Skip to main content
Intended for healthcare professionals
Restricted access
Research article
First published January 2007

Evaluation of Forward Collision Warning System for Urban Driving

Abstract

Commercially available forward collision warning systems (FCWS) have been designed for highway use, with traffic moving in regular patterns on roadways with modest curvature. The development and the evaluation of an FCWS for urban driving are described. An urban FCWS is significantly more complicated because of irregular movements of subject (equipped) and target vehicles, as well as the presence of many static objects close to the vehicle's path (parked cars, street furniture, etc.). The prototype FCWS was tested for 1 year on two urban transit buses in public service in San Mateo County, California, and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Analysis of the data collected from these tests shows that the FCWS produced favorable changes in driving behavior, generally leading bus operators to drive more cautiously and consistently. The tests did not continue long enough to determine long-term changes in driving behavior or carryover effects after FCWS use ended, so additional testing is needed to address those issues.

Get full access to this article

View all access and purchase options for this article.

References

1. Wilson T. IVHS Countermeasures for Rear-End Collisions, Task 1, Volume II: Statistical Analysis. DOT-HS-808-502. U.S. Department of Transportation, 1994.
2. Traffic Safety Facts 2000. NHTSA, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., 2001.
3. Wilson T., Butler W., McGehee D., and Dingus T. Forward-Looking Collision Warning System Performance Guidelines. SAE Paper 970456. Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, Penn., 1997.
4. Asher H., and Galler B. A. Collision Warning Using Neighborhood Vehicle Information. Proc., ITS America Annual Meeting, Houston, Tex., 1996.
5. Takubo N. Influence of Adaptive Cruise Control on Rear-End Collisions. Proc., ITS America Annual Meeting, Washington D.C., 1995.
6. Farber E. Using the REAMACS Model to Compare the Effectiveness of Alternative Rear End Collision Warning Algorithms. Proc., IVHS America Annual Meeting, Atlanta, Ga., 1994.
7. Radar-Based Adaptive Cruise Control for Trucks, Automotive Engineering, Vol. 106, No. 11, 1998, pp. 130–132.
8. Fukuhara H., and Kurami K. Essential Issues Involved in Radar-Based Collision Warning/Avoidance System. Proc., IVHS America Annual Meeting, Atlanta, Ga., 1994.
9. Wang X. Development of Requirement Specifications for Transit Frontal Collision Warning System. Report UCB-ITS-PRR-2004-14. University of California-Berkeley PATH Program, May 2001.
10. University of California PATH and Carnegie Mellon University Robotics Institute, Integrated Collision Warning System Final Technical Report. FTA-PA-26-7006-04.1, FTA, U.S. Department of Transportation, July 2004.
11. Zhou K., Wang X., Tomizuka M., Chan C.-Y., and Zhang W.-B. A New Maneuvering Target Tracking Algorithm with Input Estimation. Proc., American Control Conference, Anchorage, Alaska, 2002.
12. University of California PATH and Carnegie Mellon University Robotics Institute, Integrated Collision Warning System Final Evaluation Report. FTA-PA-26-7006-04.2, FTA, U.S. Department of Transportation, May 2006.

Cite article

Cite article

Cite article

OR

Download to reference manager

If you have citation software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice

Share options

Share

Share this article

Share with email
EMAIL ARTICLE LINK
Share on social media

Share access to this article

Sharing links are not relevant where the article is open access and not available if you do not have a subscription.

For more information view the Sage Journals article sharing page.

Information, rights and permissions

Information

Published In

Article first published: January 2007
Issue published: January 2007

Rights and permissions

© 2007 National Academy of Sciences.
Request permissions for this article.

Authors

Affiliations

Wei-Bin Zhang
California PATH Program, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Berkeley, Building 452, 1357 South 46th Street, Richmond, CA 94804.
Steven E. Shladover
California PATH Program, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Berkeley, Building 452, 1357 South 46th Street, Richmond, CA 94804.
Yongquan Zhang
California PATH Program, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Berkeley, Building 452, 1357 South 46th Street, Richmond, CA 94804.

Notes

Metrics and citations

Metrics

Journals metrics

This article was published in Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board.

VIEW ALL JOURNAL METRICS

Article usage*

Total views and downloads: 15

*Article usage tracking started in December 2016


Altmetric

See the impact this article is making through the number of times it’s been read, and the Altmetric Score.
Learn more about the Altmetric Scores



Articles citing this one

Receive email alerts when this article is cited

Web of Science: 0

Crossref: 0

There are no citing articles to show.

Figures and tables

Figures & Media

Tables

View Options

Get access

Access options

If you have access to journal content via a personal subscription, university, library, employer or society, select from the options below:


Alternatively, view purchase options below:

Purchase 24 hour online access to view and download content.

Access journal content via a DeepDyve subscription or find out more about this option.

View options

PDF/ePub

View PDF/ePub