Current Research at the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute · Canal Risk Management Seminar March 22, 2018. VTTI Organizational Structure 14 Research Centers/Initiatives/Groups

Current Research at the Virginia Tech Transportation

InstituteDr. Jeffrey Hickman

Research Scientist

Canal Risk Management Seminar

March 22, 2018

VTTI Organizational Structure14 Research Centers/Initiatives/Groups Advanced Automotive Research Zac Doerzaph, Director (VTTI)

Automated Vehicle Systems Shane McLaughlin, Director (VTTI)

Data Reduction and Analysis Support Miguel Perez, Director (VTTI)

Infrastructure-based Safety Systems Ron Gibbons, Director (VTTI)

Center for Partnerships, Public Policy and Outreach Myra Blanco, Director (VTTI)

Injury Biomechanics Warren Hardy, Director (ME)

Sustainable Mobility Hesham Rakha, Director (CEE/VTTI)

Sustainable Transportation Infrastructure Gerardo Flintsch, Director CEE)

Technology Development Andy Petersen, Director (VTTI)

Truck and Bus Safety Rich Hanowski, Director (VTTI)

Vulnerable Road User Safety Jon Antin, Director (VTTI)

Motorcycle Research Group Shane McLaughlin, Group Leader (VTTI)

Global Center for Automotive Performance Simulation Frank Della Pia, Executive Director (VTT, LLC)

Center for Technology Implementation Mike Mollenhauer, Director (VTTI)

3 Nationally Known Centers Connected Vehicle/Infrastructure UTC Tom Dingus, Director (BEAM/VTTI)

National Surface Transportation Safety Center Jon Hankey, Director (VTTI)

National Tire Research Center Jon Darab, Director (VTT, LLC)

3

Virginia Smart RoadExisting test bed includes weather, lighting, signal, diff. GPS,

wireless roadside units (V2I), bridges… and applied more than 26,000 hours of research logged since CY 2000.

Advancing Transportation

Through Innovation

4

Automated Test Track ExpansionDriving scenarios include seamless transition between public

highway, controlled weather and traffic highway (Smart Road), off-ramps to rural track, and urban roadways

photo credit: Stephen Tanner/Matthew Moeller

Advancing Transportation

Through Innovation

Center Structure

Two research groupsRich Hanowski, Center Director

Human Factors & Advanced Systems Testing

Johan Engstrom, Group Leader

Behavioral Analysis & Applications

Jeff Hickman, Group Leader

5

Truck and Bus Focus Areas

Vehicle Safety

Driver Safety

Driver Health & Wellness

Next Gen Technology

6

Video

7

Video

8

Video

9

Video

10

Video

11

Video

12

Video

13

Video

14

Video

15

Video

16

Study Impact

17

NY Times- In Study, Texting Lifts Crash Risk by Large Margin July 27, 2009

Washington Post - Study Finds Link Between Text Messaging, Truck Crashes July 29, 2009

CNN – Accidents Prompt Summit on Distracted Driving August 4, 2009

CBS NEWS- Shocking Stats on Texting While Driving August 29, 2009

NY Times- Texting While Driving Banned for Federal Staff October 1, 2009

NY Times - Truckers Insist on Keeping Computers in the Cab September 27, 2009

USA Today - Feds ban texting by truck, bus drivers January 27, 2010

Land Line Magazine - The right call? November 2011

Wright and Schulte – Ohio Truck Accidents: Texting Truck Drivers 23 Times More Likely to Crash June 5, 2013

Robeson Forensic – Asleep at the Wheel: Sleep Deprivation and Fatigue in Commercial Trucking March 11, 2014

VT News - Transportation institute awarded $55 million in federal contracts on truck safety, automated vehicles July 21, 2014

Fleet Owner - FMCSA awards $2.5 million to study split sleeper impact December 30, 2015

JOC.com – Virginia Tech to Conduct Critical Truck Driver Work Hours Study February 5, 2015

NewsPlex.com - Study to Look at Truck Driver Sleep Regulations January 7, 2016

Politifact.com – Can you drive the length of a football field in the time it takes to check a text? February 15, 2012

Overview of Driver Fatigue and Fatigue Management Program

18

What is Fatigue?

One or more of the following: Time-on-task

Extended wakefulness

Acute sleep deprivation

Chronic insufficient sleep

Poor quality sleep

Only antidote for fatigue is sleep

Why is Fatigue so Important?

Adapted from Balkin, 2017

Video

21

Video

22

Can you Bank Sleep?

