Test smarties

The automotive safety community is working toward the day when "smart" road and vehicle safety systems will significantly reduce highway fatalities by assisting and compelling drivers to avoid collisions.

Already, some of those systems are out there on U.S. roads (Japan, in particular, is somewhat further ahead), to a limited extent, such as adaptive cruise control, which warns a motorist that his or her vehicle is going too fast as it bears down on the vehicle ahead and then, if necessary, moves on its own to reduce speed to avoid a crash. There also are military-type night vision aids, lane-change hazard warnings and devices on heavy trucks that warn drivers of a threatening rear-end collision or a rollover, which then take action to prevent such events by forcing a speed reduction or braking maneuver.

But more ITS-based systems are being developed or tested, much of it with U.S. Department of Transportation guidance under an Intelligent Vehicle Initiative, or IVI, which began in 1998 and could well be deployed in commercial use over the next three to 10 years. These include passenger-car crash avoidance units, systems designed to help or force drivers to avoid sudden departure from the road; other systems that would help drivers make better decisions when they're about to enter possibly hazardous intersections; more sophisticated rear-end collision, lane-changing and road departure methods for large trucks; and transit-bus devices that would similarly prevent lane-changing and rear-end collisions. Participating DOT agencies are the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA); the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA); the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA).

All this is aimed at substantially lowering the nation's highway crash, death and injury toll from the 42,815 fatalities, 2.9 million injuries, over 6 million crashes and $230 billion in costs in 2002.

"We believe that the easy things that are possible in occupant protection when a crash occurs are fast approaching their limits, and with technologies that are available today we should be able to prevent crashes and reduce their severity when they occur. Further, as new technologies evolve, the distinction between crashworthiness and crash avoidance is becoming less apparent," said Dr. Joseph Kanianthra, associate administrator for applied research at NHTSA. "If we can prevent the crash altogether there can be a tremendous payoff," he said. But "the jury is still out. We don't know if this is going to be effective," and won't know until data are collected from extensive field tests.

"While we are working on near-term solutions like state approval of primary safety belt laws, we also must look to the future and fund those research projects that will uncover new solutions to this age-old problem," said DOT Under Secretary for Policy Jeffrey N. Shane.

"Many of those (projects) aren't Buck Rogers--they're 2006, 2007, 2008 time frame, if not sooner," said Steve Kuciemba, vice president of programs for the Intelligent Transportation Society of America (ITSA). But there's a lot of work still to be done. Having vehicles share information with the road infrastructure, for example, "will require some advancements in technology--the data bus in the vehicle focused on processing all this data, a communications infostructure capable of transferring all this data and a national network of regional networks capable of storing and distributing all this data," Kuciemba said.

Not everyone thinks this new emphasis on developing futuristic ITS-based highway safety systems is a good idea. Officials of Advocates for Safe Highways and Automobiles, a public-interest group, for example, contend that NHTSA and other DOT agencies are letting manufacturers speed ahead with work on these devices without any regulatory control, while diverting emphasis and resources from more practical low-tech advances such as better striping, better signalization at intersections and dedicated turn lanes. 

"I think they (NHTSA) have spread themselves thin," said Henry Jasne, the advocates' general counsel.

NHTSA's Kanianthra said, however, that the traditional regulatory rulemaking approach for vehicle standards, with crash testing involving dummies, doesn't work for intelligent technologies, and his agency cannot dictate IVI deployment. Also, according to DOT officials, once real-world field testing and data collection are performed for the systems then the agencies can decide the next steps to facilitate deployment of these systems. Dynamic stability control systems and roadway departure collision avoidance systems are among those undergoing NHTSA's evaluation, for example, and these are in the agency's tentative rulemaking priorities for 2004-2005 awaiting decisions.

As for low-tech approaches, NHTSA and the FHWA "are pursuing all these angles," including trying to curb drunken driving and increasing seat belt use, Kanianthra said.

The ITSA's Kuciemba also insisted that the FHWA isn't neglecting normal striping and intersection work. "I don't think attention to high-tech technology is diverting attention (from low-tech) in any way. There's plenty of attention to go around," he said.

If the IVI program is successful, the payoff could be huge because it is targeted at high-frequency crashes. Rear-end collisions account for about 29% of all highway crashes, while intersection collisions, road-departure crashes and lane change and merger collisions cause 26%, 21% and 9% of total crashes, respectively, NHTSA said. These types of crashes were well over half of all fatal crashes in 2002.

"Even if we reduce a percentage of these it would make a big difference," said Jeffrey Paniati, the FHWA's associate administrator for operations. "The aim is focused squarely on reducing the number of crashes, fatalities and injuries on the highway." DOT estimates that rear-end, lane-change and road-departure crash avoidance systems potentially could reduce motor vehicle crashes by one-sixth, or about 1.2 million crashes a year. So after boosting spending on the IVI program to $28.1 million in FY 2003 from $16.5 million on its less-ambitious predecessor program in FY 1996, DOT may seek to increase that funding again in coming years under the Bush administration's proposed multi-year SAFETEA highway legislation.

Coming soon

These are the chief projects receiving strong emphasis under the IVI program, which were demonstrated recently at the FHWA's Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center in McLean, Va.:

 * General Motors Corp., with Delphi-Delco Electronics, Raytheon and the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute, is winding up a 10-month field test using 80 drivers and 10 Buick LeSabres equipped with two emerging technologies that could help reduce rear-end crashes: forward collision warning and adaptive cruise control systems. Previously no one had developed multi-sensor technologies that integrate both systems. The system can reduce false alerts and detect slowed or stopped vehicles faster around curves, GM said.

