acceptance of all the developed functions. The methodology is presented in section 4 of this report, including a tool for data collection (LimeSurvey). This tool makes it possible for participants in evaluation studies to answer questions on various displays, to the convenience of the experimenters. In order to balance the user acceptance to the robustness and performance of the tested systems, all answers to the questionnaires will be linked to the PROSPECT functions tested and to the quality of the PROSPECT systems functioning. This methodology will be used at different times of the tests: before running a test/experiment (questionnaire 1 - participant information and questionnaire 3 - global expected acceptance of the system or a priori acceptability), during the test/experiment (questionnaire 2 - feedback on each situation) and after the test/experiment (questionnaire 3 - global acceptance of the system after having experienced it). At the end of this document, a section briefly describes all the experiments currently planned that will use the methodology within WP7. Their results will be reported in Deliverable 7.3 Report on simulator test results and driver acceptance of PROSPECT functions

D7.3 Report on simulator test results and driver acceptance of PROSPECT functions

The process of developing new automotive systems includes various testing cycles to assure a save operation in traffic. Physical system testing on test tracks is very important for this purpose, but rather expensive and might only become possible in later stages of the development process. Using a virtual simulation environment offers a safe possibility of testing new systems in early stages of development. Aditionally, driver-in-the-loop tests at test track and in a virtual simulator make it possible to evaluate driver reaction and potential acceptance by the future users of those systems. Within PROSPECT the new functions are investigated under various aspects in several simulator studies and test track studies. This deliverable D7.3 gives detailed information of conduction and results of the each study. Three studies focus exclusively on the for Vulnerable Road Users (VRUs) specifically dangerous urban intersection scenarios. The first of those studies examines the driver behaviour in a turning situation when a byciclist might be crossing. The described phenomena are looked-but-failed-to-see and failed-to-look. The second study, which provides an initial step in this line of research, analyzed the acceptance of issued forward collision warning times. The positioning of the potential accident opponent and the subjective feeling towards the criticality of the situation by the driver were key parameters taken into account. Last, but not least the acceptance of an intersection assist autonomous emergency braking systems was tested regarding the acceptance of potential buyers. The study was run for five days in a row for each participant to be able to judge the behaviour in a comuting situation. Two studies focused on longitudinal scenarios. Both studies followed the same design, but one was conducted on a test track and the other one in a simulator. The main objective was to investigate drivers reactions to FCW warnings and Active Steering interventions in critical VRU scenarios in case of a distraction of the driver. Additionally, the test track study was used to validate the results from the simulator study. The results of those studies are the basis for a wide acceptance evaluation of the systems. No system is an asset in increasing road safety if it is not accepted by the user and therefore turned off, if it is not required the system to be default on in consumer tests. Complemented by an additional acceptance study where the participants had to give their opinion of those systems after they watched videos of dangerous situations, the acceptance was analyzed based on questionnaires developed in PROSPECT and reported in Deliverable 7.2. This wholistic approach allows an expert discussion on the potentials of the PROSPECT functions in the future

Forward collision warning based on a driver model to increase drivers’ acceptance

Objective: Systems that can warn the driver of a possible collision with a vulnerable road user (VRU) have significant safety benefits. However, incorrect warning times can have adverse effects on the driver. If the warning is too late, drivers might not be able to react; if the warning is too early, drivers can become annoyed and might turn off the system. Currently, there are no methods to determine the right timing for a warning to achieve high effectiveness and acceptance by the driver. This study aims to validate a driver model as the basis for selecting appropriate warning times. The timing of the forward collision warnings (FCWs) selected for the current study was based on the comfort boundary (CB) model developed during a previous project, which describes the moment a driver would brake. Drivers’ acceptance toward these warnings was analyzed. The present study was conducted as part of the European research project PROSPECT (“Proactive Safety for Pedestrians and Cyclists”). Methods: Two warnings were selected: One inside the CB and one outside the CB. The scenario tested was a cyclist crossing scenario with time to arrival (TTA) of 4 s (it takes the cyclist 4 s to reach the intersection). The timing of the warning inside the CB was at a time to collision (TTC) of 2.6 s (asymptotic value of the model at TTA = 4 s) and the warning outside the CB was at TTC = 1.7 s (below the lower 95% value at TTA = 4 s). Thirty-one participants took part in the test track study (between-subjects design where warning time was the independent variable). Participants were informed that they could brake any moment after the warning was issued. After the experiment, participants completed an acceptance survey. Results: Participants reacted faster to the warning outside the CB compared to the warning inside the CB. This confirms that the CB model represents the criticality felt by the driver. Participants also rated the warning inside the CB as more disturbing, and they had a higher acceptance of the system with the warning outside the CB. The above results confirm the possibility of developing wellsaccepted warnings based on driver models. Conclusions: Similar to other studies’ results, drivers prefer warning times that compare with their driving behavior. It is important to consider that the study tested only one scenario. In addition, in this study, participants were aware of the appearance of the cyclist and the warning. A further investigation should be conducted to determine the acceptance of distracted drivers

