This content is not included in your SAE MOBILUS subscription, or you are not logged in.
Driver Behavior in Forward Collision and Lane Departure Scenarios
ISSN: 0148-7191, e-ISSN: 2688-3627
Published April 05, 2016 by SAE International in United States
Annotation ability available
In 2010, 32,855 fatalities and over 2.2 million injuries occurred in automobile crashes, not to mention the immense economic impact on our society. Two of the four most frequent types of crashes are rear-end and lane departure crashes. In 2011, rear-end crashes accounted for approximately 28% of all crashes while lane departure crashes accounted for approximately 9%. This paper documents a study on the NADS-1 driving simulator to support the development of driver behavior modeling. Good models of driver behavior will support the development of algorithms that can detect normal and abnormal behavior, as well as warning systems that can issue useful alerts to the driver. Several scenario events were designed to fill gaps in previous crash research. For example, previous studies at NADS focused on crash events in which the driver was severely distracted immediately before the event. The events in this study included a sample of undistracted drivers. Additionally, this study included data collection on an unforced lane departure event, in addition to the forward collision scenarios. This paper summarizes the experimental design and results, including comparisons between these data and legacy data involving distracted forward collision events. This is the second study in a series of three funded by the Toyota Collaborative Safety Research Center.
CitationGaspar, J., Brown, T., Schwarz, C., Chrysler, S. et al., "Driver Behavior in Forward Collision and Lane Departure Scenarios," SAE Technical Paper 2016-01-1455, 2016, https://doi.org/10.4271/2016-01-1455.
- NHTSA. 2012. Traffic Safety Facts: 2012, US Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C.
- Gibson, James J., and Crooks Laurence E.. 1938. “A Theoretical Field-Analysis of Automobile-Driving.” The American Journal of Psychology, 453-71.
- Markkula, Gustav, Benderius Ola, Wolff Krister, and Wahde Mattias. 2012. “A Review of near-Collision Driver Behavior Models.” Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 54 (6): 1117-43.
- Ranney, Thomas A. 1994. “Models of Driving Behavior: A Review of Their Evolution.” Accident Analysis & Prevention 26 (6): 733-50.
- Bifulco, Gennaro Nicola, Pariota Luigi, Brackstione Mark, and Mcdonald Michael. 2013. “Driving Behaviour Models Enabling the Simulation of Advanced Driving Assistance Systems: Revisiting the Action Point Paradigm.” Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies 36: 352-66.
- Seppelt, Bobbie D., and Lee John D.. 2007. “Making Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC) Limits Visible.” International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 65 (3): 192-205.
- Michon, John A. 1985. “A Critical View of Driver Behavior Models: What Do We Know, What Should We Do?” In Human Behavior and Traffic Safety, 485-524. Springer. http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4613-2173-6_19.
- Donges, Edmund. 1978. “A Two-Level Model of Driver Steering Behavior.” Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 20 (6): 691-707.
- Salvucci, Dario D., and Gray Rob. 2004. “A Two-Point Visual Control Model of Steering.” Perception-London 33 (10): 1233-48.
- Lerner, N., Singer, J., Huey, R., Brown, T., Marshall, D., Chrysler, S., Schmitt, R., Baldwin, C., Eisert, J., Lewis, B., Bakkar, A., & Chiang, D. (2014). Crash Warning Interface Metrics (CWIM): Phase 3. NHTSA, Washington, D.C.
- Brown, Timothy L. 2005. “Adjusted Minimum Time-to-Collision (TTC): A Robust Approach to Evaluating Crash Scenarios.” In Proceedings of the Driving Simulation Conference North America, 40. Vol. 48. https://www.nadssc.uiowa.edu/dscna/2005/papers/Adjusted_Minimum_TimeToCollision.pdf.