The warning system uses electronic sensors, Global Positioning System technology and radar to provide audio and visual warnings on a head-up display on the windshield to a driver who follows another vehicle too closely or approaches a slowed or stopped object too rapidly. The driver is told that he or she may need to brake quickly or execute an evasive maneuver to avoid a crash. The cruise control system will lower the vehicle's speed by applying limited braking or acceleration when the vehicle ahead is too close;

* Visteon Corp. and UMTRI are developing radar-based lane-change and road-departure warning technology and will work with auto makers to get feedback after the 18-month project, which includes about nine months of field testing. In-vehicle cameras locate the lane and road edge, translate that information into warnings to drivers of any drifting--using an icon on the dashboard, then adding seat and steering wheel vibration, and then a voice warning. A camera and GPS signals judge the speed as a curve approaches and tells drivers if they need to lower the vehicle's speed to negotiate that curve. Some 41% of fatal cashes involve road departure;

* Freightliner Corp. and Praxair Inc. in November 2002 began three-year field tests of a rollover stability advisor/controller system that helps truck drivers avoid rollovers. The system uses ABS and other technologies to estimate the weight of the cargo and set threshhold levels for lateral acceleration of the vehicle--going around a curve, for example. After a driving maneuver such as a sharp turn or quick lane change poses a rollover risk, the system advises the driver to slow down, how to turn the wheel and brake--with a tone, dash light and/or driver message-center communication. If the truck seems on the verge of rolling over, the controller defuels the engine and applies brakes.  "It's gaining more and more attention as more people become aware of it," said Scott Smith, executive engineer for Freightliner.

Freightliner also has started evaluating a controlled brake system using advanced braking techniques involving electronic signals, and will work with a large truck fleet beginning next summer or fall on tests of the system;

* Volvo Trucks N.A. and U.S. Xpress Inc. at year-end completed a three-year test of a "bundled'' safety package--electronically-controlled braking, disc brakes and a new commercial rear-end collision avoidance system (CAS) using 100 trucks--50 equipped and the others without the package. The CAS featured adaptive cruise control, which gives a visual light warning to drivers and an audible beep, and then automatically applies engine braking when the gap between the truck and a vehicle ahead is so small as to threaten a crash. Volvo is selling the package to some truck lines, including U.S. Xpress, which installed it on all of its 5,000-odd vehicles;

* Mack Trucks Inc. is partnering with the FMCSA, McKenzie Truck Lines, other companies and a number of state DOTs in 18-month operational tests of 36 McKenzie tractors. The tractors are fitted with systems that give the driver an audible tone when the vehicle begins to cross a lane boundary without a turn signal and also advises drivers when they're in trouble spots such as sudden or unusual curves in the road, tight freeway ramps, narrow bridges, work zones and high-crash areas;

* The FTA is sponsoring several studies to help transit buses operate more safely. Partners in development of a frontal collision warning system, using three buses equipped with sensors to detect possible collision hazards, radar, Lidar and computers, and driver warnings using orange LED light bars that increase in severity as the likelihood of a crash grows, are the California Transportation Department, Gillig Corp., San Mateo County Transit District and Partners for Advanced Transit and Highways at the University of California at Berkeley. The FTA is working with Carnegie Mellon University's Robotics Institute and others on side-collision warning systems using sensors on the sides of 100 Allegheny County buses in a completed field test and developing a separate advanced system that could use various kinds of sensors.

* Field trials designed to improve traffic safety at intersections, where one-fourth of all fatal crashes occur, are planned to begin in probably three to five years in a cooperative effort between California, Minnesota and Virginia researchers. The trials will use new in-vehicle and highway infrastructure technology, but only after extensive additional research, development and preliminary testing.

The projects were demonstrated recently at FHWA's newly unveiled "intelligent intersection" facility at its Virginia highway safety research center.

They include two infrastructure-based systems, with the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute the lead agency, which seek to help drivers make safe decisions when they approach signalized intersections. One system relies entirely on the roadway technology, flashing a stop signal when the system decides the vehicle's speed and distance indicate it is about to violate a red light or a stop sign. A second infrastructure system communicates with an in-vehicle unit that warns the driver of a similar safety problem with an audible tone and a stop-sign icon on the dashboard.

The problem with that infrastructure-to-vehicle communication system is that auto makers will be reluctant to build the vehicle device into their products without assurance that state DOTs have embedded the infrastructure portion in the roadway, said NHTSA's Kanianthra. Autonomous systems may be deployed first.

The University of California-PATH is developing a system that would assist drivers in identifying when it is unsafe to make a legally permitted left turn in face of an oncoming vehicle. Using multiple detection and sensing devices, including Lidar, radar, loop detectors and in-vehicle GPS, the system tracks vehicles approaching the intersection. Combined with the vehicle motion data, the central processing unit uses signal timing and phasing data sent from the traffic controller to run a decision-making algorithm. When it's unsafe to make a left turn, a no-left-turn sign that pulses, or "looms," displays the warning to the driver. Wireless communication also has been devised to communicate with in-vehicle devices for in-vehicle warnings; and

* The University of Minnesota ITS Institute is developing systems to mitigate crossing-path crashes at rural unsignalized intersections. The Minnesota system employs a network of radar detectors along the highway that communicate with a central data processor using wireless technology. The processor evaluates gaps between vehicles coming down the highway and uses a roadside sign to warn drivers on the collector road when there is not enough room to enter the highway safely.