车路协同环境下道路无信号交叉口防碰撞系统警示效果

Warning Effectiveness of Vehicle-to-infrastructure Cooperative Crossing Collision Prevention System at Non-signal Controlled Intersection

为了验证车路协同环境下道路交叉口防碰撞系统(CCPS)的实际警示效果,尤其是深入理解其对驾驶人心理和习惯的影响,日本爱知县丰田市开展了大规模实车试验,检验经过无信号交叉口从支路左/右转弯进入主干道的车辆获取CCPS信息后的冲突风险变化情况。应用统计模型分析了驾驶人社会属性、交通环境、CCPS信息提示模式(包括不提供信息、同时提供早期预警信息和晚期警报、仅在紧急情况时提供警报3种模式)等因素对驾驶人实际选择规避碰撞时间的影响,进一步研究8种类型驾驶风格对CCPS警示效果的影响,比较了高龄/非高龄群体的差异。应用PraisWinsten面板校正标准误差的一阶自回归模型有效解决了驾驶人多次试验观测的序列相关问题,较好地解析了不同驾驶风格对规避碰撞时间的影响。结果表明:除了自信熟练型驾驶人和争分夺秒型驾驶人外,该系统对其他6种类型驾驶人都具有显著影响,不同的警示方式对高龄/非高龄驾驶人的警示效果具有显著差异;现有CCPS预警设置有可能增加有条不紊型高龄驾驶人、粗心烦躁型高龄驾驶人和身份体现型非高龄驾驶人的转弯风险;通过开展面向个人驾驶习惯的CCPS系统设计,有望改进CCPS的适应性和可靠性。

To provide a better understanding of the warning effectiveness of the cooperative V2I crossing collision prevention system （CCPS）, especially in understanding the various reactions of drivers with different mentalities and habits, a large-scale field of test （FOT） of the CCPS was conducted at a non-signal controlled intersection in Toyota city, Japan, through which the variation in the collision risks when the left/right turn vehicles attempted to cross an intersection and enter the drivers＇ socia information, primary road after receiving a CCPS information were studied. 1 attributes, transportation environments, the CCPS information providing both early warning information and emergency alarm, The FOT volunteer types （including no and providing only emergency alarm） were considered the influential factors in modeling the drivers＇ risk avoidance behavior in practice. The impacts of eight kinds of driving styles on the warning effectiveness of the CCPS, as well as the difference between the elderly and non-elderly drivers, were analyzed and compared. The Prais-Winsten regression model with panel-corrected standard errors and AR （1） was employed to solve the sequence correlation issue that root in repeat trials by volunteer drivers, which helped better understanding of the contribution of driving styles on the choices of time to collision. The results revealed that the CCPS is significantly effective for drivers with six kinds of driving styles, except for those with confidence in driving and with signal-oriented preliminary driving preparation. Further, different CCPS information types have different warning effectiveness on the elderly and non-elderly drivers. The current CCPS setting may increase the crash risk for elderly drivers with either the scrupulous driving tendency or the unstable driving tendency, as well as for the non-elderly drivers with the style of driving as a status symbol. The feasibility and reliability of the CCPS can be improved in the future through a personal-driving-style-oriented system design.