“Sleep Banking”. The more sleep that an individual obtains prior to an operation involving sleep loss (either acute total sleep deprivation or multiple days of sleep restriction) the better the performance.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

B SR1 SR2 SR3 SR4 SR5 SR6 SR7 R1 R2 R3 R4 R5

Study Day

Mea

n E

stim

ated

Lap

ses

Extended

Habitual


Sleep Reservoir


Caffeine as a Fatigue Countermeasure

Slee

p L

aten

cy T

est

(m

in)

12

8

6

4

10

2

CaffeinePlacebo

BL SR1 SR2 SR3 SR4 SR5 R1 R2 R3


OSA Tx and Crash Risk

Retrospective analysis of mandatory OSA screening/testing program

PSG drivers (~2,000) matched to controls (~2,000) Control

Negative PSG

Full adherence

Partial adherence

No adherence

Tx (CPAP) objectively monitored

Burks, S.V., Anderson, J.E., Bombyk, M., Haider, R., Ganzhorn, D., Jiao, X., Lewis, C., Lexvold, A., Liu, H., Ning, J., Toll, A., Hickman, J.S., Mabry, J.E., Berger, M., Malhotra, A., Czeisler, C.A., Kales, S.N. (2016). Nonadherence with employer-mandated sleep apnea treatment and increased risk of serious truck crashes. Sleep, 39(5), 1-9.

Preventable DOT Recordable Crashes per 100k miles

FMP Training and Education

Fleets of all sizes in North America

10 modules

Drivers, management, family, shippers/receivers

www.nafmp.com

http://www.nafmp.com/

FMP Training and Educational Modules

Advancing Transportation Through Innovation

What’s on the Horizon?OBMS provides an in-cab, on-the-job, monitoring solution

But, the genesis of many driver behavior issues begin while off-the-job

E.g., Insufficient sleep

What “fitness-for-duty” technologies, systems are available?

New “wearable” systems are being developed and are in trial stages

www.Phasya.com www.Smartcaptech.com www.Mavenmachines.com

Personal Alertness Monitoring System (PAMS)

Newly developed wearable devices that can assess sleep, alertness state, activity and provide fitness-for-duty like assessments to drivers/workers and managers Personnel management (as a type of asset

management)

PAMS work either independently or synergistically alongside OBMS

Ongoing trials:‒ Trucking - General Corporate

‒ Busing - Sports Science

‒ Aviation - Municipal Agencies

‒ Medical - Federal Agencieswww.curaegis.com

Comprehensive Safety Monitoring

Vehicle-Based Monitoring:• Brakes, tires• Speed• Fuel efficiency• Behind-the-wheel performance & behavior

Operator-Based Monitoring:• Sleep, real-time

predictive alertness• Fitness-for-duty

Actionable data stream

Field Study of heavy vehicle Crash avoidance systems

performance

34

Project Overview

VTTI performed a large-scale, naturalistic study of heavy-vehicle crash avoidance systems (CAS)

• 150 trucks and 169 drivers participated

• Each truck equipped with a commercially-available CAS product– Meritor WABCO OnGuardTM

– Bendix® Wingman® AdvancedTM

• Participants drove their normal, revenue-producing routes with a data acquisition system installed for up to 15 months

35

Data Acquisition

36

Location of

Meritor WABCO

OnGuardTM

Scope of Data Collection

Continuous data If the truck was in motion, we captured video and vehicle network

In total 85,000 hours and 2.5 million miles of data recorded 187 terabytes of secure data storage

Hundreds of man-hours to review and code the data

37

Scope of Data Collection

38

Activations by Type

39

Video

40

Video

41

Video

42

Video

43

Video

44

Rates of Activations45

Examining Activations46

6,000 activations were sampled and reviewed All AEBs and Impact Alerts

454 Stationary Object Alerts

1,808 Following Distance Alerts

1,512 Lane Departure Warnings

30-second windows around each sampled activation Visual inspection to record all details surrounding the activation

Changes in Alert Rates

VTTI | Driving Transportation with Technology

47

No changes in rates of alerts except for FDA Company A: slight increase early that returned to starting value

Company B: slight increase over first month in study

Neither result can be isolated from other factors which could affect the rates of alerts Age, experience, location, weather, etc.

