Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
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?” “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 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 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) Abstraction Hierarchy Aggregate Detailed Functional Purpose Physical Form Concrete Physical Function General Function Abstract Function Abstract Whole Subsystem Component Safe transport Efficient transport Rapid transport Pleasure Field of safe travel and field zone ratio (time, distance, energy, acceleration and force balances) Probabilistic balance of risk and success Performance and cost balance Stochastic properties of traffic Traffic dynamics (traffic stream stability) Vehicle dynamics Regulatory constraints Norms and cultural conventions Other driver intent Destinations Paths and routes Visibility Coefficient of friction Obstacles and associated hazard severity Environment types (dusk, dawn) Weather conditions Traffic density Road type (rural, urban, suburban) Road boundary (sidewalks, shoulders) Roadway furniture (medians, guardrails) Road surface treatment (asphalt, concrete) Intersection type (signal, sign, uncontrolled) Gap density Vehicle state (acceleration/braking capabilities, steering radius, weight/length/width, tire condition) Relative position, velocity and acceleration of other vehicles, pedestrians and road boundaries State variables describing vehicles, pedestrians and animals Lanes Maneuver type (left/right turn, straight) of self and others Pavement surface conditions Particular Particular Particular Particular Particular Particular Particular Lane width Curve geometry Surface features Shoulder features Median width Intersection angle/grade Number of driveways Sign/signal characteristics Intersection sight distance Proximity to other intersections Average daily traffic Presence of other devices (lights, rumble strips, stop-ahead signs, etc.) Speed limit car, truck, bike dog, cat, deer gap (actual size, safe or unsafe) lane sign/signal pavement surface conditions maneuver Generic Support A. Intersection / Control device B. Vehicle presence C. Vehicle speed, distance, time D. Size of gap in traffic E. Safety margin of gap (specified location in traffic) 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 Minnesota Location Road Network Intersection Elevation Crossing Demonstration 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 Four Prototypes Hazard Beacon •Flashing sign activates when intersection is unsafe. •System tracks arrival time (or speed) of lead vehicle Speedometer •Speed monitor for lead vehicle. •Flashes red when near or far-side vehicle is speeding. 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. Baseline Hazard Beacon Speedometer Hybrid Split Hybrid Conclusion Task S03 O N D J04 F M A M J J A S O N D J05 F Intersection Select X Task Completed: Intersection Intersection selected Simulator X X X X and simulated with high Intersection Demo X Geospecific accuracy. intersection Interface Simulate X X X Interface Task Completed: Demo X •Interface concepts generated. Interface Revise X X Interface Evaluation Develop X X X Simulation Develop X Protocol Recruit & X Pilot Task on schedule: Conduct X X Study •Experiment outlined. Analyze X X •Interface logic tested. Data •Traffic models under Report review (gaps). Draft Report X X X X X X