1 / 21

Human Factors Progress IDS Project June, 2004

Human Factors Progress IDS Project June, 2004. Nicholas Ward Mick Rakauskas Jason Laberge Janet Craeser HumanFIRST Program. Human Factors Tasks. Analyze problem Task analysis “What are the task elements of crossing an intersection?” “Where in this sequence in the task failing?”

charlespatton
Download Presentation

Human Factors Progress IDS Project June, 2004

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. Human Factors ProgressIDS ProjectJune, 2004 Nicholas Ward Mick Rakauskas Jason Laberge Janet Craeser HumanFIRST Program

  2. Human Factors Tasks • Analyze problem • Task analysis • “What are the task elements of crossing an intersection?” • “Where in this sequence in the task failing?” • “Who is most at risk?” • Information analysis • “What information supports task behavior?” • “Which information is misused or missing?” • Simulate case site • Propose interfaces and simulate candidate • Review previous solutions • “What has not worked before?” • Evaluate candidate interface

  3. Task Analysis • Detect intersection • Decelerate and enter correct lane • Signal if intending to turn • Detect and interpret traffic control device • Detect traffic and pedestrians • Detect, perceive, and monitor gaps • Accept gap and complete maneuver • Continue to monitor intersection

  4. Target Population • Older drivers (> 65 years) have a high crash risk at intersections • Drivers > 75 years had greatest accident involvement ratio (Stamatiadis et al., 1991) • Drivers > 65 years 3 to 7 times more likely to be in a fatal intersection crash (Preusser et al., 1998) • Drivers > 65 years over-represented in crashes at many rural intersections in Minnesota (Preston & Storm, 2003)

  5. Abstraction Hierarchy

  6. Generic Support • Intersection / Control device • Vehicle presence • Vehicle speed, distance, time • Size of gap in traffic • Safety margin of gap • (specified location in traffic)

  7. Minnesota Context • In Minnesota, most drivers stop before proceeding (Preston & Storm, 2003) • 57% stopped in 2296 rural thru-STOP accidents • 87% of right angle crashes at US 52 and CSAH 9 occurred after the driver stopped • NOT a violation problem • Instead, a gap acceptance problem • Detecting vehicles (speed, distance, time) • Perceiving gap size (and location) • Judging safe gaps

  8. Minnesota Location

  9. Road Network

  10. Intersection

  11. Elevation

  12. Crossing

  13. Demonstration

  14. Interface Task • Design Tenets • Prohibitive (not permissive). • Decision remains with driver. • Design for worst case. • Use MUTCD sign guidelines. • Consider diverse range of option rather than refine a concept. • Expert panel review of concepts • Everyone had own perspective. • No consensus for best sign. • Some signs ejected. • Interface demonstration • IDS TAP • MN Pooled fund • MUTCD • Revised design

  15. Four Prototypes • Speedometer • Speed monitor • for lead vehicle. • Flashes red when • near or far-side • vehicle is speeding. • Hazard Beacon • Flashing sign • activates when • intersection is unsafe. • System tracks • arrival time • (or speed) • of lead vehicle • Hybrid • Arrival time • countdown for • lead vehicle. • Prohibitive • symbol relative to • maneuvers based on • near and far-side • traffic conditions. • Spit-Hybrid • Median position • with logic for North • Left nearside • position for North • and South.

  16. Baseline

  17. Hazard Beacon

  18. Speedometer

  19. Hybrid

  20. Split Hybrid

  21. Conclusion Task Completed: Intersection selected and simulated with high Geospecific accuracy. • Task Completed: • Interface concepts generated. • Task on schedule: • Experiment outlined. • Interface logic tested. • Traffic models under review (gaps).

More Related