Abstract

This article focuses on testing and investigating further development needs for LiDARs in self-driving cars in adverse weather. The article compares two different LiDARs (Ibeo Lux and Velodyne PUCK), which both use the 905 nm wavelengths, which are used in more than 95% of currently available LiDARs. The performance was tested and estimated in stabilized fog conditions at Cerema fog chamber facilities. This provides a good basis for repeating the same validation procedure multiple times and ensuring the right development decisions. However, performance of the LiDARs suffers when the weather conditions become adverse and visibility range decreases. A 50% reduction in target detection performance was observed over the exhaustive tests. Therefore, changing to higher wavelengths (1550 nm) was considered using redesigned 'pre-prototype LiDAR'. The preliminary results indicate that there is no reason to not use 1550 nm wavelength, which due to eye safety regulations gives an opportunity to use 20 times more power compared to the traditional 905 nm. In order to clarify the expected benefits, additional feasibility studies are still needed.

Abstract

Introduction: This paper describes the development of an architecture for the integration of Vulnerable Road Users (VRUs), i.e. pedestrians, cyclists and powered two-wheelers (PTWs) in Cooperative ITS (C-ITS) systems, and the requirements for VRU devices. Methods: This paper starts with a literature overview on research related to safety applications using communication between vehicle and VRU, and an analysis of the different use cases for C-ITS for VRUs. An architecture is developed, starting from an architecture of C-ITS systems and incorporating the different alternative configuration for VRUs. Starting from the architecture and the use cases, the requirements for VRU devices are defined. Finally, a roadmap regarding C-ITS applications for VRUs is developed. Results: C-ITS technologies allow to communicate with low latency in highly dynamic environments. C-ITS will be integrated in vehicles and can also become available for VRUs, either as an application on a smartphone or as a dedicated device, which can be integrated in the VRU’s vehicle. Two levels of use cases can be identified: awareness of the presence of VRUs near potentially dangerous situations, and collision risk warning, based on trajectories of the road users. A roadmap was developed aligned with the roadmap of the automotive industry. Conclusions: Awareness related use cases are relatively close to the market, as they do not put stringent requirements to the (localization) sensors at infrastructure or vehicles. For the collision risk warning use case, the technical requirements for VRU devices towards sensor accuracy and calculation capabilities are challenging. Other challenges are power consumption, context sensitivity, channel congestion, privacy and security of messages. Standardisation of the messages exchanged between VRUs and other road users and infrastructure is a key issue. © 2017, The Author(s). Document type: Article

Abstract

Introduction: This paper describes the modification and development of methodologies to assess the impacts of Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) applications for Vulnerable Road users (VRUs) in the domains of safety, mobility and comfort. This effort was carried out in the context of the VRUITS project whose aim was to produce results at the EU-28 level. Methods: An existing safety methodology was modified to take into account specific VRU aspects. The mobility and comfort assessments methodologies were developed in the project. Results: The safety, mobility and comfort methodologies were applied to ten ITS applications for VRUs. The first innovation determined how the nine safety mechanisms for ex-ante analysis of ITS applications, including direct and indirect effects, can incorporate the important characteristics of the VRU groups (pedestrians, cyclists and Power-Two-Wheeler riders) in the analysis. The second innovation developed a conceptual model for mobility and comfort. Thirdly, the estimation of quantitative effects, using literature, empirical findings and expert judgement, was developed. Conclusions: The new safety, mobility and comfort assessment methodologies were applied to calculate the respective effects for VRUs using ITS. These results are ex-ante findings, as very few to no empirical results for ITS applications for VRUs are available. In order to improve the accuracy of the estimates, there is a need for better standardized data and at the European level. Finally, validation of the methods could be done in the future field operational tests focusing on measuring user behavior. © 2017, The Author(s). Document type: Article

Abstract

Introduction: This paper presents some of the work conducted in FP7 VRUITS project to draw a set of general recommendations for actions at the EU level aiming to enhance the deployment of ITS systems directed to improve the safety, mobility and comfort of vulnerable road users. Method: The work started by identifying potential barriers, as well as recommendations to overcome these barriers. After that, similar recommendations were combined and prioritised, which are discussed via a workshop and questionnaire. In addition, a qualitative analysis was used to select thirteen main recommendations, for which a quantitative Benefit Analyses and a Multi-Criteria analysis were conducted. Results: In total, over 200 barriers and recommendations were identified for the 10 selected ITS systems. After several steps 13 main general recommendations were selected and ranked according to priority. Conclusions: 1) A wide range of different type of measures directed to different stakeholders is needed 2) Focus should be on facilitating the implementation of the 13 main recommendations, 3) Benefits of implementation of the recommendations can be in the order of billion(s) of euros, and 4) Main challenges are achieving cooperation between the different stakeholders, the different environments, the long time horizon for implementation and the high implementation costs. © 2017, The Author(s). Document type: Article