CARISSMA Institute of Automated Driving (C-IAD)
Refine
Document Type
- Conference Paper (132)
- Article (42)
- Part of a Compilation / Book Chapter (6)
- Book (3)
- Preprint (2)
Institute
- CARISSMA Institute of Automated Driving (C-IAD) (185)
- Human-Computer Interaction Group (HCIG) (135)
- Fakultät Informatik (128)
- Fakultät Elektro- und Informationstechnik (53)
- CARISSMA Institute of Electric, Connected and Secure Mobility (C-ECOS) (8)
- AImotion Bavaria (6)
- Fakultät Maschinenbau (2)
- Institut für Innovative Mobilität (IIMo) (1)
Review
- peer-review (130)
- nein (38)
- editorial review (4)
- ja (3)
Version
- published (51)
Cooperative intelligent transport systems (C-ITSs) are mass-produced and sold in Europe, promising enhanced safety and comfort. Direct vehicle communication, known as vehicle-to-everything (V2X) communication, is crucial in this context. Drivers receive warnings about potential hazards by exchanging vehicle status and environmental data with other communication-enabled vehicles. However, the impact of these warnings on drivers and their inclusion in accident reconstruction remains uncertain. Unlike sensor-based warnings, V2X warnings may not provide a visible reason for the alert, potentially affecting reaction times and behavior. In this work, a simulator study on V2X warnings was conducted with 32 participants to generate findings on reaction times and behavior for accident reconstruction in connection with these systems. Two scenarios from the Car-2-Car Communication Consortium were implemented: “Stationary Vehicle Warning—Broken-Down Vehicle” and “Dangerous Situation—Electronic Emergency Brake Lights”. Volkswagen’s warning concept was utilized, as they are the sole provider of cooperative vehicles in Europe. Results show that V2X warnings without visible reasons did not negatively impact reaction times or behavior, with average reaction times between 0.58 s (steering) and 0.69 s (braking). No significant distraction or search for warning reasons was observed. However, additional information in the warnings caused confusion and was seldom noticed by subjects. In this study, participants responded correctly and appropriately to the shown false-positive warnings. A wrong reaction triggering an accident is possible but unlikely. Overall, V2X warnings showed no negative impacts compared with sensor-based systems. This means that there are no differences in accident reconstruction regarding the source of the warning (sensors or communication). However, it is important that it is known that there was a warning, which is why the occurrence of V2X warnings should also be saved in the EDR in the future.
Reliable Trajectory Prediction and Uncertainty Quantification with Conditioned Diffusion Models
(2024)
Currently, a significant gap exists between academic and industrial research in automated driving development. Despite this, there is common sense that cooperative control approaches in automated vehicles will surpass the previously favored takeover paradigm in most driving situations due to enhanced driving performance and user experience. Yet, the application of these concepts in real driving situations remains unclear, and a holistic approach to driving cooperation is missing. Existing research has primarily focused on testing specific interaction scenarios and implementations. To address this gap and offer a contemporary perspective on designing human–vehicle cooperation in automated driving, we have developed a three-part taxonomy with the help of an extensive literature review. The taxonomy broadens the notion of driving cooperation towards a holistic and application-oriented view by encompassing (1) the “Cooperation Use Case”, (2) the “Cooperation Frame”, and (3) the “Human–Machine Interface”. We validate the taxonomy by categorizing related literature and providing a detailed analysis of an exemplar paper. The proposed taxonomy offers designers and researchers a concise overview of the current state of driver cooperation and insights for future work. Further, the taxonomy can guide automotive HMI designers in ideation, communication, comparison, and reflection of cooperative driving interfaces.
Partially automated driving functions (SAE Level 2) can control a vehicle’s longitudinal and lateral movements. However, taking over the driving task involves automation risks that the driver must manage. In severe accidents, the driver’s ability to avoid a collision must be assessed, considering their expected reaction behavior. The primary goal of this study is to generate essential data on driver reaction behavior in case of malfunctions in partially automated driving functions for use in legal affairs. A simulator study with two scenarios involving 32 subjects was conducted for this purpose. The first scenario investigated driver reactions to system limitations during cornering. The results show that none of the subjects could avoid leaving their lane and moving into the oncoming lane and, therefore, could not control the situation safely. Due to partial automation, we could also identify a new part of the reaction time, the hands-on time, which leads to increased steering reaction times of 1.18 to 1.74 s. The second scenario examined driver responses to phantom braking caused by AEBS. We found that 25 of the 32 subjects could not override the phantom braking by pressing the accelerator pedal, although 16 subjects were informed about the system analog to the actual vehicle manuals. Overall, the study suggests that the current legal perspective on vehicle control and the expected driver reaction behavior for accident avoidance should be reconsidered.
Partially automated driving functions (SAE Level 2) can control a vehicle's longitudinal and lateral movements. However, taking over the driving task involves automation risks that the driver must manage. In severe accidents, the driver's ability to avoid a collision must be assessed, considering their expected reaction behavior. The primary goal of this study is to generate essential data on driver reaction behavior in case of malfunctions in partially automated driving functions for use in legal affairs. A simulator study with two scenarios involving 32 subjects was conducted for this purpose. The first scenario investigated driver reactions to system limitations during cornering. The second scenario examined driver responses to phantom braking caused by the AEBS. As a result, the first scenario shows that none of the subjects could control the situation safely. Due to partial automation, we could also identify a new part of the reaction time, the hands-on time, which leads to increased steering reaction times of 1.18 to 1.74 seconds. In the second scenario, we found that 25 of the 32 subjects could not override the phantom braking by pressing the accelerator pedal, although 16 subjects were informed about the system analog to the actual vehicle manuals. Overall, the study suggests that the current legal perspective on vehicle control and the expected driver reaction behavior for accident avoidance should be reconsidered.