<div class="section abstract"><div class="htmlview paragraph">Many new vehicles come equipped with Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) as standard or optional features. These technology packages frequently include Lane Departure Warning (LDW), an electronic system designed to alert the driver when the vehicle begins to depart from its lane. These systems identify lane boundaries using computer analysis of video captured by a forward-facing camera, typically mounted near the rear-view mirror. Some vehicles are also equipped with Lane Keeping Assist (LKA). Upon detecting an unintended lane departure, LKA will make electronic steering and/or braking control inputs to keep the vehicle in its original travel lane. Four vehicles equipped with LDW and LKA were tested: a 2019 Toyota Corolla, 2019 Honda Civic, 2020 Ford Explorer, and 2019 Chevrolet Tahoe. Tests were conducted on a straight, flat road with clear lane markings. Lane departures to the left and to the right were initiated by the test driver at 45 and 65 mph. Using a VBOX 3i RTK DGPS, data related to the vehicle’s speed, acceleration, and driver- and software-related control inputs were collected via the vehicle’s CAN bus. Additionally, the VBOX collected vehicle location data of ±2 cm (±0.79 in) accuracy relative to survey points. Analysis of test data yielded details of system-level behaviors. For LDW, the average warning issue point (lateral distance prior to reaching the lane boundary) observed was 1.33 ft, the average rate of departure (lateral velocity) was 1.45 ft/s, and the warning occurred 0.76 sec before lane departure. Lane keeping actions began, on average, 1.13 ft from the lane boundary (0.66 sec before lane departure) and involved 4.81 degrees of steering with an average maximum lateral acceleration of 2.86 ft/s<sup>2</sup> (0.09 g). The LKA systems tested permitted the vehicles’ outside tires to exceed the lane boundaries by an average of 0.14 ft.</div></div>
<div class="section abstract"><div class="htmlview paragraph">Video recordings of vehicular collisions have become widely available to the accident reconstructionist and can play a vital role in determining the locations and speeds of the subject vehicles involved in a collision. However, due to varying video resolutions, framerate, lens distortion, motion blur, and camera movement, errors in video analysis can occur. To understand the total error inherent to video analysis, this study presents analysis of videos from different video systems, the limitations in the analysis, and a comparison of video analysis speeds to reference datasets. The factors that influenced variance included resolution, lens correction, shutter speed, and framerate. The video systems analyzed included three moving cameras and two stationary units.</div><div class="htmlview paragraph">In the present study, a mock collision scenario in which a target vehicle approached a recording vehicle head-on, was staged to emulate an actual event captured on video. The target vehicle’s speed was analyzed using the captured videos. The video analysis results were then compared to the speeds obtained from the target vehicle’s wheel speed sensors via a VBOX system connected to the vehicle’s Controlled Area Network (CAN), and VBOX GPS position data.</div><div class="htmlview paragraph">The videos were recorded from two locations. Location 1 was at the top corner of a business complex. This location was equipped with two video cameras: a GoPro HERO5 and a Sony α6400 mirrorless camera. Location 2 was within the recording vehicle itself. This location was equipped with three video systems: a 2018 Tesla Model 3 Dashcam video camera system, a generic dashboard video system with a low framerate, and a Blackmagic Design camera. Videos were captured as the recording vehicle moved towards the target vehicle; the camera’s location and angle relative to the target were constantly changing.</div><div class="htmlview paragraph">Errors in the determined speeds were quantified based on comparison of the video analysis speeds to the reference datasets. The errors in speed were determined to be inversely correlated to the video resolution. Additionally, the analysis of the video footage from the stationary source yielded lower error than the analysis of the moving vehicle video for a given resolution and framerate.</div></div>
<div class="section abstract"><div class="htmlview paragraph">The objective of this study was to analyze the validity of airbag control module data in semi-trailer rear underride collisions. These impacts involve unusual collision dynamics, including long crash pulses and minimal bumper engagement [<span class="xref">1</span>]. For this study, publicly available data from 16 semi-trailer underride guard crash tests performed by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) were used to form conclusions about the accuracy of General Motors airbag control module (ACM) delta-V (ΔV) data in a semi-trailer rear underride scenario. These tests all utilized a 2009 or 2010 Chevrolet Malibu impacting a stationary 48’ or 53’ semi-trailer at a speed of 35 mph. Nine tests were fully overlapped collisions, six were 30% overlapped, and one was 50% overlapped [<span class="xref">2</span>]. The IIHS test vehicles were equipped with calibrated 10000 Hz accelerometer units. Event Data Recorder (EDR) data imaged post-accident from the test vehicles were compared to the reference IIHS data. For each test, root mean square error (RMSE), the percent error over time, and the difference between the EDR ΔV and the IIHS ΔV, was quantified, plotted, and related to crash pulse. This analysis revealed a general trend of decreasing EDR ΔV parity with an increasing crash pulse duration, although overall differences remained low for most tests. Eleven tests, all with airbag deployments, converged towards an average of 3.3% error at the end of the crash pulse, which were 150-270 ms. EDR recorded ΔVs were in the range of 29.8-39.9 mph. Five tests, three of which were non-deployments, diverged to higher percentage error averaging 12.7% at an EDR ΔV of 31.8-40.0 mph. All higher error tests were 30% overlapped and had the highest crash pulse durations of 240-300 ms. One fully overlapped test generated highly unusual EDR data due to failure of the rear underride guard mounting bolts and plates.</div></div>
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.