Collision warning system works in tune with driver attention
Researchers are developing a collision warning system that takes into account driver attention to give appropriate warnings.
A team at Leeds University headed by Dr Natasha Merat and Prof Oliver Carsten has been awarded nearly £500,000 by the EPSRC for a project called FORWARN: Towards an intelligent Forward Collision Warning System.
‘What we’re trying to create is a forward collision warning [FCW] system that would know when the driver has detected the lead vehicle or obstacle and would also know when the driver hasn’t — so we would reduce unnecessary and annoying warnings for the driver,’ Carsten told The Engineer.
FCW systems use sensors and radar to scan the area ahead of the vehicle and aim to avoid rear-end collisions, or reduce their impact, by advising drivers to brake. Some newer systems even intervene in some cases to avoid a collision.
There are considerable potential benefits of such systems, which have recently been proven in a large-scale field operational test in North America. However, there is a danger that systems that have permanently fixed criteria will be viewed by a significant number of drivers as presenting too many ‘false’ or unwanted warnings. Indeed, in those US tests the drivers were keen to be able to tune the system to their personal preferences.
‘It’s a question of driving style,’ said Carsten. ‘We did an experiment previously where we showed that if we adapted the [FCW] system to somebody’s habitual reaction times, then the people who had very short reaction times and liked breaking late got fewer warnings, and that improved their trust in the system — we were able to increase acceptance without any real decrement in observed safety.’
The challenge now is to develop a system that can do this automatically through FORWARN. One of the methods will be to use infrared eye tracking in conjunction with Leeds University’s state-of-the-art vehicle simulator facility.
‘They [the eye tracking systems] are well used and robust in experimental situations, but they’re not quite out there yet in a package that will work reliably in the real world. That’s going to be coming soon, so we’re trying to look ahead to when that potential exists,’ said Carsten.
He envisages a system where, upon approach to a hazardous condition, an intelligent FCW system will only be triggered after if it has ascertained that the driver is truly distracted and unable to respond to the hazard in good time. There may, however, need to be a period of calibration to account for exact driver- and vehicle-related metrics, Carsten added.







Readers' comments (3)
Tim Perry | 25 Jan 2012 4:44 pm
As a Senior Observer in the Institute of Advanced Motorists, I would suggest that relying on 'reactions' to keep you out of trouble, especially for those who 'like the brake late', is a recipe for disaster, sooner or later. Probably sooner....
Far better surely would be to improve drivers observation and anticipation skills, then they are already prepared for situations as they develop, rather than reacting to them as once they have started developing. It also allows time to develop avoidance strategies that might be quite different, and much safer, than simply braking and/or swerving, which is the usual 'reaction' to imminent danger.
Of course, putting the responsibility back in the hands, and brain, of the driver is not the fashionable way in this day and age. Far better apparently to put the blame for a collision on anyone, or anything, else.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Keith Barker | 27 Jan 2012 12:37 pm
I totally agree with TIM PERRY.
(Just imagine being able to watch TV, perhaps even play 'Scrabble' whilst driving and being reliant on the 'Collision warning' system). I prefer observation and anticipation skills. I hope some good is discovered and the £half million is not totally wasted.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 28 Jan 2012 4:20 pm
I read somewhere that front collision warning systems are only effective at speeds of up to 30 mph. Is this correct? If so, it would warrant the use of such systems as unhelpful on the motorway system where the driver risk is greater than inner town/city driving.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment