Draft Regulation on Driver Assist Systems to Avoid Blind Spot Accidents Proposal for Regulation Text

Similar documents
Verification of a cyclist dummy and test setup for the evaluation of Cyclist-AEB systems

LECTUR 10 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE DRIVER, THE PEDESTRIAN, THE VEHICLE AND THE ROAD. One problem that faces traffic and transportation engineers is:

APPENDIX D. MTO Warrants for Traffic Signal Control and Left-Turn Storage Lanes

DEVELOPMENT OF A CYCLIST-AEB TESTING SYSTEM. CATS - Sjef van Montfort, TNO

CATS Deliverable 4.2: CATS propulsion system requirements

Frontal collision of buses

Safety Impacts: Presentation Overview

Determining Minimum Sightlines at Grade Crossings: A Guide for Road Authorities and Railway Companies

Use of Throw Distances of Pedestrians and Bicyclists as Part of a Scientific Accident Reconstruction Method 1

Informal document GRSG (110 th GRSG session, April 2016 Agenda item 22.) Submitted by the expert from Israel.

Prof. Dr. Karl Viktor Schaller Director of Engineering and Purchasing MAN Nutzfahrzeuge AG

1.3.4 CHARACTERISTICS OF CLASSIFICATIONS

2.0 LANE WIDTHS GUIDELINE

Danish investigations on accidents with heavy vehicles and cyclists

The Corporation of the City of Sarnia. School Crossing Guard Warrant Policy

TRAFFIC ACCIDENT RESEARCH IN GERMANY THE GERMAN IN-DEPTH ACCIDENT STUDY (GIDAS)

Design and Installation of Low Level Cycle Signals

LOS ANGELES COUNTY FIRE DEPARMENT APPARATUS OPERATOR 1C TILLERED EMERGENCY VEHICLE OPERATIONS

Proposal for amendments to Regulation No. 79 to include ACSF > 10 km/h

Evaluation of M-99 (Broad Street) Road Diet and Intersection Operational Investigation

Safety Assessment Grade Crossing. Executive Summary ENCLOSURE 1

The Vision Zero Swedish parliament (1997)

Post impact trajectory of vehicles at rural intersections

Young Researchers Seminar 2011

VRU-proxi IWG Accidentology analysis summary

SaveCAP Project Summary. Margriet van Schijndel-de Nooij TNO

Submission on Clontarf to City Centre Cycle Route with signatures of 1,493 people

Emergency Roadside Technician Dies When Struck by a Single-Unit Truck on an Interstate Shoulder. Incident Number: 05KY001

The SaveCAP project: Cyclist and pedestrian protection

Topic No January 2000 Manual on Uniform Traffic Studies Revised July Chapter 8 GAP STUDY

German Road Safety Council 2018

New Safety Features for Crash Avoidance. Dr. Kay Stepper Robert Bosch LLC

Collision Avoidance based on Camera and Radar Fusion. Jitendra Shah interactive Summer School 4-6 July, 2012

EMPHASIS AREA 1: PEDESTRIANS

Frequently asked questions (FAQ) about a borough-wide 20 mph speed limit

Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety at Alternative Intersections and Interchanges

An intelligent approach that works for all Brake Fleet Safety Conference 2016 Nick O Donnell, Assistant Director Strategic Transport, Ealing Council

DERIVATION OF A SIGNAL TIMING SCHEME FOR AN EXTERNALLY SIGNALIZED ROUNDABOUT

Emergency Rides. Driving Simulators Research Development Production. 1. General. Rev

Chapter Twenty-eight SIGHT DISTANCE BUREAU OF LOCAL ROADS AND STREETS MANUAL

INDEX. Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads INDEX

Traffic Control Devices

Designing for Pedestrian Safety

1) No through traffic except for pedestrians, cyclists or pedestrian and cyclists.

Journée d étude consacrée à la sécurité routière des deux roues. European Commission's view of cycling safety. Casto López Benítez

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES. North Harrison Street (Lee Highway to Little Falls Road) Comparative Analysis. Prepared for:

An International Experience on the Safety Performance of 2+1 cross-section. Basil Psarianos Nat l Techn. Univ. Athens, Greece

Road Safety Facilities Implemented in Japan

PLACEMENT OF SIGNS RECOMMENDED PRACTICES SUB-SECTION

People killed and injured per million hours spent travelling, Motorcyclist Cyclist Driver Car / van passenger

Boston Post Road Design Feasibility Study

Multi-criteria Evaluation of Traffic Signal Control Manfred Boltze and Wei Jiang 1

