Cooperative Intersection Collision
Avoidance Systems (CICAS)

CICAS Workshop

December 9–10, 2004
Appendix A1
Summary of Breakout Session #1: Defining Vision and a Development Path

Introduction

The discussion summary of Breakout Session #1 indicates where there are clear points of consensus and of disagreement. Most of the observations below, however, are in between and the notes make no indication of the level of agreement that occurred within the six breakout groups or between them. These notes indicate the breadth of discussion that occurred. The vision and evolutionary path developed by the breakout groups in Session #1 are summarized in a separate document.

Does the U. S. DOT vision for CICAS make sense? Why or why not?

• Immediate impact on safety
• Evolutionary
• Improves mobility
• Societal impact
• Includes milestones
• DOT is offering resources
• Advances technology
• Multi-task coordination and cooperation
• Relates to VII
• Vision stops at pre-FOT
• Emphasizes R&D upfront
• Contributes to an overall understanding of the benefits
• Includes independent evaluation

• Is this program overly ambitious?
• Technology is difficult to maintain
• May be difficult to obtain
• Clarification is needed
• Confined to intersections
• Emphasis on cooperative systems may hinder development of vehicle or infrastructure only systems.
• Cooperative system may not be beneficial
• CICAS system may raise false expectations.
• Expectations of the deliverables are unknown/unmanaged

The following discussion points are grouped into themes within which participant opinions may diverge.

• Violations vs. gap acceptance
  The consensus is that violations and gap acceptance represent two different problems and that they should be treated differently when countermeasures are being constructed. With a violation, the vehicle should be stopped; whereas, with the gap acceptance driver the technology provides decision-support to the driver.
  
  The gap problem area is the more difficult driver behavior problem. Driver behavior is very different in the two problem areas. Is it really true that the violations area is farther along than gap acceptance? We need to create enough flexibility in the program to account for failure and changes in the intersection environment?
  
  Does the signal violation warning only go to the first vehicle in the queue? VII can communicate to many vehicles. What are our assumptions?

• Driver perspective and intent (human factors and driver behavior)
  Can we customize gap acceptance to driver behavior (e.g., aggressiveness)? Driver intent is a huge problem. We need lots of research concerning:

• Driver intent
• Safe vs. acceptable gap
• State map (complex)
• Communication schemes
• Friction
• Eye direction/movement
• Steering input
• Pedestrian detection (primarily an urban issue)

One participant suggested that the timing of the warning may be more important than the interface. Another suggested that the human factors issues for LTAP/OD cannot be solved by 2009, because we will not be able to ascertain

• Reliability of warning
• Driver intentions

• Unintended consequences of CICAS

• Increased incidence of rear-end collisions, intersection-to-intersection effects, equipment maintenance
• Maintenance of infrastructure systems
  • How do you know if the loops are working?
  • How do you know if the data are erroneous
  • How do you verify that equipment functioning properly?
  • How do you maintain software-based equipment having version numbers; ensure new equipment can communicate with existing equipment.
• Traffic flow and intersection to intersection effects
  • Extensions can interfere with desired signal phasing
  • Will VII make solving this easier?
  • DOT vehicle drive-by's?

• Feasibility of five-year timeline
  Some disagreement emerged in breakout group discussions as to how much can be accomplished within the five-year time span and how quickly after that a mature system will be operational. In addition, there was disagreement as to the amount of functionality in the infrastructure in the beginning and end stages of CICAS development.
• Time to deployment needs some certainty for both vehicles and infrastructure. Infrastructure advocates argue that this certainty may be quicker and easier to achieve with an infrastructure-based system.
• Variation between rural and urban
• Need cost/benefit
• For infrastructure, it is easier to do cost/benefit
• 5–7 years for development on infrastructure side, then vehicle
• In the far future every vehicle (not quite 100%) is communicating.
  • Where vehicles come together, there is a warning capability
  • Some set of intersections will need infrastructure-based technology, even in the future, V2V scenario.
• DSRC prototypes, cell phones, etc., cannot fill gap in near term.
  • DSRC systems by 2009.
  • Path to future will shift from infrastructure- to vehicle-based
• Technology/Research
• In-vehicle equipment can be with driver or with vehicle, and should be multi-purpose to convince consumers to buy and use
• Because CICAS expects to use the DSRC capability being developed in the VII program, the relationship between the two programs should be described in detail both programmatically and institutionally. One participant suggested that CICAS is an independently developed application that will run on top of the DSRC capability that will emerge from VII.
• Technology alternatives
  • Other technologies exist for positioning: e.g., passive magnetometer in a lane for a vehicle to read its position (snowplows, e.g.)
  • RFID tag on stop signs talks to vehicle
  • Or builds DSRC
    • Intersection Decision Support (IDS). where to stop and for which direction (4-way, etc.)
    • In vehicle audio-advisory to deliver information to driver
  • Infrastructure needs significantly improved sensor-systems. An RFID tag on every car can be read at different points.
• Associated technologies
  • Road condition sensors would be nice to have
  • NCHRP 3-66 "Traffic Signal State Transition Logic Using Enhanced Sensor Information" needs to be finished. This work will provide the structure to take advantage of the data extensions that have now become available.
  • No automated control of vehicle by 2009 because of liability issues
• Research needs
  • Select intersections for "show and tell."
  • Will need to understand what are the appropriate messages to the driver – beyond just a warning signal. (DVI, timing, DVI and DII working together)
• What is the evolutionary path?
  There was some discussion as to whether we can we really complete an FOT by 2009?
  
