1 / 17

Improving the Credibility of, and Compliance with, Speed Limits: a Real-World Approach

D. I. V. AS. ANR. Improving the Credibility of, and Compliance with, Speed Limits: a Real-World Approach. N. Hautière 1 , P. Charbonnier 2 , E. Dumont 1 , S. Glaser 1 , E. Violette 3. 1 LCPC, Paris 2 LRPC de Strasbourg, ERA 27, Strasbourg 3 CETE Normandie-Centre, ERA 34, Rouen.

dolf
Télécharger la présentation

Improving the Credibility of, and Compliance with, Speed Limits: a Real-World Approach

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. D I V AS ANR Improving the Credibility of, and Compliance with, Speed Limits: a Real-World Approach N. Hautière1, P. Charbonnier2, E. Dumont1, S. Glaser1, E. Violette3 1 LCPC, Paris 2 LRPC de Strasbourg, ERA 27, Strasbourg 3 CETE Normandie-Centre, ERA 34, Rouen

  2. Presentation Outline • Introduction • Rough points • Our position • Speed limits computation: state of the art • How to improve drivers’ compliance with speed limits? • Process • Examples • On-board solution: ARCOS • Roadside solution: SARI • Cooperative solution: DIVAS • Perspectives

  3. Introduction • Fact There is a strong link between accidentology and speed. • Problem Permanent speed limits (signs) do not help road users to adapt their speed in case of transient difficulties - Meteorology: rain, fog, wet road, ice on the road - Traffic, road works, lack of maintenance… • Solution Adaptive and customized speed limits. 110 light rain 90 strong rain

  4. Introduction: Rough Spots(at least in France) • The duality of speed limits • Speed limits have different functions, e.g.: • to ensure homogeneous behaviours, • to ensure coherence with road related risks. • To comply with speed limits, road users must be aware that speed limits are related to the riskand not only to speed enforcement. • Problem: do we communicate on the speed or on the risk? • Compliance • Prior to the introduction of automatic speed enforcement, speed limits were designed knowing that they would not be respected. • Today, posted speed limits are no longer suitable because they are complied with. • Liability • Legal issues are problematic for adaptive speed limits.

  5. We focus on the scientific aspect of the problem. We seek to compute credible safe* speed limits.(*) i.e. risk-related We consider isolated vehicles, only interacting with the infrastructure. Introduction: Our Position

  6. Empirical approach Actual speeds are measured in nominal conditions  all the parameters are integrated Problem: only appliesin nominal conditions  not adaptive  not credible Computational approach Based on physical models for specific situations many parametersare omitted: driver, car, visibility... Problem: not customized  needs to be pessimistic not credible Speed Limits Computation: State of the Art

  7. How to Improve Drivers’ Compliance with Speed Limits? • Hypothesis Credible speed limits are better complied with. • Question How to make speed limits credible? • Answer By making them adaptive and customized.

  8. Process • Combine empirical and computational approaches Usual approach: Our approach: with SL = Speed Limit MSL = Mandatory Speed Limit NSL = Nominal Speed Limit empirical model f(pi) = speed decrement needed to maintain nominal risk level pi = transient risk factor computational approach

  9. ExamplesOn-board solution • We make it customized(on-board = more credible), • ARCOS Project First use of risk functions • Example: the SAVV (speed warning in curves) • Website: http://www.arcos2004.com/ Source: ARCOS Project

  10. Alert threshold ExamplesRoadside solution • We make it adaptive • SARI / IRCAD (roadside = addresses all drivers) • Problem: drivers are not aware of the risk in bad conditions (particularly with skid resistance) • We must set a warning threshold in the speed distribution. • Website: http://www.sari.prd.fr/ Risk function Source: Lacroix Traffic

  11. ExamplesCooperative Solution • We make SLs both adaptive and customized. • We generalizeroad-related risks byadding meteorological risks, and by combining risk factors (with ranking, rather than simply decrementing). • This is one objective of the DIVASProject. Source: ARCOS Project Source: PReVENT Maps&Adas

  12. Local actors Industrials Research institutes Universities DIVAS: Dialog between Infrastructure and Vehicles to Improve the Road Safety (1) • Type of project: French ANR 2006 • Promoted by PREDIT GO9 • Timeframe: May 2007-May 2010 • Cost budget: 4 M€(ANR funding1.3M€) • Coordinator: LCPC • Philippe Lepert • Nicolas Hautière • Consortium: 15 partners Competitiveness clusters Source: LARA (ENSMP/INRIA)

  13. DIVAS: Dialog between Infrastructure and Vehicles to Improve the Road Safety (2) • The DIVAS project is building a global a vehicles – infrastructure information exchange system • It aims at preparing its implementation, in terms of: • technology, • acceptability, • credibility. • The project is focussed on the role of: • the infrastructure characteristics • the role of the road operators in the deployment of such systems. • It aims at providing each vehicle with an individualized safety indicator along a route, • It mainly takes into account the road geometry, the road surface conditions and the visibility conditions. • Web site: http://or.lcpc.fr/divas-fr/ • Reference: • N. Hautière, P. Lepert. “Infrastructure - Vehicles Dialogue to Improve Road Safety: The DIVAS Approach”. To appear in Transport Research Arena (TRA), Ljubljana, Slovenia, April 21 – 25, 2008

  14. DIVASMeasuring Actual Speeds (empirical approach) • “Reference” drivers with instructions, in nominal conditions. • Record the speed profile along the road (and other information also) with an instrumented vehicle. • Calibratespeed profiles using roadside speed measurements at different spots. • Build a nominal speed profile. • Infer nominal risk for a specific situation (e.g. “brick wall”) Source: LAVIA Project

  15. 1st Level Application:Consolidation of Vertical Signalling • Signs provide the permanent speed limits, posted by the road operator (or police). • Posted speed should be coherent with nominal speed in order to be credibleDiscrepancies should be studied, baring in mind the duality of posted speed limits.

  16. 2nd Level Application: Adaptation of Speed Limits to Keep Constant Risks (computational approach) • Risk models are chosen with respect to the studied risk factor • The DV is computed to have a constant risk (R) compared to the nominal risk (RN) • Example:brick wall risk model and wet road • Nominal risk: we compute the gravity of an accident at impact speed SN into a wall at t=2s SNDAN EESN* RN • Wet road leads to a reduction of skid resistance S DA  EES  R > RN • Knowing the actual road surface conditions, we can compute DS / S’=S-DS  R’=RN • Assumption: computing S’=S-DS is more credible than computing S’=f(skid resistance), which was used for example in ALZIRAproject. *EES = Equivalent Energy Speed (cf. LAB PSA/RENAULT)

  17. Perspectives • We argue that crediblerisk-related speed limits would be better complied with. • We proposed an approach to computecredible speed limits by making them adaptive and customized. • We are testing the approach in the framework of DIVAS project dealing with cooperative systems. • In the coming next months, we will see if our approach is relevant or not. Mid-term seminar November 2008 Today May 2007 May 2010 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Time (Quarter) DIVAS agenda

More Related