A trial of retrofitted advisory collision avoidance technology in government fleet vehicles

Thompson, James P.; Mackenzie, Jamie; Dutschke, Jeffrey; Baldock, Matthew; Raftery, Simon; Wall, John C.

doi:10.1016/j.aap.2018.02.026

Cited by 15 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similarly, we identified a wide range of imagery used in manuals which can also significantly erode a reader’s efforts to understand and put into practice a manual’s content. Relevant to this, Thompson et al [ 3 ] found ambiguity around ADAS alert symbols and their meaning. This is a significant issue when considering that many drivers have access to ADAS through renting vehicles or having multiple cars in a household (extremely common in car-centric jurisdictions such as Australia).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…Previous studies have found ADAS to increase safety [ 1 , 2 ]. A recent study by Thompson et al [ 3 ] found the use of collision avoidance technology increased the safety margin during car following interactions through the use of both audio and visual cues. These findings provide support for a vast body of literature focusing on vehicle crash analysis, which also highlights the potential benefits of ADAS [ 4 – 6 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, collision avoidance technology (CAT) varies significantly across vehicle models. CAT systems can use either radar, lidar, a camera, or a combination of these to detect an object or obstacle that the vehicle may collide with [ 3 ]. Additionally, the alert for a potential obstruction may differ between makes and models.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Is a flick-through enough? A content analysis of Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) user manuals

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) are being developed and installed in increasing numbers. Some of the most popular ADAS include blind spot monitoring and cruise control which are fitted in the majority of new vehicles sold in high-income countries. With more drivers having access to these technologies, it is imperative to develop policy and strategies to guarantee the safe uptake of ADAS. One key issue is that ADAS education has been primarily centred on the user manual which are not widely utilised. Moreover, it is unclear if user manuals are an adequate source of education in terms of content and readability. To address this research gap, a content analysis was used to assess the differences in ADAS-related content and readability among the manuals of the highest selling vehicles in Australia. The qualitative findings showed that there are seven themes in the user manuals: differences between driving with and without ADAS, familiarisation requirements, operational limits of the ADAS, potential ADAS errors, behaviour adaptation warnings, confusion warnings, and malfunction warnings. The quantitative analysis found that some of the manuals require several years of education above the recommended for a universal audience (>8 years) to be understood. Additionally, there is a notable number of text diversions and infographics which could make comprehension of the user manual difficult. This investigation shows that there is a lack of standardisation of ADAS user manuals (in both content and delivery of information) which requires regulatory oversight. Driver ADAS education needs to be prioritised by policymakers and practitioners as smart technology continues to increase across the transport system. It seems that current strategies based on user manuals are insufficient to achieve successful adoption and safe use of these technologies.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Is a flick-through enough? A content analysis of Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) user manuals

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…xx ARTICLE IN PRESS extra inputs about hazards, the sensors often lack precision with many false alarms, are redundant as they do not provide new information to the driver and just increase driver irritation (eg., Varhelyi, Kaufmann and Persson, 2015). Given a choice, many drivers would not continue to use them (Thompson, MacKenzie et al, 2018) as shown from survey of drivers who had trialed Intelligent Speed Adaptation technology.…”

Section: Side Mirrorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why do we make safe behaviour so hard for drivers?

Williamson

2021

JRS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite significant improvements in road safety in Australia and developed countries over some decades, the downward trend in fatalities and serious injuries has slowed markedly, and even stalled. New strategies are needed to turn this trend around. Current road safety philosophy, the Safe System, has been effective, but needs broadening to increase the scope of solutions. The Safe System accepts that road users make errors and that the road system should be forgiving of those errors. This leads to countermeasures that emphasise limiting consequences of crashes like lowered speeds, crashworthy vehicles and roads. The problem is that conceptualising road-user error as inevitable ignores the fact that many road-user errors are caused by poor design of the road system including roads, vehicles and road rules. It means road safety overlooks productive avenues for prevention of road-user error and crashes. This paper discusses this issue with Safe System and provides examples of poor road system design that make it difficult for road users to behave safely. This includes poor road rules like inappropriate speed limits, inadequate road design such as poor signage and confusing lane-marking, inadequate vehicle design that limits vision or provides false visual information, as well as problems with driver-assistive technologies: cruise control, automated driving and warning systems. In each case the paper discusses how poor design fails to account for human capacities making it hard for road-users to behave safely. Importantly the paper looks at solutions to these problems and provides some new principles for Safe System.

show abstract

“…A study by Thompson et al [19] at Transport for New South Wales undertook a trial of Mobileye 560 on a fleet of 34 government vehicles for a period of seven months. The trial was conducted with the system initially in "stealth" mode with no alerts, then with active alerts, and finally with the system in "stealth" mode again in order to determine if the system had a lasting effect on driving behaviour.…”

Section: Collision Warning Advanced Driver-assistance Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Advanced Driver-Assistance Systems for City Bus Applications

Blades¹,

Douglas²,

Early³

et al. 2020

SAE Technical Paper Series

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The bus sector is currently lagging behind when it comes to implementing autonomous systems for improved vehicle safety. However, in cities such as London, public transport strategies are changing, with requirements being made for advanced driverassistance systems (ADAS) on buses. This study discusses the adoption of ADAS systems within the bus sector. A review of the onroad ADAS bus trials shows that passive forward collision warning (FCW) and intelligent speed assistance (ISA) systems have been successful in reducing the number of imminent pedestrian/vehicle collision events and improving speed limit compliance, respectively. Bus accident statistics for Great Britain have shown that pedestrians account for 82% of all fatalities, with three quarters occurring with frontal bus impacts. These statistics suggest that the bus forward collision warning system is a priority for inclusion in future vehicles to enhance the driver's direct vision, and to increase reaction time for earlier brake application. Almost 80% of bus occupant casualties occurred in non-impact situations, mainly during acceleration/deceleration events. Therefore, care must be taken in implementing autonomous braking in buses, to ensure that it does not cause an increased number of deceleration events beyond the safe stability limits for passengers. Real on-road drive cycle data has shown that while instances of unsafe braking events do not occur regularly, there are instances of braking events that would present a hazard to both seated and standing passengers, therefore systems that would mitigate these issues would have real benefits to both passenger comfort and safety. During tests to simulate the use of the vehicle retarder for an autonomous braking system, deceleration rates largely remained safely within standee and seated passenger stability limits, whereas an emergency stop test showed a peak deceleration 3.5 times the limit of a standee supported by a vertical handrail, and 4 times the limit for a forward/backward facing seated passenger.

show abstract

A trial of retrofitted advisory collision avoidance technology in government fleet vehicles

Cited by 15 publications

References 31 publications

Is a flick-through enough? A content analysis of Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) user manuals

Is a flick-through enough? A content analysis of Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) user manuals

Why do we make safe behaviour so hard for drivers?

Advanced Driver-Assistance Systems for City Bus Applications

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About