Access Location, Spacing, Turn Lanes, and Medians

Everyday Hazards for School Bus Drivers. Reference Guide and Test

Document 2 - City of Ottawa Pedestrian Crossover (PXO) Program

List serve thread summary: Truck apron at corner radius

Issues Relating to the Geometric Design of Intersections Vergil G. Stover

Analyses and statistics on the frequency and the incidence of traffic accidents within Dolj County

Analysis of Car-Pedestrian Impact Scenarios for the Evaluation of a Pedestrian Sensor System Based on the Accident Data from Sweden

Complete Street Analysis of a Road Diet: Orange Grove Boulevard, Pasadena, CA

DOWNTOWN MIAMI PEDESTRIAN PRIORITY ZONE

A review of game-theoretic models of road user behaviour

Chapter 8 Chapter 8 VEHICLE GAP STUDY PURPOSE VEHICLE GAP STUDY (FIGURE 8-1)

THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF BELLEVILLE BY-LAW NUMBER

A Traffic Operations Method for Assessing Automobile and Bicycle Shared Roadways

Insert the title of your. presentation. Potential Benefit of Lane. Departure Warning Systems and. Keep Assistance. Richard Cuerden 9 th March 2015

SPEED CONTROL AT ROUNDABOUTS USE OF MAXIMUM ENTRY PATH RADII

Review of Guidelines for Cycleway Safety Fencing

CURB EXTENSIONS BULB OUTS DPS 201 NECKDOWNS

Improving Cyclist Safety at the Dundas Street West and Sterling Road Intersection

Chapter 2: Standards for Access, Non-Motorized, and Transit

Ohio Share the Road Driver s s Education Unit

IMPROVING PEDESTRIAN SAFETY AT UNCONTROLLED CROSSINGS. Guidelines for Marked Crosswalks

PRINCE GEORGE S PLAZA METRO AREA PEDESTRIAN PLAN

10.0 CURB EXTENSIONS GUIDELINE

Scientific Analysis of Road Traffic Accidents. Requirements and Training Needs. Saving Lives through Accident Research

Unit Six: Driving Faster with More Risk URBAN, SUBURBAN, AND RURAL DRIVING

Module 3 Developing Timing Plans for Efficient Intersection Operations During Moderate Traffic Volume Conditions

A Novel Approach to Evaluate Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings using Trajectory Data

BICYCLE RULES OF THE ROAD

What Is a Complete Street?

Bicyclists and Truck Driver Visibility

General Design Factors

Evaluation of Pedestrian and Cyclist Warning Systems for Trucks

KDOT Access Management Policy (AMP)

COLLISION AVOIDANCE SYSTEM FOR BUSES, MANAGING PEDESTRIAN DETECTION AND ALERTS NEAR BUS STOPS

CROSSING GUARD PLACEMENT CONSIDERATIONS AND GAP ASSESSMENT

Driveway Design Criteria

EUCLID AVENUE PARKING STUDY CITY OF SYRACUSE, ONONDAGA COUNTY, NEW YORK

Figure 1. Results of the Application of Blob Entering Detection Techniques.

Deaths/injuries in motor vehicle crashes per million hours spent travelling, July 2007 June 2011 (All ages) Mode of travel

Pedestrian Safety in Cities

Pedestrian Safety Tips

Alberta. Traffic Collision Statistics. Office of Traffic Safety Transportation Services Division May 2017

Peloton Technology Platooning Test Nov 2013

Contents. Champaign-Urbana Mass Transit District Stop Placement Guidelines

Unit Five : Driving In Neighborhoods

City of Prince Albert Statement of POLICY and PROCEDURE. Department: Public Works Policy No. 66. Section: Transportation Issued: July 14, 2014

THE FUTURE OF THE TxDOT ROADWAY DESIGN MANUAL

Retrofitting Urban Arterials into Complete Streets

Transcription:

Informal document GRSG-11-36 (11th GRSG, 4-8 April 17, agenda item 16.) Draft Regulation on Driver Assist Systems to Avoid Blind Spot Accidents Proposal for Regulation Text Patrick Seiniger Federal Highway Research Institute Germany Bundesanstalt für Straßenwesen Structure Summary of previous work Accidentology Relevant Parameters Derivation of Test Cases Test Tools & Conduction Regulation Test Setup Test Cases Excerpt: relevant text 1

