Presentation on theme: "On-Board Technologies Applicable to Teen Drivers: A Review Shawn Brovold, Max Donath, Craig Shankwitz, Nic Ward ITS Institute, University of Minnesota."— Presentation transcript:
On-Board Technologies Applicable to Teen Drivers: A Review Shawn Brovold, Max Donath, Craig Shankwitz, Nic Ward ITS Institute, University of Minnesota (Contact: firstname.lastname@example.org ) August 24, 2005
Intelligent Transportation Systems Institute u Theme: Human-Centered Technology to Enhance Safety and Mobility u Scope: Road- and transit-based transportation u Federally designated University Transportation Center (Authorized by ISTEA, TEA-21, and reauthorized by SAFETEA-LU) u Participants in ITS related activities across university: Over 35 faculty, 14 research staff, ~90 students
Work with Many Organizations …and many counties Disciplines from 5 colleges, including: Civil Engineering Computer Science Electrical Engineering Industrial Engineering Mechanical Engineering Policy and Public Affairs Psychology Law
Fatalities per 100M Vehicle Miles of Travel Minnesota vs. National Total (1970-2003)
Teen Driving Fatalities: Current Trends u In last decade, have seen an increase in teen fatalities. u Teen drivers have a higher fatality risk than any other driver age group on the road. u Although teenagers (16-19 years old) make up only 4.7% of all licensed drivers, they are involved in 13% of all fatal crashes. Source: US DOT FARS data. Teen (13-19 year old) Fatalities, 1975-2002
Teen Crash Risk on a Per Mile Basis Source: Williams, A. F., 2003. Teenage drivers: patterns of risk. Journal of Safety Research, 34, 5-15. u Teens are almost twice as likely to be involved in a crash than the next youngest age group… 20-24 year olds. u 16 year olds are nearly 3 times more likely to be involved in a crash than a 19 year old,… and almost 10 times more likely than drivers aged 30- 69. No. of Driver Crash Involvements per Million Miles Traveled, 1995
Driver Fatalities by Crash Type: For Most Crash Types, Higher for Teens Data provided by: Alan Rodgers, Research Analyst for the Minnesota Dept. of Public Safety Driver Fatalities per 100,000 licensed drivers: Minnesota, 1998 - 2002.
Data provided by: Alan Rodgers, Research Analyst for the Minnesota Dept. of Public Safety 16 TO 19 YEAR OLD DRIVERS: MINNESOTA 1998 - 2002. Teen Fatality Contributing Factors: Speed Kills All FATAL Crashes
Source: 2002 NHTSA Traffic Safety Facts On the national level,… 40% of male teen driver fatalities had excessive speed as a contributing factor. Teen Fatality Contributing Factors: Speed Kills
In Minnesota, seatbelt use is lowest among teenagers. Source: Minnesota Motor Vehicle Crash Facts, 2002 Teen Fatality Contributing Factors: Seatbelt Use
Unrestrained Teen (16-19) Driver Fatalities as Percent of All Teen Driver Fatalities (Passenger vehicles only) Source: FARS 2003
Unrestrained Teen (16-19) Driver Fatalities as % of All Teen Fatalities, Unrestrained Non-Teen Driver Fatalities as % of All Non-Teen Driver Fatalities (Passenger vehicles only) Source: FARS 2003
Alcohol Use: For every age group, existing approaches to mitigation have hit a brick wall Percent of fatally injured passenger vehicle drivers with BACs >= 0.08 %, 2002 Source data: http://www.hwysafety.org % of all 16-17 year olds who were fatally injured
Behavioral Modification: Functions In-vehicle technology does have ability to address these issues by forcing behavior, providing driver feedback, and reporting driving behavior of teenagers. Forcing Behavior. (“We know better than you.”) Some unsafe actions (risks) may be habitual. Forcing requires specific behavior to occur prior to or during vehicle operation. Driver Feedback. (Education and adaptation) Drivers may not be aware of risks. Real-time warnings can alert the driver in case of poor driving behavior or potential risks. Reporting Behavior. (“Big brother is watching”) Some drivers may purposely take risks because they feel anonymous. Vehicle parameters can be saved for inspection by parents (or other authorities).
