Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byAngelique Hodgin Modified over 9 years ago
1
DI V AS ANR Safe Highways of the Future, 12-13-14 February 2008, Brussels, Belgium, 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 DI V AS ANR 1 LCPC, Paris 2 LRPC de Strasbourg, ERA 27, Strasbourg 3 CETE Normandie-Centre, ERA 34, Rouen
2
DI V AS ANR Safe Highways of the Future, 12-13-14 February 2008, Brussels, Belgium, 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
DI V AS ANR Safe Highways of the Future, 12-13-14 February 2008, Brussels, Belgium, 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
DI V AS ANR Safe Highways of the Future, 12-13-14 February 2008, Brussels, Belgium, 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 homogeneous behaviours, to ensure coherence with road related risks.to ensure coherence with road related risks. To comply with speed limits, road users must be aware that speed limits are related to the risk and 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
DI V AS ANR Safe Highways of the Future, 12-13-14 February 2008, Brussels, Belgium, 5 Introduction: Our Position 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.
6
DI V AS ANR Safe Highways of the Future, 12-13-14 February 2008, Brussels, Belgium, 6 Speed Limits Computation: State of the Art Empirical approach Actual speeds are measured in nominal conditions all the parameters are integrated Problem: only applies in nominal conditions not adaptive not credible Computational approach Based on physical models for specific situations many parameters are omitted: driver, car, visibility... Problem: not customized needs to be pessimistic not credible
7
DI V AS ANR Safe Highways of the Future, 12-13-14 February 2008, Brussels, Belgium, 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
DI V AS ANR Safe Highways of the Future, 12-13-14 February 2008, Brussels, Belgium, 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(p i ) = speed decrement needed to maintain nominal risk level p i = transient risk factor computational approach
9
DI V AS ANR Safe Highways of the Future, 12-13-14 February 2008, Brussels, Belgium, 9 Examples On-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
DI V AS ANR Safe Highways of the Future, 12-13-14 February 2008, Brussels, Belgium, 10 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/ Examples Roadside solution Source: Lacroix Traffic Alert threshold Risk function
11
DI V AS ANR Safe Highways of the Future, 12-13-14 February 2008, Brussels, Belgium, 11 Examples Cooperative Solution We make SLs both adaptive and customized. We generalize road-related risks by adding meteorological risks, and by combining risk factors (with ranking, rather than simply decrementing). This is one objective of the DIVAS Project. Source: PReVENT Maps&Adas Source: ARCOS Project
12
DI V AS ANR Safe Highways of the Future, 12-13-14 February 2008, Brussels, Belgium, 12 Type of project: French ANR 2006 Promoted by PREDIT GO9 Timeframe: May 2007-May 2010 Cost budget: 4 M€ (ANR funding 1.3M€) Coordinator: LCPC Philippe Lepert Nicolas Hautière Consortium: 15 partners Industrials Research institutes Local actors Universities Competitiveness clusters DIVAS: Dialog between Infrastructure and Vehicles to Improve the Road Safety (1) Source: LARA (ENSMP/INRIA)
13
DI V AS ANR Safe Highways of the Future, 12-13-14 February 2008, Brussels, Belgium, 13 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 DIVAS: Dialog between Infrastructure and Vehicles to Improve the Road Safety (2)
14
DI V AS ANR Safe Highways of the Future, 12-13-14 February 2008, Brussels, Belgium, 14 DIVAS Measuring 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. Calibrate speed 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
DI V AS ANR Safe Highways of the Future, 12-13-14 February 2008, Brussels, Belgium, 15 1 st 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
DI V AS ANR Safe Highways of the Future, 12-13-14 February 2008, Brussels, Belgium, 16 2 nd Level Application: Adaptation of Speed Limits to Keep Constant Risks (computational approach) Risk models are chosen with respect to the studied risk factor The V is computed to have a constant risk (R) compared to the nominal risk (R N ) Example: brick wall risk model and wet road Nominal risk: we compute the gravity of an accident at impact speed S N into a wall at t=2s S N A N EES N * R N Wet road leads to a reduction of skid resistance S A EES R > R N Knowing the actual road surface conditions, we can compute S / S’=S- S R’=R N Assumption: computing S’=S- S is more credible than computing S’=f(skid resistance), which was used for example in ALZIRA project. *EES = Equivalent Energy Speed (cf. LAB PSA/RENAULT)
17
DI V AS ANR Safe Highways of the Future, 12-13-14 February 2008, Brussels, Belgium, 17 Perspectives We argue that credible risk-related speed limits would be better complied with. We proposed an approach to compute credible 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. May 2010 November 2008 Mid-term seminar Q1Q2Q3Q4Q5Q6Q7Q8Q9Q10Q11Q12 Time(Quarter) May 2007 DIVAS agenda Today
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.