Changes in Driving Behavior

Average highway speed within drivers did not change over time

Average highway headway within drivers exhibited a small, temporary change over time

Average brake response time after AEB and IA did not change over time

Average maximum deceleration after AEB and IA did not change over time

VTTI | Driving Transportation with

Technology

48

Data on Conflicts

Valid FCW were more likely to occur in medium traffic conditions May need to simulate traffic for FCW testing

Valid LDW were more likely to occur in low traffic conditions Test tracks may be sufficient for LDW testing

Majority of conflicts were preceded by a lead vehicle action

VTTI | Driving Transportation with Technology

49

Conclusions


Technology

50

CAS activations were appropriate, but improvements could be made to reduce false alerts

Improved testing for curved roads and stationary objects may help guide efforts

CAS did not appear to change driving behavior, but alerts may be helpful in detecting behavioral issues for coaching

Team operations may be disrupted by frequent advisory alerts

Conclusions


Technology

51

False AEB activations were generally short and do not reduce the speed of the truck significantly

False alerts may present an acceptance or trust issue with drivers

The potential benefits of CAS technology increase as better sensors, refined algorithms, and additional features are added to newer generations of the systems

Leveraging Large Truck Technology & Engineering to

Realize Safety Gains

52

Objective

Collect benefit and cost data for popular large truck advanced safety technologies (AST) Literature review

Expert Panel

Societal benefit-cost analysis for each selected AST

53

Literature Review

Automatic Emergency Braking (AEB) Systems Efficacy: 16% to 52.3% (5 studies) Cost: $2,400 to $2,600 (2 studies)

Air Disc Brakes Efficacy: 43.3% (4 studies) Cost: $1,308 (1 study)

Lane Departure Warning (LDW) Systems Efficacy: 13% to 53% (13 studies) Cost: $301 to $2,000 (5 studies)

Video-Based Onboard Safety Monitoring (OSM) Systems Efficacy: 38.1% to 52.2% (2 studies) Cost: Unknown

54

Expert Panel

6 members Carrier

Government

Technology Manufacturer

Insurance

Objective Select technologies with adequate data to perform benefit-cost analyses

(BCA)

Determine efficacy rates and costs

55

Benefit-Cost Analysis

Perform formal economic analysis for each selected AST Followed standard DOT procedures

Used DOT-provided benefit and cost estimates

Identified target crash populations General Estimates System

Fatality Analysis Reporting System

56

Automatic Emergency Braking

Results: Retrofitting All Trucks

58

Low Cost Average Cost High Cost

0% 3% 7% 0% 3% 7% 0% 3% 7%

16% Efficacy - Equivalent lives 2,159 1,630 1,185 2,159 1,630 1,185 2,159 1,630 1,185

16% Efficacy – Cost per Fatal Equivalent $3.78 $4.01 $4.32 $19.03 $19.87 $21.07 $22.84 $23.83 $25.26

16% Efficacy - BCR 2.14 2.05 1.93 0.52 0.50 0.47 0.44 0.42 0.39

28% Efficacy – Equivalent lives 3,778 2,852 2,073 3,778 2,852 2,073 3,778 2,852 2,073


28% Efficacy - BCR 3.75 3.58 3.37 0.91 0.87 0.82 0.76 0.73 0.69

Results: New Trucks

59


0% 3% 7% 0% 3% 7% 0% 3% 7%

16% Efficacy – Equivalent lives 108 87 69 108 87 69 108 87 69


16% Efficacy - BCR 3.48 3.24 3.01 0.92 0.85 0.78 0.78 0.72 0.66



28% Efficacy - BCR 6.09 5.67 5.27 1.62 1.49 1.36 1.37 1.26 1.15

Discussion

Number of crashes prevented similar to previous research 16% efficacy: 3,025 total crashes, 1,507 injuries, 31 fatalities

28% efficacy: 5,294 total crashes, 2,638 injuries, 55 fatalities

BCA results similar to previous research (Murray, 2009)

Current pricing/efficacy rates did not always suggest AEB was cost effective Only equipping new trucks

28% efficacy

More cost effective for CUTs

60

Air Disc Brakes

61

Results: Retrofitting CUTs

62


0% 3% 7% 0% 3% 7% 0% 3% 7%

10% Efficacy - Equivalent lives 1,211 915 665 1,211 915 665 1,211 915 665


10% Efficacy – BCR 1.67 1.60 1.51 0.79 0.76 0.72 0.53 0.51 0.49

15% Efficacy – Equivalent lives 2,120 1,601 1,164 2,120 1,601 1,164 2,120 1,601 1,164


15% Efficacy - BCR 2.92 2.80 2.64 1.39 1.34 1.27 0.93 0.90 0.85

Results: New CUTs

63


0% 3% 7% 0% 3% 7% 0% 3% 7%

10% Efficacy - Equivalent lives 61 49 39 61 49 39 61 49 39


10% Efficacy – BCR 2.62 2.44 2.26 1.33 1.23 1.13 0.91 0.84 0.77



15% Efficacy - BCR 4.59 4.27 3.96 2.33 2.15 1.97 1.60 1.47 1.34

Discussion

64

Number of crashes prevented 10% efficacy: 1,378 total crashes, 789 injuries, 21 fatalities 15% efficacy: 2,411 total crashes, 1,381 injuries, 37 fatalities