  There was a lot of support in the discussion for beginning with an infrastructure solution; and then maintaining a hybrid system through v2v (with radar)
• Incremental use of infrastructure systems to cooperative systems.
  • Technology is in people's hands: cell phone/blackberries w/GPS rather than in vehicle technology feasible?
• Assuming less than 100% deployment of VII and DSRC.
• Focus in intersections with high fatality rates.
  • Infrastructure-based and communication with vehicle (adaptability based on driver)
    • Vehicle classification data helps gap prediction
    • Vehicle communicates to infrastructure
    • Acceleration
    • Age
  • Infrastructure-vehicle date = gap info which is customized to driving style (aggressive vs. nonaggressive)
  • Handle all vehicles; data available to all vehicles (some agreement among participants on this point)
• Suggested timeline of capabilities does not represent a consensus, but a combination of suggestions from the breakout groups
  • By 2005 we should have good information on vehicle position
  • By 2007, we need the warning algorithm
  • By 2009 and the FOT; we should be able to get lane position form GPS
  • By 2009 we should have proven CICAS effectiveness in reducing crashes.
  • In 2009 it will be possible to have an infrastructure based with system DSRC – it will have the driver interface on the far side corner with option/opportunity for in-vehicle messaging on equipped cars
  • By 2009 pedestrian/bicycle detection is not a requirement
  • In 2012 CICAS addressing LTAP/OD will be ready to deploy
  • In 2020 the ultimate goal will be vehicle decisions, and an infrastructure state map including pedestrians
• Capabilities: what are the outputs of the system?
• Warning of lawbreaking
• Alerting to a severe consequence
• Preventing a crash
• Relationship to CAMP concepts numbering scheme
• Concept 5 is overkill for signal violation
• Concept 6 allows warning the victim – drivers will become complacent
• Concept 6 is too far in future.
• Role of the infrastructure – near-term, long-term
  The role of the infrastructure on the CICAS evolutionary path was a topic of discussion and disagreement. The question was posed as to whether the infrastructure alone can solve the problem of gap acceptance because of human factors and the need to determine whether any warning delivered through the infrastructure would be sufficient to change driver behavior. Some participants asserted that human factors issues are not soluble by 2009 and that CICAS may not be able to get beyond an infrastructure-only solution for 2009.
  
  Discussion centered on the merits of the vehicle versus the infrastructure as a source of vehicle data, as a location for processing, whether processing could take place in the infrastructure and the vehicle with the vehicle's deciding which result to use. Much discussion took place on the amount of data that was needed on the vehicle's intentions and on its capabilities for braking and acceleration (vehicle type – u-haul vs. a roadster). Participants mostly agreed that this level of data could only by provided by the vehicle.
• Measurement of costs and benefits
  Participants agreed that an important task for CICAS is to calculate the order of magnitude of cost benefits. One back-of-the-envelope calculation was that the average cost of a single accident at an intersection is $28,000; whereas the cost of installing RSU at intersection is $2,200.
  
• Issues for further discussion – outside the workshop scope

• Coordination within and among institutional actors (USDOT, for example)
• Management of program
• Communications standards – SDOs
• What solution and which problem should be addressed for LTAP/OD?
• How do we achieve the research for the goal of deployable systems?