比较各种自动驾驶汽车驾驶模式安全性能的碰撞前情景分析

IF 2 4区 工程技术 Q2 ENGINEERING, CIVIL
Tao Wang, Juncong Chen, Wenyong Li, Jun Chen, Xiaofei Ye
{"title":"比较各种自动驾驶汽车驾驶模式安全性能的碰撞前情景分析","authors":"Tao Wang,&nbsp;Juncong Chen,&nbsp;Wenyong Li,&nbsp;Jun Chen,&nbsp;Xiaofei Ye","doi":"10.1155/2024/4780586","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Precrash scenario analysis for autonomous vehicles (AVs) is critical for improving the safety of autonomous driving, yet the scenario differences between different driving modes are unexplored. Using the precrash scenario typology of the USDOT, this study classified 484 AV crash reports from the California DMV from 2018 to 2022, revealing the differences in the scenario proportions of the three modes of autonomous driving, driving takeover, and conventional driving in 34 types of scenarios. The results showed that there were significant differences in the proportion of six scenarios such as “Lead AV stopped” and “Lead AV decelerating” among different driving modes (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.05). To analyze the relative risk of different driving modes in specific scenarios, an evaluation model of the risk level of AV precrash scenarios was established using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP). The findings indicated that ​ autonomous driving has the highest risk rating and poses the greatest danger in Scenario 1, while conventional driving is associated with Scenario 2b, and driving takeover corresponds to Scenario 3, respectively. In-depth analysis of the crash characteristics and causes of these three typical scenarios was conducted, and suggestions were made from the perspectives of autonomous driving system (ADS) and drivers to reduce the severity of crashes. This study compared precrash scenarios of AV by different driving modes, providing references for the optimization of ADS and the safety of human-machine codriving.</p>","PeriodicalId":50259,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Advanced Transportation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Precrash Scenario Analysis Comparing Safety Performance across Autonomous Vehicle Driving Modes\",\"authors\":\"Tao Wang,&nbsp;Juncong Chen,&nbsp;Wenyong Li,&nbsp;Jun Chen,&nbsp;Xiaofei Ye\",\"doi\":\"10.1155/2024/4780586\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Precrash scenario analysis for autonomous vehicles (AVs) is critical for improving the safety of autonomous driving, yet the scenario differences between different driving modes are unexplored. Using the precrash scenario typology of the USDOT, this study classified 484 AV crash reports from the California DMV from 2018 to 2022, revealing the differences in the scenario proportions of the three modes of autonomous driving, driving takeover, and conventional driving in 34 types of scenarios. The results showed that there were significant differences in the proportion of six scenarios such as “Lead AV stopped” and “Lead AV decelerating” among different driving modes (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.05). To analyze the relative risk of different driving modes in specific scenarios, an evaluation model of the risk level of AV precrash scenarios was established using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP). The findings indicated that ​ autonomous driving has the highest risk rating and poses the greatest danger in Scenario 1, while conventional driving is associated with Scenario 2b, and driving takeover corresponds to Scenario 3, respectively. In-depth analysis of the crash characteristics and causes of these three typical scenarios was conducted, and suggestions were made from the perspectives of autonomous driving system (ADS) and drivers to reduce the severity of crashes. This study compared precrash scenarios of AV by different driving modes, providing references for the optimization of ADS and the safety of human-machine codriving.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50259,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Advanced Transportation\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Advanced Transportation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2024/4780586\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"工程技术\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, CIVIL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Advanced Transportation","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2024/4780586","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, CIVIL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

自动驾驶汽车(AV)的碰撞前情景分析对于提高自动驾驶的安全性至关重要,然而不同驾驶模式之间的情景差异却尚未被探索。本研究利用美国交通部的碰撞前场景类型学,对加州车管局2018年至2022年的484份AV碰撞报告进行分类,揭示了自主驾驶、驾驶接管和传统驾驶三种模式在34种场景中的场景比例差异。结果表明,"主导 AV 停止"、"主导 AV 减速 "等六种场景的比例在不同驾驶模式中存在显著差异。为了分析不同驾驶模式在特定场景下的相对风险,利用层次分析法(AHP)建立了视听碰撞前场景风险等级评价模型。研究结果表明,在情景 1 中,自动驾驶的风险等级最高,造成的危险也最大,而传统驾驶与情景 2b 相关,驾驶接管分别对应情景 3。对这三种典型情景的碰撞特征和原因进行了深入分析,并从自动驾驶系统(ADS)和驾驶员的角度提出了降低碰撞严重性的建议。该研究比较了不同驾驶模式下的自动驾驶汽车碰撞前情景,为自动驾驶系统的优化和人机共驾的安全性提供了参考。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A Precrash Scenario Analysis Comparing Safety Performance across Autonomous Vehicle Driving Modes

Precrash scenario analysis for autonomous vehicles (AVs) is critical for improving the safety of autonomous driving, yet the scenario differences between different driving modes are unexplored. Using the precrash scenario typology of the USDOT, this study classified 484 AV crash reports from the California DMV from 2018 to 2022, revealing the differences in the scenario proportions of the three modes of autonomous driving, driving takeover, and conventional driving in 34 types of scenarios. The results showed that there were significant differences in the proportion of six scenarios such as “Lead AV stopped” and “Lead AV decelerating” among different driving modes (p < 0.05). To analyze the relative risk of different driving modes in specific scenarios, an evaluation model of the risk level of AV precrash scenarios was established using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP). The findings indicated that ​ autonomous driving has the highest risk rating and poses the greatest danger in Scenario 1, while conventional driving is associated with Scenario 2b, and driving takeover corresponds to Scenario 3, respectively. In-depth analysis of the crash characteristics and causes of these three typical scenarios was conducted, and suggestions were made from the perspectives of autonomous driving system (ADS) and drivers to reduce the severity of crashes. This study compared precrash scenarios of AV by different driving modes, providing references for the optimization of ADS and the safety of human-machine codriving.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Advanced Transportation
Journal of Advanced Transportation 工程技术-工程:土木
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
8.70%
发文量
466
审稿时长
7.3 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Advanced Transportation (JAT) is a fully peer reviewed international journal in transportation research areas related to public transit, road traffic, transport networks and air transport. It publishes theoretical and innovative papers on analysis, design, operations, optimization and planning of multi-modal transport networks, transit & traffic systems, transport technology and traffic safety. Urban rail and bus systems, Pedestrian studies, traffic flow theory and control, Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) and automated and/or connected vehicles are some topics of interest. Highway engineering, railway engineering and logistics do not fall within the aims and scope of JAT.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信