|
1
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
3
|
- Full deployment – all vehicles
capable of communicating with each other
- Model Deployment – subset of all
vehicles capable of communicating with each other
|
|
4
|
- Question: What should be the scope of the Model Deployment to gather
enough data?
- Conducted analysis using prior field test results
- 3 Forward Collision Warning alerts during treatment period
|
|
5
|
- Requires careful selection of test area
- Requires careful selection of test participants as well to ensure
interactions
|
|
6
|
- Approaches for Recruiting Participants
- UoM Medical Center
- Ann Arbor city school system
- Variety of Interactions
- Following
- Adjacent
- Crossing
|
|
7
|
- Ann Arbor Trip Tables
- Provided by Washtenaw Area Transportation Study
- TRANSIMS Model
- Ran model for 24 hour period
- Output included second-by-second positioning of vehicles
|
|
8
|
- Forward collision
- Same direction, same lane
- Lane change
- Same direction, adjacent lanes
- Intersection assist
|
|
9
|
- 64 light vehicles equipped with safety applications
- 2,500 Vehicle Awareness Devices deployed
- Hourly estimates of interactions in a typical weekday
|
|
10
|
- Assumptions for V2V interactions
- 2,500 Vehicle Awareness Devices are deployed
- Vehicle speeds > 25 mph
- Vehicles are within 30 meters of each other
|
|
11
|
- How do the interactions relate to safety alerts generated by the
applications?
- Developed estimates of the relationship between interactions and safety
alerts.
- Estimated that over 6 months, each driver would experience ~3 alerts /
safety application
|
|
12
|
- Devices Deployed
- 64 Integrated light vehicles are deployed
- 738 Vehicle Awareness Devices are deployed
|
|
13
|
- Observed results from the field are comparable with the simulated
estimates
- Simulation Model estimated that the Model Deployment will generate
sufficient data for evaluation
|