Next-Generation Active Safety and Testing: The Horizon 2020 Project PROSPECT

PROSPECT (Proactive Safety for Pedestrians and Cyclists) is a collaborative research project involving most of the relevant partners from the automotive industry (including important active safety vehicle manufacturers and tier-1 suppliers) as well as academia and independent test labs, funded by the European Commission in the Horizon 2020 research program. PROSPECT's primary goal is the development of novel active safety functions, to be finally demonstrated to the public in three prototype vehicles. A sound benefit assessment of the prototype vehicle's functionality requires a broad testing methodology which goes beyond what has currently been used. Since PROSPECT functions are developed to prevent accidents in intersections, a key aspect of the test methodology is the reproduction of natural driving styles on the test track with driving robots. For this task, data from a real driving study with subjects in a suburb of Munich, Germany was used. Further data from Barcelona will be available soon. The data suggests that intersection crossing can be broken down into five phases, two phases with straight deceleration / acceleration, one phase with constant radius and speed turning, and two phases where the bend is imitated or ended. In these latter phases, drivers mostly combine lateral and longitudinal accelerations and drive what is called a clothoid, a curve with curvature proportional to distance travelled, in order to change lateral acceleration smoothly rather than abrupt. The data suggests that the main parameter of the clothoid, the ratio distance travelled to curvature, is mostly constant during the intersections. This parameter together with decelerations and speeds allows the generation of synthetic robot program files for a reproduction of natural driving styles using robots, allowing a much greater reproducibility than what is possible with human test drivers. First tests show that in principle it is possible to use the driving robots for vehicle control in that manner; a challenge currently is the control performance of the robot system in terms of speed control, but it is anticipated that this problem will be solved soon. Further elements of the PROSPECT test methodology are a standard intersection marking to be implemented on the test track which allows the efficient testing of all PROSPECT test cases, standard mobile and light obstruction elements for quick reproduction of obstructions of view, and a concept for tests in realistic surroundings. First tests using the PROSPECT test methodology will be conducted over the summer 2017, and final tests of the prototype vehicles developed within PROSPECT will be conducted in early 201

CAR-TO-CYCLIST CRASHES IN EUROPE AND DERIVATION OF USE CASES AS BASIS FOR TEST SCENARIOS OF NEXT GENERATION ADVANCED DRIVER ASSISTANCE SYSTEMS – RESULTS FROM PROSPECT

Systems available on the market address also conflicts with vulnerable road users (VRUs) such as pedestrians and cyclists. Within the European project PROSPECT (Horizon2020, funded by the EC) improved VRU ADAS systems are developed and tested. However, before determining systems’ properties and starting testing, an up-to-date analysis of VRU crashes was needed in order to derive the most important Use Cases (detailed crash descriptions) the systems should address. Besides the identified Accident Scenarios (basic crash descriptions), this paper describes in short the method of deriving the Use Cases for car-to-cyclist crashes. Method Crashes involving one passenger car and one cyclist were investigated in several European crash databases looking for all injury severity levels (slight, severe and fatal). These data sources included European statistics from CARE, data on national level from Germany, Sweden and Hungary as well as detailed accident information from these three countries using GIDAS, the Volvo Cars Cyclist Accident database and Hungarian in-depth accident data, respectively. The most frequent accident scenarios were studied and Use Cases were derived considering the key aspects of these crash situations (e.g., view orientation of the cyclist and the car driver’s manoeuvre intention) and thus, form an appropriate basis for the development of Test Scenarios. Results Latest information on car-to-cyclist crashes in Europe was compiled including details on the related crash configurations, driving directions, outcome in terms of injury severity, accident location, other environmental aspects and driver responsibilities. The majority of car-to-cyclist crashes occurred during daylight and in clear weather conditions. Car-to-cyclist crashes in which the vehicle was traveling straight and the cyclist is moving in line with the traffic were found to result in the greatest number of fatalities. Considering also slightly and seriously injured cyclists led to a different order of crash patterns according to the three considered European countries. Finally the paper introduced the Use Cases derived from the crash data analysis. A total of 29 Use Cases were derived considering the group of seriously or fatally injured cyclists and 35 Use Cases were derived considering the group of slightly, seriously or fatally injured cyclists. The highest ranked Use Case describes the collision between a car turning to the nearside and a cyclist riding on a bicycle lane against the usual driving direction. Discussion A unified European dataset on car-to-cyclist crash scenarios is not available as the data available in CARE is limited, hence national datasets had to be used for the study and further work will be required to extrapolate the results to a European level. Due to the large number of Use Cases, the paper shows only highest ranked ones

Report on simulator test results and driver acceptance of PROSPECT functions

The process of developing new automotive systems includes various testing cycles to assure a save operation in traffic. Physical system testing on test tracks is very important for this purpose, but rather expensive and might only become possible in later stages of the development process. Using a virtual simulation environment offers a safe possibility of testing new systems in early stages of development. Aditionally, driver-in-the-loop tests at test track and in a virtual simulator make it possible to evaluate driver reaction and potential acceptance by the future users of those systems. Within PROSPECT the new functions are investigated under various aspects in several simulator studies and test track studies. This deliverable D7.3 gives detailed information of conduction and results of the each study. Three studies focus exclusively on the for Vulnerable Road Users (VRUs) specifically dangerous urban intersection scenarios. The first of those studies examines the driver behaviour in a turning situation when a byciclist might be crossing. The second study, which provides an initial step in this line of research, analyzed the acceptance of issued forward collision warning times. In the third study acceptance of an intersection assist autonomous emergency braking systems was tested regarding the acceptance of potential buyers. Two studies focused on longitudinal scenarios. Both studies followed the same design, but one was conducted on a test track and the other one in a simulator. The main objective was to investigate drivers reactions to FCW warnings and Active Steering interventions in critical VRU scenarios in case of a distraction of the driver