download deliverable - AIDE

More documents

Recommendations

Info

<strong>AIDE</strong> D4.1.6 Final Activity Report PU Contract N. IST-1-507674-IP 2 Background The following is a quote from the Description of Work (Annex I to the project contract): Every year, about 45 000 people die and 1.5 millions people are injured in traffic accidents in Europe. These figures imply that one person out of every 200 European citizens is injured in a traffic accident each year and that around one out 80 European citizens die 40 years short of their expected lifetime. It is known that the great majority of road accidents (about 90-95%) are caused by human error (Treat, et al., 1979). More recent data has identified inattention (including distraction, “looked but did not see” and falling asleep at the wheel) as the primary cause of accidents, accounting for at least 25% of the crashes (Wang et al., 1996). […] HMI design for maximising the safety benefits of new Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) Today, a wide range of Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) are being developed for enhancing the driver’s perception of the hazards, and/or partly automating the driving task. These include speed alert, lane support/blind spot detection, automated safe following, pedestrian detection, vision enhancement and driver impairment monitoring. These systems have great potential for reducing accidents, in particular the great portion related to human error (European Commission, 2002). The safety impact of these systems depends will to a great extent be determined by their interaction with the driver. For example, in order to efficiently support the driver in avoiding crashing into a front obstacle, it is crucial that the warning/feedback given by the system intuitively generates the appropriate response (e.g. an avoidance manoeuvre). New technologies, exploiting new concepts for driver-vehicle interaction in multiple sensory modalities (e.g. visual, tactile and auditory), offer great potential for maximising the potential safety benefits of ADAS. […] Moreover, it is well known that the introduction of new safety functions may induce longer-term changes in driver behaviour. This type of behavioural change, often referred to as behavioural adaptation, may significantly affect the actual (as compared to the expected) safety benefits of a safety measure, both in positive and negative directions (OECD, 1990). Behavioural effects demonstrated for ADAS include system over-reliance on in-vehicle safety technologies resulting diversion of attention from the driving task and safety margin compensation (e.g. increasing speed in response to enhanced visibility in adverse conditions; e.g. Fosser, Saetermo and Sagberg, 1997; Nilsson, 1995 and Brown, 2000; see Smiley, 2000, for a review). […] Finally, the potential safety impact of an ADAS ultimately depends on its market penetration rate and whether it is actually used by drivers. Here, the human-machine interface is of crucial importance; annoying system behaviour (e.g. nuisance warnings) will lead to drivers simply abandoning the system, which hence obviously looses its potential safety benefit. HMI design for minimising workload and distraction imposed by In-vehicle Information Systems (IVIS) In addition to Advanced Driver Assistance Systems, a growing number of In-vehicle Information Systems (IVIS) are being introduced in modern vehicles. By contrast to ADAS, these systems provide services not directly relevant for the primary driving task and thus impose a secondary tasks on the driver. Moreover, the in-vehicle use of portable computing devices e.g. hand-held mobile phones and portable digital assistants (PDAs), often referred to as Nomad devices, is increasing rapidly. These systems have great potential for increasing mobility and comfort. For example fleet management systems enhance the efficiency of work in the freight industry and road-and traffic information systems potentially facilitate the quality of life for the commuter. However, information systems in vehicles may also compete with the primary driving task for the driver’s attention and 08/10/2008 8 VTEC
<strong>AIDE</strong> D4.1.6 Final Activity Report PU Contract N. IST-1-507674-IP hence induce dangerous levels of distraction and workload. The safety risks of IVIS are well known, in particular the case of mobile phones. Results from an epidemiological study conducted by Redelmeier & Tibshirani (1997), mobile phone use increases the accident risk by a factor 4 compared to normal driving. Given this critical safety impact of mobile phones alone, the introduction of additional information functions such as email, internet access, navigation aids, road and traffic information raises obvious safety concerns. In particular, nomad devices are not designed for use while driving and thus major potential future in-vehicle distractors The design of the human-machine interface of IVIS and nomad devices is of key importance for minimising the workload and distraction that they impose on the driver. Methods and criteria are needed to validate these systems with respect to their potential negative safety effects. Towards a unified HMI solution for integrating ADAS and IVIS In addition to the safety issues associated with the individual systems described above, the proliferation of complex in-vehicle functions itself poses a further challenge for the design of the driver-vehicle interface. Figure 1 below illustrates the situation facing vehicle system HMI designers in the near future. Figure 1. Examples of various ADAS and IVIS interacting with the driver in a future vehicle 1 It is clear from Figure 1 that the various systems interacting with the driver cannot be implemented independently. The most obvious reason for this is that such a large number of separate HMI devices would simply not fit into the vehicle cockpit. Moreover, conflicting information from different systems may distract, overload, confuse and annoy the driver, thus causing problems that did not exist for the systems in isolation. Moreover, behavioural changes in response to a combination of systems may be very different from responses to the systems in isolation. Thus there is a strong need for a unified human machine that integrates the different systems into functioning whole, resolving conflicts between different functions and taking into account their aggregate effects. Some key features of such an integrated HMI would include: 1 The distinction between ADAS and IVIS is not always clear-cut. “Typical” ADAS are placed at the bottom of the Figure and “typical” IVIS at the top. 08/10/2008 9 VTEC
Page 1 and 2: AIDE D4.1.6 Final Activity Report P
Page 7: AIDE D4.1.6 Final Activity Report P
Page 59 and 60:
AIDE D4.1.6 Final Activity Report P
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95:
show all

download deliverable - AIDE

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?