RAVE Checklist: Recommendations for Overcoming Challenges in Retrospective Safety Studies of Automated Driving Systems

The public, regulators, and domain experts alike seek to understand the effect of deployed SAE level 4 automated driving system (ADS) technologies on safety. The recent expansion of ADS technology deployments is paving the way for early stage safety impact evaluations, whereby the observational data from both an ADS and a representative benchmark fleet are compared to quantify safety performance. In January 2024, a working group of experts across academia, insurance, and industry came together in Washington, DC to discuss the current and future challenges in performing such evaluations. A subset of this working group then met, virtually, on multiple occasions to produce this paper. This paper presents the RAVE (Retrospective Automated Vehicle Evaluation) checklist, a set of fifteen recommendations for performing and evaluating retrospective ADS performance comparisons. The recommendations are centered around the concepts of (1) quality and validity, (2) transparency, and (3) interpretation. Over time, it is anticipated there will be a large and varied body of work evaluating the observed performance of these ADS fleets. Establishing and promoting good scientific practices benefits the work of stakeholders, many of whom may not be subject matter experts. This working group's intentions are to: i) strengthen individual research studies and ii) make the at-large community more informed on how to evaluate this collective body of work.

Model-based generation of representative rear-end crash scenarios across the full severity range using pre-crash data

Generating representative rear-end crash scenarios is crucial for safety assessments of Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) and Automated Driving systems (ADS). However, existing methods for scenario generation face challenges such as limited and biased in-depth crash data and difficulties in validation. This study sought to overcome these challenges by combining naturalistic driving data and pre-crash kinematics data from rear-end crashes. The combined dataset was weighted to create a representative dataset of rear-end crash characteristics across the full severity range in the United States. Multivariate distribution models were built for the combined dataset, and a driver behavior model for the following vehicle was created by combining two existing models. Simulations were conducted to generate a set of synthetic rear-end crash scenarios, which were then weighted to create a representative synthetic rear-end crash dataset. Finally, the synthetic dataset was validated by comparing the distributions of parameters and the outcomes (Delta-v, the total change in vehicle velocity over the duration of the crash event) of the generated crashes with those in the original combined dataset. The synthetic crash dataset can be used for the safety assessments of ADAS and ADS and as a benchmark when evaluating the representativeness of scenarios generated through other methods.

Critical Zones for Comfortable Collision Avoidance with a Leading Vehicle

This paper provides a general framework for efficiently obtaining the appropriate intervention time for collision avoidance systems to just avoid a rear-end crash. The proposed framework incorporates a driver comfort model and a vehicle model. We show that there is a relationship between driver steering manoeuvres based on acceleration and jerk, and steering angle and steering angle rate profiles. We investigate how four different vehicle models influence the time when steering needs to be initiated to avoid a rear-end collision. The models assessed were: a dynamic bicycle model (DM), a steady-state cornering model (SSCM), a kinematic model (KM) and a point mass model (PMM). We show that all models can be described by a parameter-varying linear system. We provide three algorithms for steering that use a linear system to compute the intervention time efficiently for all four vehicle models. Two of the algorithms use backward reachability simulation and one uses forward simulation. Results show that the SSCM, KM and PMM do not accurately estimate the intervention time for a certain set of vehicle conditions. Due to its fast computation time, DM with a backward reachability algorithm can be used for rapid offline safety benefit assessment, while DM with a forward simulation algorithm is better suited for online real-time usage.