Three Types of Forcing Functions u Interlocks (I) force actions in a safe sequence. u Lock-ins (LI) force an action to be maintained until it is safe to change. u Lockout (LO) blocks unsafe actions.
Forcing Behavior: Interventions Seatbelt interlock Requires all occupants to engage seatbelt prior to starting vehicle. (I) Alcohol interlock Prevents teen driver from starting vehicle if alcohol is detected. (I) Intelligent Speed Adaptation (ISA) Prevents driver from exceeding road’s posted limit. Achieved through combination of Global Positioning System (GPS) and digital road map. In some systems, speed is limited by link with elements of vehicle's power train, such as throttle or fuel system. (LO)
From “Buckle up: Technologies to Increase Seat Belt Use” TRB Special Report 278 (2004) u Interlock systems could be engineered to avoid motorists’ objections. v … e.g. “designed to enable drivers to start cars without buckling up and to drive in reverse and perhaps at low speeds to accommodate the majority of drivers who do not buckle up before starting their vehicles.” u Negative reaction indicated by … NHTSA interviews and focus groups and hesitancy of industry to reintroduce interlock systems … suggest that, for the moment, their use be considered only for certain high-risk groups (e.g., drivers impaired by alcohol, teenage drivers) who are overrepresented in crashes. Current legislation ( FMVSS 208; Federal Register 1974, 42,692– 42,693) prohibiting NHTSA from requiring new seat belt use technologies other than the ineffective 4- to 8-second belt reminder is outdated and unnecessarily prevents the agency from requiring effective technologies to increase belt use.
TRB Special Report 278 Recommendations u “NHTSA and the private sector should strongly encourage research and development of seat belt interlock systems for specific applications. u “For example, the courts should consider requiring the use of interlocks for motorists with driving-under-the-influence-of-alcohol convictions or with high numbers of points on their driver’s licenses. u “Interlocks could also be made available for other high-risk groups, such as teenage drivers. v Insurance companies could lower premium rates for young drivers who install interlock systems.
On Interlocks and Seatbelt Monitoring … TRB Special Report 278 u “Observational studies indicated that despite their low acceptance, interlocks were effective in increasing seatbelt use in the 1970’s. Belt use was 59% in cars with interlocks as compared to 28% in cars of prior model years. (Robertson, 1975) u “Teenagers have high crash risk but low belt use, which add to their injury problem. Avenues to address this include: v Strong belt use laws and their enforcement, v Building belt use requirements into graduated licensing systems, v Keeping young beginners out of high risk driving situations, and v Finding ways to influence parents and other adults to ensure that their teenage passengers use seatbelts.” (Williams, McCartt and Geary, 2003)
Intelligent Speed Adaptation (ISA) Summary u Three types of ISA systems: v Advisory – in vehicle warning, driver ultimately limits speed. v Mandatory – active control, vehicle limits speed, overrides driver. v Voluntary – advisory with option of mandatory. u Three notification levels possible: v Fixed – posted speed limit only. v Variable – site specific limits, ex: construction zones, school zones, curves. v Dynamic – limits based on hazard potential, e.g. weather, time of day, traffic congestion, pavement condition.
ISA Summary u Location v ISA has been evaluated in simulation and field studies in Australia and several European countries including, Belgium, France, Germany, England, Netherlands, and Sweden. u Observations v In general, these projects have shown consistent reductions in speed levels, better awareness of speed limits, and improved compliance with speed limits (Besseling, 2003; Carsten & Fowkes, 2000; Vagverket, 2003). u Impact v It has been estimated that speed control systems such as ISA have the potential for achieving almost 60% fatality reduction (Carsten & Fowkes, 2000).
“Car computer to stop you speeding” from The Times, July 1, 2004 u Government to establish national speed limits database … pave way for all cars to be fitted with devices that prevent speeding. u The digital speed map of Britain … essential 1st step towards introducing ISA, … automatically applies brakes or blocks accel. u On-board computer linked to satellite positioning system will use digital map to identify local speed limit. If drivers attempt to exceed limit, they hear series of bleeps and accelerator pedal starts vibrating. u Ministers have not ruled out eventually making some version of system compulsory …. u …but no central speed limits database for whole country, and many local authorities have poor records of limits on their roads. u The DfT believes the absence of a national database is hampering development of ISA. u A DfT spokesman said: “If the whole country was mapped, it might make it more logical and practical for manufacturers to consider offering ISA. There could well be road safety benefits from ISA.”