SUMMARY 3 In depth accident analysis - results Daytime about 9 % 9 % dry weather Truck drivers sight O.K.; obstruction in only 9 % Only % of the cases after previous halt of the truck In 9 % of the cases truck did not brake In 9 % of the cases bicycle moved Impact point at frontal part of the truck (up to 6 m towards the rear) 9 % of fatalities with trucks above 7. t 6x more Bicycles than Pedestrians Traffic lights do not play any role Cycl. 6-8% (UDB / DEKRA) Ped. accidents 64 seriously 118 16 injured fatalities 3 4 4

..1.1. -. -.1 -.1 -. 44 44. 44.4 44.6 44.8 4 4. 4.4 4.6 4.8 46 Time Datum/Jahr In depth accident analysis - results Speeds: 1.9.8.7.6..4 1.9.8.7.6..4.3 v initial,truck.3 v initial,truck -v initial,cycle. v initial,cycle. v impact,truck -v impact,cycle v impact,truck.1 v impact,cycle 1 3 4 6 absolute speeds [km/h] v initial,truck -v imact,truck.1 v initial,cycle -v impact,cycle -4-4 6 speed difference [km/h] Bicycle and truck did not change their speeds during the accident in about two thirds of all cases Truck speeds are below 3 km/h in more than 9% of all cases Bicycle speeds are below km/h in more than 8% of all cases Difference between Warning and Information Warning High intensity If issued right, good effects in steering driver s attention High annoyance if issued too often risk of deactivation Information Low intensity Low annoyance if issued too often low risk of deactivation Lesser effect in steering driver s attention Not Considered for Assistance System Considered for Assistance System Sound level 6 3

Last Point of Information LPI Stopping distance depends on driver reaction time and deceleration Speed Reaction time Braking time Time Reaction time Braking time Time Information should be given at a point when the vehicle driver can still comfortably come to a full stop BEFORE crossing the bicycle line of movement This point is the Last Point of Information (LPI) Distance 7 Test Setup R A L Impact location from front of truck A Initial lateral separation of HGV and Bicycle R Turning Radius of HGV 8 4

Original Test Cases Information MUST be given at or before Last Point of Information (LPI) Exact timing defined by manufacturer Tests will simulate at least 8s before LPI ID v Truck [km/h] v Cycle km/h] R Initial lateral Impact location with separation respect to front of truck 1 1 1, 6 to scale, 16x.m Region for v HGV >v Bicycle Bicycle 4s before LPI Bicycle at LPI 1 1 4, 6 3 1 1 4, 3 4 1 1 1, 1 1 4, 6 1 4, 7 1, 6 Bicycle before LPI Region for v HGV <v Bicycle Bicycle at LPI 9 Possible Test Equipment Vehicle Truck, manually driven, without trailer Position estimation: GeneSys DGPS Position transmitted to dummy propulsion system Dummy Standard impactable bicycle dummy Draft dummy specs included in Regulation Dummy Propulsion 4a Surfboard commercial Dummy Propulsion Synchronisation of triggering time 1

Speed Accuracy (manual driving) km/h desired speed 1 km/h desired speed 16 18 14 Speed [km/h] 16 14 1 1 8 ± km/h seems feasible Speed [km/h] 1 1 8 6 ± km/h feasible 6 4 4-1 -1-8 -6-4 - Time [s] -1-1 -8-6 -4 - Time [s] 11 Influence of Vehicle Geometry (Example Case) 1 6

Case : Overview 1 Case Case Case Single Tractor Tractor + Trailer Bus 1 1 1 1 1 - - - - - -1-1 - x - - -1-1 - x - - -1-1 - Different vehicle types show different cornering styles Corridors for test conduction need to be adjusted to take this into account x 13 False Positive Tests System must not react to trees, cones and other road clutter Tests will always be carried out using cones Information should only be given when approaching the bicycle Generic local road sign should be placed No information should be given when entering the corridor Additionally road sign positioned at entry of corridor 14 7

Summary Accident data shows: Bicycles, daytime, no obstruction of sight Impact on right side of heavy trucks In majority of cases no starting or stopping Speed ranges below km/h (bicycle), below 3 km/h (truck) Concept for assistance system Information signal (comparable to M1 blind spot assist systems) 7 draft test cases had been defined Test procedure can be conducted with current test tools Possible accuracies for speed and position (corridor) have been defined 1 REGULATION 16 8