Previous research conducted prior to 2013

Current pricing/efficacy rates did not always suggest ADB were cost effective Only equipping new trucks Low or average costs

Results: Lane Departure Warning

65


66


0% 3% 7% 0% 3% 7% 0% 3% 7%



30% Efficacy - BCR 2.62 2.50 2.36 1.47 1.41 1.33 1.25 1.20 1.13

47.8% Efficacy – Equivalent lives 4,031 3,043 2,212 4,031 3,043 2,212 4,031 3,043 2,212

47.8% Efficacy – Cost per Fatal Equivalent $1.59 $1.72 $1.88 $3.63 $3.84 $4.13 $4.45 $4.69 $5.02

47.8% Efficacy - BCR 4.11 3.92 3.69 2.30 2.20 2.08 1.96 1.88 1.77

Results: New Trucks

67


0% 3% 7% 0% 3% 7% 0% 3% 7%



30% Efficacy - BCR 4.26 3.96 3.68 2.52 2.33 2.14 2.16 2.00 1.83

47.8% Efficacy – Equivalent lives 202 163 130 202 163 130 202 163 130

47.8% Efficacy – Cost per Fatal Equivalent $0.59 $0.71 $0.84 $1.70 $1.92 $2.17 $2.14 $2.40 $2.71

47.8% Efficacy - BCR 6.67 6.21 5.77 3.94 3.65 3.36 3.39 3.13 2.87

Discussion

68

Number of crashes prevented similar to previous research 30% efficacy: 4,067 total crashes, 840 injuries, 76 fatalities

47.8% efficacy: 6,372 total crashes, 1,316 injuries, 115 fatalities

BCA results similar to previous research (Hickman et al., 2013; Orban et al., 2006; Visvikis et al., 2008)

LDW benefit clearly outweigh costs for all trucks Easy to retrofit technology

Results: Video-Based Onboard Safety Monitoring Sytems

69


70


0% 3% 7% 0% 3% 7% 0% 3% 7%



20% Efficacy – BCR 3.03 3.00 2.96 1.73 1.73 1.72 1.20 1.20 1.20

52.2% Efficacy – Equivalent lives 25,361 19,147 13,920 25,361 19,147 13,920 25,361 19,147 13,920

52.2% Efficacy – Cost per Fatal Equivalent -$0.17 -$0.16 -$0.14 $0.89 $0.89 $0.90 $1.98 $1.98 $1.97

52.2% Efficacy - BCR 7.90 7.82 7.73 4.51 4.51 4.49 3.13 3.13 3.13

Results: New Trucks

71


0% 3% 7% 0% 3% 7% 0% 3% 7%



20% Efficacy – BCR 3.69 3.90 4.11 2.09 2.24 2.40 1.45 1.56 1.68

52.2% Efficacy – Equivalent lives 1,268 1,026 815 1,268 1,026 815 1,268 1,026 815

52.2% Efficacy – Cost per Fatal Equivalent -$0.43 -$0.49 -$0.55 $0.46 $0.32 $0.20 $1.36 $1.15 $0.96

52.2% Efficacy - BCR 9.64 10.17 10.74 5.47 5.85 6.27 3.79 4.08 4.39

Discussion

72

Very different compared to other ASTs

Applicable to many crashes types 20% efficacy: 24,231 total crashes, 6,534 injuries, 102 fatalities 52.2% efficacy: 63,243 total crashes, 17,054 injuries, 293 fatalities Methodological differences resulted in fewer injuries and deaths compared to

previous research

Main cost is not hardware

No previous published BCAs

Video-based OSM benefits clearly outweigh costs for all trucks Easily to retrofit technology Potentially higher with litigation and exoneration costs Relies on driver-coaching protocol

Overall Conclusions

All ASTs examined where cost effective in some circumstances

Cost and efficacy have a significant impact for some ASTs

Consider all versus new trucks

Efficacy tied to effective driver coaching/training

73

Overall Limitations

Efficacy rates may not represent current generation

Costs may differ

Maintenance cost savings may not have been adequately captured

Additional benefits associated with non-police reported crashes

Efficacy may differ based on crash severity

Efficacy relies on effective introduction and following driver-coaching protocols

Assumed all vehicle systems were functioning as intended and drivers responded appropriately to alerts/warnings

74

Jeffrey Hickman, Ph.D.

Virginia Tech Transportation Institute

Center for Truck and Bus Safety

540-231-1542

[email protected]

Documents

Current Research at the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute · Canal Risk Management Seminar March 22, 2018. VTTI Organizational Structure 14 Research Centers/Initiatives/Groups