1 / 20

Effects of an Aftermarket Crash Avoidance System on Warning Rates and Driver Acceptance

This study examines the effects of an aftermarket crash avoidance system on warning rates and driver acceptance in urban and rural environments. The study analyzes the impact of various crash avoidance technologies, such as lane departure warning, forward collision warning, and adaptive cruise control. The findings indicate that these technologies significantly reduce the risk of relevant police-reported crashes and improve driver acceptance. The study also explores the usefulness and self-reported experiences of drivers with the aftermarket crash avoidance system.

bjackson
Download Presentation

Effects of an Aftermarket Crash Avoidance System on Warning Rates and Driver Acceptance

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Effects of an Aftermarket Crash Avoidance System on Warning Rates and Driver Acceptance in Urban and Rural Environments ADTSEA 2019 Burlington VT July 22, 2019 Ian J. Reagan, Ph.D. Senior Research Scientist

  2. Vehicle Automation and Crash Avoidance Features Lane Maintenance • Lane Departure Warning (LDW) • Lane Keep Assist Front Crash Prevention • Forward Collision Warning (FCW) • Automatic Emergency Braking (AEB) Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC) Blind Spot Monitoring / Park Assist • Rear cross traffic alert • Rear crash prevention Fatigue Alert Electronic Stability Control

  3. Crash avoidance technologies are working Effects on relevant police-reported crash types statistically significant injury all severities

  4. New vehicle series with forward collision warning By model year

  5. Registered vehicles with forward collision warning By calendar year

  6. Estimated registered vehicles by feature Calendar years 2016 and 2021

  7. Aftermarket crash avoidance systems Mobileye-630 crash avoidance technologies Telematics • record of warnings issued, speed, posted limit, GPS, hard accelerations forward collision warning (FCW) and urban forward collision warning (UFCW) lane departure warning (LDW) headway monitoring (HWM) pedestrian collision warning (PCW) speed limit information (SLI)

  8. Study Methods 22 participants w/ Mobileye • 15 also with telematics Independent variables • Primary roadway type: • urban (Arlington, VA) and rural (Ruckersville, VA) • Study period: • Mobileye data (baseline, treatment); • self-report data (week 2 and week 8 surveys)

  9. Study timeline and procedure 8 week treatment, alerts active 4 week baseline, alerts silent 1 week washout 1 week washout alerts activated installations, May 2017 week 2 post-activation survey week 8 post-activation survey

  10. Forward collision warning Mean warning rate per 100 miles driven study period: F(1,13)=6.01, p=0.03 location: F(1,13)=5.06, p=0.04 interaction: F(1,13)=0.34, p=0.57

  11. Forward collision warning Mean warning rate per 100 miles driven study period: F(1,13)=6.01, p=0.03 location: F(1,13)=5.06, p=0.04 interaction: F(1,13)=0.34, p=0.57

  12. Headway monitoring warnings (HMW) Mean warning rate per 100 miles driven study period: F(1,13)=7.30, p=0.02 location: F(1,13)=7.55, p=0.02 interaction: F(1,13)=1.96, p=0.18

  13. Lane departure warning (LDW) Mean warning rate per 100 miles driven study period: F(1,13)=4.67, p=0.05 location: F(1,13)=3.80, p=0.07 interaction: F(1,13)=2.04, p=0.18

  14. Mobileye safety score Rural Urban study period: F(1,13)=7.35, p=0.02 location: F(1,13)=6.10, p=0.03 interaction: F(1,13)=2.53, p=0.14

  15. Usefulness of Mobileye Features *

  16. Criticality, urgency, and annoyance for FCW, LDW, and HMW Mean Rating

  17. Self-report experience (agree/disagree) Would like to turn off (FCW or LDW) Increased following distance because of HMW Reduced time spent driving over the posted limit because of SLI Mobileye helped improve safety while driving

  18. Self-report experience (agree/disagree) Would like to turn off (FCW or LDW) • FCW: 84 percent disagreed, LDW: 81 percent disagreed Increased following distance because of HMW • 48 percent disagreed, 48 percent agreed Reduced time spent driving over the posted limit because of SLI • 67 percent disagreed, 15 percent agreed Mobileye helped improve safety while driving • 19 percent disagreed, 67 percent agreed

  19. Conclusion Warning-triggering behaviors less frequent when warnings present • The warnings work! Roadway conditions modify driving risk, change possible with feature Research need: Effects of age?

  20. Ian J. Reagan, Ph.D. Senior research scientist ireagan@iihs.org

More Related