Upload
amy-cathleen-fitzgerald
View
213
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1/15 1From user needs to applications: the Safespot approach based on road accident data analysis6th European congress on ITS, Aalborg 2007
SAFESPOTSAFESPOTSAFESPOTSAFESPOT
Fabien Bonnefoi, Francesco Bellotti, Tobias Schendzielorz
1*.Cofiroute, France, 6 à 10 rue Troyon 92316 Sèvres, tel: +33 1 41 14 71 52, [email protected]. Dept of Electronics and Biophysical Engineering, University of Genoa, Italy
3. Dept. of Traffic Engineering and Control, Technische Universität München, Germany
« FROM USER NEEDS TO APPLICATIONS: THE SAFESPOTAPPROACH BASED ON ROAD ACCIDENT DATA ANALYSIS »
2/15 2From user needs to applications: the Safespot approach based on road accident data analysis6th European congress on ITS, Aalborg 2007
The SAFESPOT IP
Project of the European Commission Information Society and media
• Cooperative system /Communication V2V and V2I• 8 Sps and 51 partners from all domains…
« By combining data from vehicle and road-side sensors, the SAFESPOT applications will allow an extension of the time in which a potential accident is detected(…). »
3/15 3From user needs to applications: the Safespot approach based on road accident data analysis6th European congress on ITS, Aalborg 2007
COSSIB and WP2
• SP5 – COSSIB Cooperative system Infrastructure based
• Applicative Sub Project
• COFIROUTE = SP5 leader + WP2 leader
• Planning: Five main steps (WP)WP2 User need and requirement analysisWP3 Specifications and SimulationWP4 Development and prototypeWP5/6 Field Test/Evaluation
Cofiroute
PEEK
ANAS
Centro Ricerche Fiat
Conseil Général Côtes d’Armor
Daimler Chrysler
DIBE
LCPC
Lacroix Trafic
Mizar
München University
Renault
SIEMENS
Sodit
TNO
4/15 4From user needs to applications: the Safespot approach based on road accident data analysis6th European congress on ITS, Aalborg 2007
COSSIB
5/15 5From user needs to applications: the Safespot approach based on road accident data analysis6th European congress on ITS, Aalborg 2007
Objective and Method
WP5.2 Objective:
« Define clearly the needs and requirements of infrastructure-based safety systems within the context of the overall SAFESPOT project.»
WP5.2 Method:
6/15 6From user needs to applications: the Safespot approach based on road accident data analysis6th European congress on ITS, Aalborg 2007
Data Analysis
1st analysis: European data (Complete but coarse grain)
– Eurostat– Database CARE – EACS– Project SAFETY NET Rankers PENDANT
Type of results:
Indicators VsClassification
Accidents Injury Death Risk level 1 Mortality index2
1st Urban – 75% 70% 55% 0.57 – 1.10 18.7%
2nd Rural – 20% 20% 35% 0.43 4,6%
3rd Motorway – 5% 10% 10% 0.06 1.4%
Urban Rural Motorway1 (death per million vehicles/km)2 (percentage of lethal accidents in the total number of accidents)
7/15 7From user needs to applications: the Safespot approach based on road accident data analysis6th European congress on ITS, Aalborg 2007
Data analysis by areas
0,00
0,05
0,10
0,15
0,20
0,25
0,30
0,35
0,40
singular vulnurableroad user
head-tail frontal aside
motorway
ruraal
city
Type of Accident# with bodily
injury# fatal
accidents% with bodily
injury% fatal
accidents
Accident caused by turning into a road 60960 212 27% 15%
Accident between vehicles moving along in carriageway
46698 103 21% 7%
Accident caused by turning off the road 35474 128 16% 9%
Other accident 26710 190 12% 13%
Driving accident 25507 366 11% 25%
Accident caused by crossing the road 19511 422 9% 29%
Accident involving stationary vehicles 8454 18 4% 1%
•Detailed data from countries / regions or cities (related to partners and test sites)
•Specific papers, ex: road departure or Intersection
Sources (examples):- Italy and the city of Turin- French motorways and rural roads of the Brittany province- Urban areas in Germany, and from the Netherlands.
Causes of accidents Urban Roads %
Driving in distracted or erratic fashion 30 649 20
Vehicle not respecting safety distance 22 703 15
Exceeding speed limit 21 780 14
Making an irregular manoeuvre 14 011 9
Failure to give priority 13 594 9
Failure to stop at stop sign 13 140 9
Failure to give priority to vehicle from right 13 593 9
Turning in an irregular way 7 186 5
Overtaking in irregular way 4 984 3
Proceeding in wrong direction 4 924 3
Pedestrian run over on zebra crossing 5 004 3
Avoiding another vehicle 2 228 1
Vehicle stopped without any stop sign shown 144 0
Avoiding an animal 332 0
Insufficient headlights 55 0
TOTAL accidents due to driving behaviour 154 327 100
Urban Area25%
Rural Roads63%
Motorways12%
Urban roads TOTAL
Accid. Deaths Injured Accid.
