Download
1 / 21
210 likes | 220 Views
This project focuses on analyzing intersection tasks, identifying risks for older drivers, proposing interfaces, and evaluating solutions for safer crossing. It involves simulating case sites, detecting key tasks, and designing prototypes to improve intersection safety. The study targets older drivers who face higher crash risks at intersections. By considering factors like vehicle presence, gap size, and safety margin, the aim is to enhance driver judgment and gap acceptance behaviors at Minnesota intersections. The project explores innovative interface designs, such as hazard beacons and speed monitors, to address the unique challenges faced by older drivers. The goal is to develop effective solutions to reduce the likelihood of accidents and improve overall intersection safety for this demographic.
E N D
Human Factors ProgressIDS ProjectJune, 2004 Nicholas Ward Mick Rakauskas Jason Laberge Janet Craeser HumanFIRST Program
Human Factors Tasks • Analyze problem • Task analysis • “What are the task elements of crossing an intersection?” • “Where in this sequence in the task failing?” • “Who is most at risk?” • Information analysis • “What information supports task behavior?” • “Which information is misused or missing?” • Simulate case site • Propose interfaces and simulate candidate • Review previous solutions • “What has not worked before?” • Evaluate candidate interface
Task Analysis • Detect intersection • Decelerate and enter correct lane • Signal if intending to turn • Detect and interpret traffic control device • Detect traffic and pedestrians • Detect, perceive, and monitor gaps • Accept gap and complete maneuver • Continue to monitor intersection
Target Population • Older drivers (> 65 years) have a high crash risk at intersections • Drivers > 75 years had greatest accident involvement ratio (Stamatiadis et al., 1991) • Drivers > 65 years 3 to 7 times more likely to be in a fatal intersection crash (Preusser et al., 1998) • Drivers > 65 years over-represented in crashes at many rural intersections in Minnesota (Preston & Storm, 2003)
Generic Support • Intersection / Control device • Vehicle presence • Vehicle speed, distance, time • Size of gap in traffic • Safety margin of gap • (specified location in traffic)
Minnesota Context • In Minnesota, most drivers stop before proceeding (Preston & Storm, 2003) • 57% stopped in 2296 rural thru-STOP accidents • 87% of right angle crashes at US 52 and CSAH 9 occurred after the driver stopped • NOT a violation problem • Instead, a gap acceptance problem • Detecting vehicles (speed, distance, time) • Perceiving gap size (and location) • Judging safe gaps
Interface Task • Design Tenets • Prohibitive (not permissive). • Decision remains with driver. • Design for worst case. • Use MUTCD sign guidelines. • Consider diverse range of option rather than refine a concept. • Expert panel review of concepts • Everyone had own perspective. • No consensus for best sign. • Some signs ejected. • Interface demonstration • IDS TAP • MN Pooled fund • MUTCD • Revised design
Four Prototypes • Speedometer • Speed monitor • for lead vehicle. • Flashes red when • near or far-side • vehicle is speeding. • Hazard Beacon • Flashing sign • activates when • intersection is unsafe. • System tracks • arrival time • (or speed) • of lead vehicle • Hybrid • Arrival time • countdown for • lead vehicle. • Prohibitive • symbol relative to • maneuvers based on • near and far-side • traffic conditions. • Spit-Hybrid • Median position • with logic for North • Left nearside • position for North • and South.
Conclusion Task Completed: Intersection selected and simulated with high Geospecific accuracy. • Task Completed: • Interface concepts generated. • Task on schedule: • Experiment outlined. • Interface logic tested. • Traffic models under review (gaps).
