...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Accident Analysis & Prevention >How do drivers negotiate intersections with pedestrians? The importance of pedestrian time-to-arrival and visibility
【24h】

How do drivers negotiate intersections with pedestrians? The importance of pedestrian time-to-arrival and visibility

机译：司机如何与行人谈判交叉路口？行人到达和可见性的重要性

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Forward collision warning (FCW) and autonomous emergency braking (AEB) systems are increasingly available and prevent or mitigate collisions by alerting the driver or autonomously braking the vehicle. Threat-assessment and decision-making algorithms for FCW and AEB aim to find the best compromise for safety by intervening at the "right" time: neither too early, potentially upsetting the driver, nor too late, possibly missing opportunities to avoid the collision.Today, the extent to which activation times for FCW and AEB should depend on factors such as pedestrian speed and lane width is unknown. To guide the design of FCW and AEB intervention time, we employed a fractional factorial design, and determined how seven factors (crossing side, car speed, pedestrian speed, crossing angle, pedestrian size, zebra-crossing presence, and lane width) affect the driver's response process and comfort zone when negotiating an intersection with a pedestrian. Ninety-four volunteers drove through an intersection in a fixed-base driving simulator, which was based on open-source software (OpenDS). Several parameters, including pedestrian time-to-arrival and driver response time, were calculated to describe the driver response process and define driver comfort boundaries.Linear mixed-effect models showed that driver responses depended mainly on pedestrian time-to-arrival and visibility, whereas factors such as pedestrian size, zebra-crossing presence, and lane width did not significantly influence the driver response process. Drivers released the accelerator pedal in 99.8 % of the trials and braked in 89% of the trials. Forty-six percent of the drivers changed their negotiation strategy (proportion of pedal braking to engine braking) to minimize driving effort over the course of the experiment. In fact, 51 % of the of the inexperienced drivers changed their response strategy whereas only 40 % of the experienced drivers did; nevertheless, all drivers behaved similarly, independent of driving experience. The flexible and customizable driving environment provided by OpenDS may be a viable platform for behavioural experiments in driving simulators.Results from this study suggest that visibility and pedestrian time-to-arrival are the most important variables for defining the earliest acceptable FCW and AEB activations. Fractional factorial design effectively compared the influence of seven factors on driver behaviour within a single experiment; however, this design did not allow in-depth data analysis. In the future, OpenDS might become a standard platform, enabling crowdsourcing and favouring repeatability across studies in traffic safety. Finally, this study advises future design and evaluation procedures (e.g. new car assessment programs) for FCW and AEB by highlighting which factors deserve further investigation and which ones do not.
机译：前进碰撞警告（FCW）和自主紧急制动（AEB）系统越来越多地可用，通过警告驾驶员或自主制动车辆来防止或减轻碰撞。 FCW和AEB的威胁评估和决策算法旨在通过干预“正确”时间来找到最佳妥协：既不过早，潜在地扰乱司机，也不太晚，可能缺少避免碰撞的机会。今天，FCW和AEB激活时间的程度应该取决于行人速度和车道宽度等因素。要指导FCW和AEB干预时间的设计，我们采用了一个分数阶乘设计，并确定了七种因素（交叉侧，汽车速度，行人速度，交叉角度，行人大小，斑马交叉存在和车道宽度）如何影响驾驶员的响应过程和舒适区在与行人谈判交叉口时。九十四个志愿者通过固定基地驾驶模拟器中的一个交叉点，该模拟器基于开源软件（开放）。计算有几个参数，包括行人时间到达和驾驶员响应时间，以描述驾驶员响应过程并定义驱动器舒适边界。线性混合效果模型显示驾驶员响应主要是行人时间到来和可见性，而行人大小，斑马线存在和车道宽度等因素没有显着影响驾驶员响应过程。司机在99.8％的试验中发布了加速踏板，并在89％的试验中制动。 46％的司机改变了他们的谈判战略（踏板制动的比例，发动机制动），以最大限度地减少实验过程中的驾驶效率。事实上，51％的缺乏经验的司机改变了他们的回应策略，而只有40％的经验司机所做的;尽管如此，所有司机都表现得同样，独立于驾驶经验。由开关提供的灵活可定制的驾驶环境可能是驾驶模拟器中的行为实验的可行平台。本研究中的结果表明，可见性和行人到达是定义最早可接受的FCW和AEB激活的最重要变量。分数阶乘设计有效地比较了七种因素对单一实验中驾驶员行为的影响;但是，这种设计不允许深入数据分析。将来，开关可能成为标准平台，在交通安全的研究中，可以覆盖众所周心和青睐重复性。最后，本研究通过强调哪些因素值得进一步调查以及哪些因素来建议FCW和AEB的未来设计和评估程序（例如新的汽车评估计划）建议未来的设计和评估程序（例如新的汽车评估计划）。

著录项

  • 来源
    《Accident Analysis & Prevention》 |2020年第6期|105524.1-105524.10|共10页
  • 作者

    Dozza Marco; Boda Christian-Nils; Jaber Leila; Thalya Prateek; Lubbe Nils;

  • 作者单位

    Chalmers Univ Technol Campus Lindholmen SAGA 4th Floor Horselgangen 4 S-41756 Gothenburg Sweden;

    Chalmers Univ Technol Campus Lindholmen SAGA 4th Floor Horselgangen 4 S-41756 Gothenburg Sweden;

    Chalmers Univ Technol Campus Lindholmen SAGA 4th Floor Horselgangen 4 S-41756 Gothenburg Sweden|Autol Res Wallentinsvagen 22 S-44783 Vargarda Sweden;

    Chalmers Univ Technol Campus Lindholmen SAGA 4th Floor Horselgangen 4 S-41756 Gothenburg Sweden|Autol Res Wallentinsvagen 22 S-44783 Vargarda Sweden;

    Autol Res Wallentinsvagen 22 S-44783 Vargarda Sweden;

  • 收录信息
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

    Driver comfort; Response process; Active safety; Euro NCAP;

    机译：司机舒适;响应过程;主动安全;欧元ncap;

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号