Deaths
Injured
Fine 135.670 1.779 179.754 172.471 4.067 4.566
Rain 18.406 235 26.213 26.327 663 810
Fog 757 14 1.081 1.402 56 89
Snow 511 7 758 917 18 30
Hail 54 1 77 115 5 1
Wind 186 5 250 304 12 13
Other 14.309 269 19.412 23.017 804 792
Total 169.893 2.310 227.545 224.553 5.625 6.301
0,0%
5,0%
10,0%
15,0%
20,0%
25,0%
turning, U-turn,
reserving
priority,precedence
distance speed use of theroad
improperbehaviuortow ards
pedestrians
drivingf itness
overtaking driving sideby side
stationaryvehicles,
safetymeasures
driving past load, numberof
passengers
failure toobservelighting
regulations
othermistakesmade by
driver
accidents with bodiliy injury accidents with fatalities
8/15 8From user needs to applications: the Safespot approach based on road accident data analysis6th European congress on ITS, Aalborg 2007
Safety related scenarios
NB: Factors not always considered as main cause (cf Excessive Speed vs Priority)
Name Speed and dangerous driving
Type Wrong speed, dangerous driving 42%
Aggravating factor Speed
Location Highway
Extension 1
Type excessive speed 19%
Extension 2
Type overtaking 12%
Extension 3
Type wrong speed with traffic condition 5,9%
Extension 4
Type wrong speed with weather condition 3,4%
Extension 4
Type insufficient safety distance 1,7%
•General scenarios: 8•Special black spot scenarios: 5•By areas (total): 15
9/15 9From user needs to applications: the Safespot approach based on road accident data analysis6th European congress on ITS, Aalborg 2007
24 use cases classified by categoriesExample:
Use cases
Frequency of occurrence
Failure to observe the traffic control by policemen or traffic lights is the reason for 2.0% of accidents with injured people and 0.8% with fatalities in the urban area in Germany.
Primary Actor SAFESPOT equipped Vehicles and RSU. Secondary Actor(s) Road-side sensors and acoustic warning devices Scenario Description Step Action 1 Additionally to the infrastructure-based sensing
technologies all vehicles shall transmit their location, speed, acceleration and turning intention (indicator on/off) to the RSU when they approach the intersection.
2 A RSU procedure (model) reconstructs and forecasts the trajectories of the vehicles and other road-user (like pedestrians) real-time, based on XFCD, road-side sensing and the traffic light control status.
3 In the case of an imminent red light violation (short distance to stop line + high speed) appropriate warnings are generated by a decision and reasoning procedure, which takes into account the available actors, remaining reaction time of the road users, and other given criteria.
4 Warning information is sent out to all drivers concerned.
Pedestrians and bikers are warned by means of acoustic devices.
5 Red light violator: The vehicle’s ADAS presents the warning and ask
the driver to break. The vehicle’s ADAS presents the info and interacts
with the driver properly to avoid the threatening accident.
6 All incident data are recorded in a local or central database for further use.
Extensions Step Action 1a Road-side sensing is used in order to improve the
localisation accuracy of the vehicles (e.g. Laser).
User Needs
Drivers, pedestrians and bikers want to be informed or warned in case of red light violation.
The drivers like to have recommendations how to behave best in such cases.
Pedestrian and cyclists wants to be warned by means of road-side installed warning devices (e.g. acoustically or flash light) early if dangerous situations occurs that might concern him.
Road operators want to reduce the number of accidents (esp. fatalities) in urban areas significantly.
The driver wants to be warned by means of ADAS early if a dangerous situation occurs that might concern him.
Corresponding requirements
SP5_RQ01, up to SP5_RQ11, SP5_RQ13 up to SP5_RQ21, SP5_RQ24, SP5 RQ32
Related UCs SP5_UC22, SP5_UC55 Open issues The timing is crucial here. It is not clear yet whether there is
enough time in case of detection to generate and perform appropriate warnings. Also doubtful whether there remains enough reaction time for other drivers.
Legal issues are not clarified until now. What if the warning from the red light violator provokes other accidents?
Comments If the infrastructure transmits the status of the traffic lights to all vehicles the violating vehicle can be warned early according to its speed approaching the crossing.