Performance Requirements.3.1. Whenever the system is active, as specified in paragraph.3.1.4. below, the BSIS shall inform the driver about bicycles, travelling initially in parallel to the vehicle on the near side of the vehicle, that would be in conflict if the vehicle would start a turn towards the bicycle line of movement..3.1.1. The information signal shall be given at a time when the vehicle driver would still be able to avoid a collision, taking into account an appropriate reaction time and an achievable brake deceleration..3.1.. The information signal shall meet the requirements as defined in paragraph.4. below..3.1.3. The information signal shall be given independently from the activation of turn signals..3.1.4. The BSIS shall be operative for all forward vehicle speeds between 1 km/h and 3 km/h..3.1.. The BSIS shall be able to give an information signal for all bicycles moving with a speed between km/h and km/h..3.1.6. The BSIS shall not give an information signal for stationary objects that are not pedestrians or cyclists..3.1.7. The information signal shall be provided in such a timely manner that the accident is avoided, i.e. the vehicle is stopped before crossing the bicycle trajectory, if there was a driver brake application, resulting in m/s² brake deceleration, and initiated with a reaction time of 1.4 seconds after the information signal. This shall be tested as specified in paragraph 6.. 17 No information signal at traffic sign or cone Information must be activated here 1 ±. m 1 ±. m Mark corridor using cones *, spacing not more than m d corridor d corridor, outer Vehicle width + 1m sinα r turn Line C d c α =arccos(r turn d lateral )/r turn Position cone to account for initial swerving if defined in Table 1. d lateral Bicycle line of movement Bicycle starting position l corridor Line A** d a Line B α r turn d b Synchronization: d a) dummy, bicycle b) vehicle at the same time Collision Point *: Use locally common traffic cones, height not less than.4 m **: dashed or dash-dotted lines are for information only; they should not be marked on the ground within the corridor. They can be marked outside of the corridor. If not specified, tolerances are ±.1 m 18 9

Test Cases New Orig. Test Test Case Case r turn v vehicle [km/h] v Bicycle [km/h] d lateral d a d b d c d bicycle l corridor d corridor d corridor,outer Include cone to account for initial swerving? 1 3 4 6 7 8 9 1 11 1 1 1 1.8 4.3 Yes 4 1 1 1. 44.4 4.4 Yes 7 38.3 1.7 1 No 6 1. 43. 1 1 No 1 1 19.8.4 6 Yes 4. vehicle 1 1 44.4 14.7 3 Yes Test cases where vehicle initially 3.4 < > 7 width 3 17.7 + 1m Yes swerves to the outside 1* 1 1.8 4.3 No 1. 44.4 4* 1 1 Test cases where 4.4vehicle does No * 1 1 not swerve. 19.8 to.4 the outside 1 No * 1 1 4. 44.4 14.7 No 3.4 3* 1 1 17.7 No Test Case No. corresponding to presentations from GRSGs 16 19 Test Procedure 6..1.Using cones and the bicycle dummy, form a corridor according to Figure 1, Appendix 1 of this document and the additional dimensions as specified in Table 1, Appendix 1 of this Regulation. 6...Position the bicycle target (as detailed in Annex 3 of this Regulation) at the appropriate starting position as shown in Figure 1, Appendix 1 of this Regulation. 6..3.Position a local traffic sign corresponding to sign C14 as defined in the Vienna convention on road signs and signals (speed limit km/h) or the local sign closest to this sign in meaning on a pole at the entry of the corridor as shown in Figure 1, Appendix 1 of this Regulation. 6..4.Drive the vehicle at a speed as shown in Table 1, Appendix 1 of this document with a tolerance of +/- km/h through the corridor. 6...Do not operate the turn lights when initiating the turn towards the bicycle trajectory. 6..6.Move the bicycle dummy on a straight line as shown in Figure 1, Appendix 1 of this document in way that the dummy position crosses line A (Figure 1, Appendix 1) with a tolerance of +/-. m at the same time when the vehicle crosses line B (Figure 1, Appendix 1) with a tolerance of +/-. m (verify e.g. with video or picture). Move the dummy in a way that the dummy moves in a steady state for at least 8 seconds, with the speed as shown in Table 1, Appendix 1 of this document with a tolerance of +/-. km/h, before reaching the collision point. 6..7.Verify that the Blind Spot Information signal has been activated before the vehicle crosses line C, Figure 1, Appendix 1 of this document. 6..8.Verify that the Blind Spot Information signal has not been activated when passing the traffic sign and any cones as long as the bicycle dummy is still stationary. 1

Future Improvements To clarify: additional warnings can be given after LPI Consider how to address approval of stand-alone / retrofit systems Erase original test case column from test case table 1 11