ISA: Compensation for “Lost Time” When drivers have speed restricted by a mandatory or variable system, there may be a tendency for them to compensate by accepting shorter gaps in crossing traffic and closer following distances in traffic compared to baseline driving (or only an advisory system). This is believed to result from a perceived need to make up for limited mobility and time. Based on speed limits Based on local cond’ns No ISA
ISA: Complacency We relax our responsibility and let the system take over Fog warning Adaptive Speed Control Speed limit Mand, fixed NSL (off) Advisory Mand, dynamic In expt, subjects drove a simulator in traffic conditions with heavy fog. Note that drivers drove at a speed lower than the speed limit with no speed control, and in response to the advisory and dynamic system. However, drivers with the mandatory system seemed to be complacent and drive to the system limit rather than use their own judgment to slow down. As a result, drivers tended to drive toward the speed limit even though conditions suggest a lower speed to be safe. (courtesy of O. Carsten, ITS, Leeds)
Alcohol Interlock u Commercially available option v Expensive (?): $795 or $60/mo. v Records data log of tests, and rolling retests. v Interlock tolerance level can be changed. v Installed by certified dealer. v Integrate with system. ADS Determinator Interlock Manufacturers Guardian Interlock ( www.guardianinterlock.com) Autosense International ( San Jose, CA) Consumer Safety Technology, Inc. ( www.intoxalock.com) Draeger Interlock, Inc. ( www.ignitioninterlock.com) Lifesaver Interlock, Inc. ( www.lifesafer.com) Smart Start, Inc. ( www.smartstartinc.com) Alcohol Countermeasures Systems ( www.acs-corp.com) Alcohol Detection Systems ( www.stopdwi.com)
Enabling Technology: Smart Key Benefits: u Enables the system to recognize who is driving so parents can opt out. u Enables individual settings for parents of multiple teen drivers. u Enables logging of Graduated Driver’s License (GDL) provision on number of driving hours (day/night) logged with a parent. Microlatch FOB-13 $295 Features: u Biometrics fingerprint key fob. u Wireless (bluetooth) communication. u Enables identification and vehicle entry.
Modifying Behavior: Feedback u Need context (static and dynamic) u Auditory or other sensory signals triggered by unsafe vehicle operation v Excessive speed for local conditions, e.g. speeds incompatible with road curvature, can lead to lane departure. v “Hassles” driver until behavior is corrected. u Prediction of road curvature can inform the driver of necessary upcoming maneuvers (especially useful in rural areas at night).
Reporting Behavior: Consequences Incentives, Reward and Punishment u Record vehicle parameters such as speed, acceleration, braking, throttle use, distance, time of day. u Parents can be notified in real-time of unsafe driving behavior. Parents can also inspect “report card” of data to review teen driving behavior offline. u Attempt to address difficulty in enforcing compliance. Review possible by insurance (insurance premium, rebates), police (fines), DPS (license progression, awards).
When needed? Crash rate by cumulative miles driven after licensure and by gender u First 250 miles crash involvement rate: 3.2 (per 10K miles); next 250 miles rate is 1.3 (per 10K miles) (1) u For novice drivers, crash rates decrease dramatically from the 1st to the 7th month (41%), then gradually decrease through the 24th month after licensing (60% overall reduction) (2) (1) Mayhew, D.R., Simpson, H.M. and Pak, A. (2003). “Changes in collision rates among novice drivers during the first months of driving.” Accident Analysis and Prevention, 35, pp. 683-691. (2) McCartt A.T.; Shabanova V.I.; Leaf W.A. (2003). “Driving experience, crashes and traffic citations of teenage beginning drivers,” Accident Analysis and Prevention, 35, (3), pp. 311-320
Davis Instruments: CarChip u Summary v Records driving data saved for later viewing on home PC. Time and date for each trip, distance, speed, hard accelerations and decelerations. v Data logger will start collecting data as soon as car is started. v Connected via OBD-II port (available on model years 1996+ ) v Cost: $179.