Case Name Safe signalized intersection (red light violation) Case ID SP5_UC31_v1.0 Status Final Short description
The trajectories of the vehicles and other road-user (like pedestrians) shall be reconstructed and forecasted real-time through road-side procedures, based on XFCD, road-side sensing and the traffic light control status. In the case of an imminent red light violation (short distance to stop line + high speed) warnings shall be send out to the drivers concerned. As far as pedestrian and bikers are concerned, warnings could be realized by means of acoustic signals.
Purpose Imminent red light violation shall be detected as early as possible in order to warn all the road-users concerned. The goal is to decrease the number of accidents of this type significantly by employing such co-operative systems.
Rationale Red light violation of drivers (unintentional or not) at signalized intersections often provokes extreme dangerous situations and are a source of frequent fatal accidents.
Authors Paul Mathias - SIEMENS Driving environment Urban or Rural Intersection (no urban motorway) Vehicle probe type All vehicles shall transmit their location, speed, acceleration and
turning intention (indicator on/off) to the RSU when they approach the intersection.
Risk’s source The other drivers don’t expect a vehicle violating the red light. In most cases a red light violator remains outside the perception range of the other drivers.
Successful end condition
Warning the road users of the red light violators and suggesting the right behaviours.
Failed end condition The accuracy of the vehicle location is not good enough in urban areas.
Trigger Vehicle about to violate red light.
RSU
10/15 10From user needs to applications: the Safespot approach based on road accident data analysis6th European congress on ITS, Aalborg 2007
Use cases
• Detailed use cases
– Purpose– Rational– Risk sources– Successful end conditions– Failed end conditions– Trigger– Frequency of occurrence– Scenario description (step1,step2, etc.)– Extensions– Related User Needs– Related Requirements– Related use cases– Open issue– Comments
11/15 11From user needs to applications: the Safespot approach based on road accident data analysis6th European congress on ITS, Aalborg 2007
SP5 Applications
INITIAL LIST OF APPLICATIONS(Technical Annex)
FINAL LIST
OF APPLICATIONS
Speed alert and road departure prevention
Speed Alert – SpA
Smart signalling for safety enhancement
Road Departure Prevention – RDep
Safety margin for Assistance and emergency vehicles
Safety Margin for Assistance and Emergency Vehicles – SMAEV
Safe urban intersection Co-operative Intersection Collision Prevention System – CICPS
Hazard and incident warning Hazard and Incident Warning – H&IW
12/15 12From user needs to applications: the Safespot approach based on road accident data analysis6th European congress on ITS, Aalborg 2007
Potential Impact
• Based on the Safety related scenarios
•Gives Percentage of accidents or situations that are covered by each application
Road departure prevention
Scope: Accident causes: All causes where a road departure can be the main or an aggravating factor and where the application speed alert is not strongly relevant.
Related Use cases:
-Obstacles : SP5_UC16-Misjudgement : SP5_UC21-Rule violation: SP5_UC32-Critical environment conditions : SP5_UC41, SP5_UC42, SP5_UC45-Safety improving driver assistance :
Potential impact(The Road Departure application will impact on all the 3 main environments)
Urban area
Scenario : Driver’s lack of vigilance- leaving the carriageway: 20%
Supposing a 100% reliable system working on all the cars, then we could expect that the Road Departure application would cover around 20% of the German urban lethal accidents.
Rural area
The French data analysis on rural roads reports that between 30% and 40% of the accidents are of “Run-off road” type. These figures give an idea of the potential impact of a 100% reliable SAFESPOT system working on all the cars and in all the areas.
Motorway
Scenario : Driver’s lack of vigilance - Veer of the lane 25% A 100% reliable SAFESPOT system should be able to manage about 25% of road departure accidents in Italian and French motorways.
13/15 13From user needs to applications: the Safespot approach based on road accident data analysis6th European congress on ITS, Aalborg 2007
Application and use cases priority
Rule violation Use case Name
Related application
Safety Critical Scenario
UR
BA
N
RU
RA
L
MO
TO
RW
AY T
OT
AL
SP5_UC31
Safe signalized intersection (red light violation)
Safe urban intersection
Intersection black spot
6 5 11
SP5_UC32Prevention of Driver Excessive Speed
Speed alert / Road Departure
Rule violation / Road departure / Drowsiness /
8 9 17
SP5_UC33
Right of way (stop sign), not signalized roads
Safe urban intersection
Priority / Stop signs
8 7 2 17
SP5_UC34Ghost drivers (wrong way driving)
Speed alert, Hazard and incident warning
Wrong way driving
4 7(S)
11
14/15 14From user needs to applications: the Safespot approach based on road accident data analysis6th European congress on ITS, Aalborg 2007
Test sites and evaluation
Evaluation of-Level of detection on real condition-Driver response to the system
Numerous test site around Europe- cities- rural roads- motorways- bridge and tunnels