Advertisement

Towards Risk Estimation in Automated Vehicles Using Fuzzy Logic

  • Leonardo GonzálezEmail author
  • Enrique Martí
  • Isidro Calvo
  • Alejandra Ruiz
  • Joshue Pérez
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11094)

Abstract

As vehicles get increasingly automated, they need to properly evaluate different situations and assess threats at run-time. In this scenario automated vehicles should be able to evaluate risks regarding a dynamic environment in order to take proper decisions and modulate their driving behavior accordingly. In order to avoid collisions, in this work we propose a risk estimator based on fuzzy logic which accounts for risk indicators regarding (1) the state of the driver, (2) the behavior of other vehicles and (3) the weather conditions. A scenario with two vehicles in a car-following situation was analyzed, where the main concern is to avoid rear-end collisions. The goal of the presented approach is to effectively estimate critical states and properly assess risk, based on the indicators chosen.

Keywords

Automated vehicles Collision avoidance Fuzzy logic Time-to-collision Driving behavior 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the AMASS project (H2020-ECSEL) with grant agreement number 692474.

References

  1. 1.
    Boverie, S., Cour, M., Le Gall, J.Y.: Adapted human machine interaction concept for driver assistance systems driveasy. IFAC Proc. Vol. 44(1), 2242–2247 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Flemisch, F., Heesen, M., Hesse, T., Kelsch, J., Schieben, A., Beller, J.: Towards a dynamic balance between humans and automation: authority, ability, responsibility and control in shared and cooperative control situations. Cogn. Technol. Work 14(1), 3–18 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    González, D., Pérez, J., Milanés, V., Nashashibi, F., Tort, M.S., Cuevas, A.: Arbitration and sharing control strategies in the driving process. In: Towards a Common Software/Hardware Methodology for Future Advanced Driver Assistance Systems, p. 201 (2017)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Harding, J., et al.: Vehicle-to-vehicle communications: Readiness of v2v technology for application. Technical report DOT HS 812 014. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, DC, August 2014Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hayward, J.C.: Near miss determination through use of a scale of danger. Technical report, Pennsylvania Transportation and Traffic Safety Center (1972)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Van der Horst, A.R.A.: A time based analysis of road user behaviour in normal and critical encounters. No. HS-041 255 (1990)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Katrakazas, C., Quddus, M., Chen, W.H., Deka, L.: Real-time motion planning methods for autonomous on-road driving: state-of-the-art and future research directions. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 60, 416–442 (2015). http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0968090X15003447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kilpeläinen, M., Summala, H.: Effects of weather and weather forecasts on driver behaviour. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 10(4), 288–299 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lattarulo, R., Pérez, J., Dendaluce, M.: A complete framework for developing and testing automated driving controllers. IFAC PapersOnLine 50(1), 258–263 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lefèvre, S., Laugier, C., Ibañez-Guzmán, J.: Evaluating risk at road intersections by detecting conflicting intentions. In: 2012 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pp. 4841–4846. IEEE (2012)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lefèvre, S., Vasquez, D., Laugier, C.: A survey on motion prediction and risk assessment for intelligent vehicles. ROBOMECH J. 1(1), 1 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Levenson, N.G.: System Safety and Computers. Addison Wesley, Boston (1995)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Llorca, D.F., et al.: Autonomous pedestrian collision avoidance using a fuzzy steering controller. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. 12(2), 390–401 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pérez, J., et al.: Development and design of a platform for arbitration and sharing control applications. In: 2014 International Conference on Embedded Computer Systems: Architectures, Modeling, and Simulation (SAMOS XIV), pp. 322–328. IEEE (2014)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    SAE: Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to On-Road Motor Vehicle Automated Driving Systems. Standard, Society of Automotive Engineers, January 2014Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Singh, S.: Critical reasons for crashes investigated in the national motor vehicle crash causation survey. Technical report, National Center for Statistics and Analysis (NCSA), NHTSA, February 2015Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    World Health Organization, WHO: Global status report on road safety 2015. Technical report, WHO, September 2015. Accessed 11 Sept 2017Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Worrall, S., Orchansky, D., Masson, F., Nebot, E.: Improving vehicle safety using context based detection of risk. In: 2010 13th International IEEE Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC), pp. 379–385. IEEE (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Leonardo González
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Enrique Martí
    • 1
  • Isidro Calvo
    • 2
  • Alejandra Ruiz
    • 1
  • Joshue Pérez
    • 1
  1. 1.Tecnalia Research and InnovationDerioSpain
  2. 2.University of the Basque CountryVitoria-GasteizSpain

Personalised recommendations