Road Safety: RS-1000 u Summary v Records driving characteristics for later viewing on PC by guardian. v Audible alert parameters defined by user. Speed, driver seatbelt, acceleration, braking, erratic driving, throttle use. v Connects via OBD-II port (not seatbelt monitor) v GPS plug-in option available soon (?) v Relatively low cost: $280
Geofencing: SignalTrac http://www.signaltrac.com/ u Summary v Real-Time e-mail notification via cellular connection each time driver enters a zone. v Zone(s) are user-defined. v Also includes real-time position, speed, seatbelt*, and passenger* notification. (*Optional) Cost: $499 + $399/yr
Teen Arrive Alive u Summary v Subscription plan for phone tracking. v Uses technology from GPS enabled cell phone. v Works with selected Motorola phones and Nextel calling plans. v Subscription cost: ~$20/month (in addition to standard Nextel service plan fees of ~$40/month). v Phone location, speed, direction of travel, and time of day are reported every 2 minutes. v Reports are accessible by parents via website or by placing a call to secure line.
Video Monitoring: DriveCam http://www.drivecam.com/drivecam-videos.asp http://www.drivecam.com/drivecam-videos.asp Cost: $1000 Features: v Two lenses: Forward and Interior. v 20 second buffer records 10s prior to, and 10s after event. v Records both Video & Audio. Limitations: v User defined threshold - false positives. v Difficult to record speed or impairment. v Feedback to driver behavior provided after event (not real-time) v Review of footage is time consuming.
Existing system deficiencies Also see www.gps-practice-and-fun.com/teen-car-tracking.htmlwww.gps-practice-and-fun.com/teen-car-tracking.html u Current systems are too passive. None of the systems: v Modify speed threshold based on individual road’s local speed limit, or upcoming road curvature (as per ISA), time of day or weather (RWIS). v Force behavior such as using seatbelt or maintaining sobriety. v Recognize current driver. u Digital maps can be updated with speed limits; real-time wireless access for pavement condition, weather, congestion already available in Minnesota. v Minnesota: One point of contact for all statutory speed limits. u Need teen driver-parent centric system, designed to modify dangerous teen driving behavior and empower parents.
Driver Reporting Systems: The issue is not only “technology” u What are the tests? The performance criteria? v Speed violation? Stability of accel/decel, headway? Lane wandering? Distraction measure? u What thresholds does one set for pass/fail on each? u How does one come up with an overall “grade”? u Is this a continuous driving exam? What are the thresholds for moving from one level to the next? u Does one exam (ie report card) fit every state? …every teen? u Feedback mechanism? Incentive?
Mechanisms of Unsafe Driving: “Reporting” cannot deal with all of these u Perception: v Insufficient experience to accurately perceive speeds. u Recognition: v Insufficient experience to recognize unsafe limits. u Skill: v Insufficient experience to acquire adequate speed control skills. u Personality: v Youth and personality (sensation seeking) may attract teen driver to thrill of risk taking and unsafe speed u Motivation: v Absence of external factors to motivate (“enforce”) safe speeds. Anonymity. Peer pressure motivates risky behavior. u Naivety: v Absence of sufficient exposure to negative consequences of speed choice to “learn” risks of unsafe speeding ; optimism bias
Mechanisms of Unsafe Driving: Beyond “Reporting” ForcingFeedbackReporting Perception Experience Awareness Perception Experience Skill Awareness Personality Motivation Awareness Mechanisms: u Perception u Recognition u Skill u Personality u Motivation u Naivety v Ignition interlocks to deal with impairment (which affect Perception, Recognition, & Skill)
Technical Caveats u Technology can be provided at different levels of intervention. v Inform v Advise, warn v Control u Technology may redistribute risk rather than reduce risk overall. u By changing the nature of the driving/operational task, we need to verify that the technology not introduce new risk factors. u The question always is: What are the unintended consequences of using technology?
Driving Simulator and Research Tools Special Effects: Night-time capabilities