1. Lane Departure Warning Human Machine Interface GRRF informal group on AEBS/LDWS 1 February 2010 AEBS-LDWS-04-09 100201

2. LDWS – HMI Summary 2 1.Question 2.Existing Standards 3.Scientific Research on LDWS Ergonomics 4.Market Situation 5.Conclusions

3. 1. Question  What is an appropriate HMI requirement for a lane departure warning? 3 ?

4. 2. Existing Standards  ISO 17361-2007 Lane Departure Warning 5.3.3 Human interface requirements 1) Warning presentation o An easily perceivable haptic and/or audible warning shall be provided. 2) Interference with other warnings o Even when a vehicle is equipped with LDWS along with other warning systems such as FVCWS (Forward Vehicle Collision Warning System), the warning shall be clearly distinguishable to the driver by a haptic, audible, or visual modality, or any combination thereof.  SAE J2808 - Road/Lane Departure Warning Systems: Information for the Human Interface (2007) o A review of the current warning modality research with regards to lane departure systems is consistent with the requirements of ISO. 4

5. 3. Scientific Research on LDWS Ergonomics  Tijerina, L. et alii. (1995). “Run-off-road collision avoidance countermeasures using IVHS countermeasures”. Task 3 final report - volume 2. Report no. DOT HS 808 502. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. o The auditory and the haptic system promoted better lanekeeping than unsupported driving. No evidence was found that a combined system that includes both auditory and haptic displays in the vehicle was particularly beneficial.  Stanley, L.M. (2006). “Haptic and auditory cues for lane departure warnings”. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 50th Annual Meeting. Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. 2405-2408. o The combination modality did not demonstrate similar findings to the haptic. This may be due to a startling effect or confusion of the participant. Receiving warning modalities in two sensory channels may require increased cognitive processing, resulting in higher driver workloads to process the information. 5

6. 4. Market Situation  Lane departure warning is done by one modality (haptic, audible or visual)  Choice of the modality depends on vehicle category  Aim to prevent confusion with other Driver Support Systems (Forward Collision Warning, Blind Spot Warning, Parking Aid, etc.) 6

7. 5. Conclusions  Existing Standards require an easy perceivable warning which is clearly distinguishable from other Warning Systems  Scientific Research found no evidence that a combined system was particularly beneficial.  Current LDWS use one modality that does not interfere with other systems depending on the vehicle type  The EU Cost-Benefit Analysis to justify the EU General Safety Regulation has been based on current systems. It is hence not valid for systems multi-modal warnings. 7 !