期刊文献+

工况紧急程度对驾驶员避撞行为的影响 被引量:8

Impacts of Situational Urgency on Drivers' Collision Avoidance Behaviors
下载PDF
导出
摘要 利用同济大学8自由度高仿真驾驶模拟器研究了临撞工况紧急程度对驾驶员避撞行为的影响.通过不同初始车头时距(<1.0 s,[1.0 s,1.5 s),[1.5 s,2.5 s])和不同前车减速度(0.30g,0.50g,0.75g)的组合,建立了不同紧急程度的前车减速临撞工况,运用驾驶员感知反应时间、油门释放反应时间、制动转移时间、制动延误、最大刹车踏板压力、最大减速度等指标比较了不同紧急程度下避撞行为的差异.结果表明,①随着工况紧急程度的增加,驾驶员更快地释放油门及达到最大刹车踏板压力,并且施加更大的制动力度;②当初始车头时距为1.5 s左右时,驾驶员感知反应时间约为1.2s,而当初始车头时距增大到2.5 s以上时,感知反应时间变得非常大,甚至达到了3 s;③驾驶员开始释放油门与开始制动间的转移时间不受工况紧急程度影响,保持在0.8 s附近;④在低紧急程度下,驾驶员表现出多阶段刹车行为,使得驾驶员需要更多的时间才能达到最大刹车踏板压力. Using the high fidelity Tongii University driving simulator with 8 degrees of freedom, this study examined impacts of situational urgency on drivers' collision avoidance behaviors. By combining different initial headways (〈1.0 s, [1.0 s, 1.5 s), [1.5 s, 2.5 s]) and different lead vehicle deceleration rates (0.30g, 0. 509, 0.75g), rear-end collision scenarios with different levels of situational urgency were established. Drivers ' perception response times (PRT), throttle release response times, throttle to brake transition times, brake delays, maximum brake pedal pressures and peak decelerations were compared across different levels of situational urgency. Results show: (1)At higher situational urgency, drivers release the accelerator faster, and brake to maximum more quickly and forcefully; (2)PRT was near 1.2 s when the initial headway was round 1.5 s, but PRT increased dramatically when initial headways were larger than 2.5 s, and could even reach 3 s; (3)Transition time between throttle release and brake initiation is about 0.8 s and is not affected by situational urgency; (4)At lower situational urgency, multi- stage braking behavior leads to longer delay from brake initiation to full braking.
出处 《同济大学学报(自然科学版)》 EI CAS CSCD 北大核心 2016年第6期876-883,共8页 Journal of Tongji University:Natural Science
基金 国家自然科学基金优秀青年基金(51522810) "十二五"国家科技支撑计划(014BAG01B03)
关键词 追尾事故 避撞行为 感知反应时间 制动延误 工况紧急程度 驾驶模拟器 rear-end collisions collision avoidance behavior perception response time braking delay situational urgency driving simulator
  • 相关文献

参考文献17

  • 1National Highway Traffic safety Administration. Traffic saftey facts 2013 E R ]. Washinton D C: Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Saftey Administration, 2013.
  • 2Deng B, Chen X, Wang X. Shanghai 2020 driving scenario models and traffic 5 accident models development ~ R]. Shanghai.. Tongji University, 2011.
  • 3Van Winsum W, Heino A. Choice of time-headway in car- following and the role of time-to-collision information in braking I-J]. Ergonomics, 1996, 39(4).. 579.
  • 4Green M. "How long does it take to stop?" methodological analysis of driver perception-brake times [J]. Transportation Human Factors, 2000, 2(3).. 195.
  • 5Summala H. Brake reaction times and driver behavior analysis [J]. Transportation Human Factors, 2000, 2(3): 217.
  • 6Ising K W, Droll J A, Kroeker S G, et cd. Driver-related delay in emergency braking response to a laterally incurring hazard [C]//Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 56th Annual Meeting. Santa Monica: Sage Publications, 2012: 705-709.
  • 7Muttart J W. Estimating driver response times FC]//Handbook for Forensic Human Factors in Litigation (Ch. 14). Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis, 2005: 1-25.
  • 8Liebermann D G, Ben-David G, Schweitzer N, et al. A field study on braking responses during driving. I. Triggering and modulation l-J]. Ergonomics, 1995, 38(9): 1894.
  • 9Hulst M V D. Anticipation and the adaptive control of safety margins in driving [-J7. Ergonomics, 1999, 42(2).. 336.
  • 10Adams L D. Review of the literature on obstacle avoidance maneuvers~ Braking versus steering JR]. Michigan: The University of Michigan, 1994.

同被引文献41

引证文献8

二级引证文献36

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部