Forward collision warning based on a driver model to increase drivers' acceptance.

Objective: Systems that can warn the driver of a possible collision with a vulnerable road user (VRU) have significant safety benefits. However, incorrect warning times can have adverse effects on the driver. If the warning is too late, drivers might not be able to react; if the warning is too early, drivers can become annoyed and might turn off the system. Currently, there are no methods to determine the right timing for a warning to achieve high effectiveness and acceptance by the driver. This study aims to validate a driver model as the basis for selecting appropriate warning times. The timing of the forward collision warnings (FCWs) selected for the current study was based on the comfort boundary (CB) model developed during a previous project, which describes the moment a driver would brake. Drivers' acceptance toward these warnings was analyzed. The present study was conducted as part of the European research project PROSPECT ("Proactive Safety for Pedestrians and Cyclists"). Methods: Two warnings were selected: One inside the CB and one outside the CB. The scenario tested was a cyclist crossing scenario with time to arrival (TTA) of 4 s (it takes the cyclist 4 s to reach the intersection). The timing of the warning inside the CB was at a time to collision (TTC) of 2.6 s (asymptotic value of the model at TTA = 4 s) and the warning outside the CB was at TTC = 1.7 s (below the lower 95% value at TTA = 4 s). Thirty-one participants took part in the test track study (between-subjects design where warning time was the independent variable). Participants were informed that they could brake any moment after the warning was issued. After the experiment, participants completed an acceptance survey. Results: Participants reacted faster to the warning outside the CB compared to the warning inside the CB. This confirms that the CB model represents the criticality felt by the driver. Participants also rated the warning inside the CB as more disturbing, and they had a higher acceptance of the system with the warning outside the CB. The above results confirm the possibility of developing wellsaccepted warnings based on driver models. Conclusions: Similar to other studies' results, drivers prefer warning times that compare with their driving behavior. It is important to consider that the study tested only one scenario. In addition, in this study, participants were aware of the appearance of the cyclist and the warning. A further investigation should be conducted to determine the acceptance of distracted drivers.

Assessing the safety criticality of driver behavior toward cyclists at intersections.

Objective: Detailed analyses of car-to-cyclist accidents show that drivers intending to turn right at T-junctions collide more often with cyclists crossing from the right side on the bicycle lane than drivers intending to turn left. This fact has led to numerous studies examining the behavior of drivers turning left and right. However, the most essential question still has not been sufficiently answered: is the behavior of drivers intending to turn right generally more safety critical than the behavior of those intending to turn left? The purpose of this article is to provide a method that allows to determine whether a driver's behavior toward cyclists can retrospectively be assessed as critical or non-critical.Methods: Several theoretical considerations enriched by findings of experimental studies were employed to devise a multi-measure method. This method was applied to a dataset containing real-world approaching behavior of 48 drivers turning right and left at four T-junctions with different sight obstructions. For each driver a behavior-specific criticality was defined based on both, their driving and gaze behavior. Moreover, based on the behavior-specific criticality of each driver, the required field of view to see a cyclist from the right was defined and was set into relation with the available field of view of the T-junction.Results: The results show that only a small portion of the drivers within the dataset would have posed an actual risk to cyclists crossing from the right side. Those situations with a higher safety criticality did not only arise when drivers intended to turn right, but also left.Conclusion: Therefore, the analysis can only provide an explanation for the higher proportion of accidents between drivers turning right and cyclists crossing from the right side in certain situations. Further research, for example analyses of exposure data regarding the frequency of turning manoeuvers at T-junctions, is needed in order to explain the higher proportion of accidents between drivers turning right and cyclists crossing from the right side.