1 / 7

Lane Departure Warning Human Machine Interface GRRF informal group on AEBS/LDWS 1 February 2010

Lane Departure Warning Human Machine Interface GRRF informal group on AEBS/LDWS 1 February 2010. AEBS-LDWS-04-09 100201. LDWS – HMI Summary. Question Existing Standards Scientific Research on LDWS Ergonomics Market Situation Conclusions. ?. 1. Question.

whittaker-jovani
Download Presentation

Lane Departure Warning Human Machine Interface GRRF informal group on AEBS/LDWS 1 February 2010

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Lane Departure WarningHuman Machine Interface GRRF informal group on AEBS/LDWS1 February 2010 AEBS-LDWS-04-09 100201

  2. LDWS – HMISummary Question Existing Standards Scientific Research on LDWS Ergonomics Market Situation Conclusions

  3. ? 1. Question • What is an appropriate HMI requirement for a lane departure warning?

  4. 2. Existing Standards • ISO 17361-2007 Lane Departure Warning 5.3.3 Human interface requirements 1) Warning presentation • An easily perceivable haptic and/or audible warning shall be provided. 2) Interference with other warnings • Even when a vehicle is equipped with LDWS along with other warning systems such as FVCWS (Forward Vehicle Collision Warning System), the warning shall be clearly distinguishable to the driver by a haptic, audible, or visual modality, or any combination thereof. • SAE J2808 - Road/Lane Departure Warning Systems: Information for the Human Interface (2007) • A review of the current warning modality research with regards to lane departure systems is consistent with the requirements of ISO. 4

  5. 3. Scientific Research on LDWS Ergonomics • Tijerina, L. et alii. (1995). “Run-off-road collision avoidance countermeasures using IVHS countermeasures”. Task 3 final report - volume 2. Report no. DOT HS 808 502. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. • The auditory and the haptic system promoted better lanekeeping than unsupported driving. No evidence was found that a combined system that includes both auditory and haptic displays in the vehicle was particularly beneficial. • Stanley, L.M. (2006). “Haptic and auditory cues for lane departure warnings”. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 50th Annual Meeting. Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. 2405-2408. • The combination modality did not demonstrate similar findings to the haptic. This may be due to a startling effect or confusion of the participant. Receiving warning modalities in two sensory channels may require increased cognitive processing, resulting in higher driver workloads to process the information. 5

  6. 4. Market Situation Lane departure warning is done by one modality (haptic, audible or visual) Choice of the modality depends on vehicle category Aim to prevent confusion with other Driver Support Systems (Forward Collision Warning, Blind Spot Warning, Parking Aid, etc.) 6

  7. ! 5. Conclusions Existing Standards require an easy perceivable warning which is clearly distinguishable from other Warning Systems Scientific Research found no evidence that a combined system was particularly beneficial. Current LDWS use one modality that does not interfere with other systems depending on the vehicle type The EU Cost-Benefit Analysis to justify the EU General Safety Regulation has been based on current systems. It is hence not valid for systems multi-modal warnings. 7

More Related