Testing the acceptability of motorcycle-AEB system: Use of unanticipated interventions as a reliable surrogate of genuinely unexpected events.

OBJECTIVE: Active safety systems such as motorcycle autonomous emergency braking (MAEB) capable of ensuring effectiveness and safe rider-vehicle interaction present many potential benefits to reduce road fatalities but also many challenges. The whole development cycle of MAEB requires research through extensive field tests that reproduce unexpected interventions or real-life driving situation before the system can be available to the end-user. This study aims to better understand the rider's kinematic response required to control the stability of the rider-motorcycle system, as well as the extent of unexpectedness perceived by participants under different degrees of awareness of automatic braking (AB) activation. METHODS: We compared responses to AB in anticipated and (un)anticipated conditions and in a condition that was intended to be genuinely unexpected (Out of the Blue). Twenty men and women, wearing an inertial measurement unit on their upper-back, rode a scooter-type motorcycle with two front wheels simulating urban riding maneuvers on a closed test-track. Three automatic braking (AB) profiles were tested in different sessions, ranged from 3 to 5 m/s2 deceleration and 15 to 25 m/s3 braking-jerk. Differences between AB conditions were analyzed using linear mixed models. RESULTS: The unanticipated condition was perceived as fairly unexpected (rated between Quite Unexpected and Very Unexpected). Out of the Blue condition was on average close to the highest level of unexpectedness (Completely Unexpected). The exposure to unanticipated AB events resulted in upper-body response with larger peaks of pitch rate (0.20 to 0.77 rad/s higher) and acceleration (1.0 to 2.3 m/s2 higher) than those of anticipated. Participants showed less postural stability during unanticipated events taking longer both to start correcting the initial forward lean and to fully stabilize balance. Unanticipated and Out of the Blue conditions did not differ in either the amplitude of the kinematic variables or the time-to-peak pitch rate. CONCLUSIONS: The kinematic response of the rider's upper-body was found to be a reliable estimator of unexpectedness in AB. The findings suggest that unanticipated AB events while the rider engages in riding tasks can enable testing aimed at designing MAEB systems and assessing end-user acceptance in a reliable manner and within ethical safety limits.

Investigating the feasibility of motorcycle autonomous emergency braking (MAEB): Design criteria for new experiments to field test automatic braking.

Autonomous Emergency Braking (AEB) was proved to be an effective and reliable technology in reducing serious consequences of road vehicles crashes. However, the feasibility in terms of end-users' acceptability for the AEB for motorcycles (MAEB) still has to be evaluated. So far, only Automatic Braking (AB) activations in straight-line motion and decelerations up to 2 m/s2 were tested with common riders. This paper presents a procedure which provides comprehensive support for the design of new experiments to further investigate the feasibility of MAEB among end-users. Additionally, this method can be used as a reference for designing tests for other advanced rider assistance systems.•A comprehensive literature review was carried out to investigate previous findings related to MAEB. After that, a series of pilot tests using an automatic braking device on an instrumented motorcycle were performed.•The specifications for new AB experiments were defined (in terms of test conditions, participants requirements, safety measures, test vehicles and instrumentation).•A test protocol was defined to test the system in different riding conditions and with different AB working parameters. A proposal for the data analysis was presented.

Human error in motorcycle crashes: A methodology based on in-depth data to identify the skills needed and support training interventions for safe riding.

OBJECTIVE: Human error by either rider or other vehicle driver is the primary contributing factor in crashes involving powered-two-wheelers. A human-factor-based crash analysis methodology is key to enhancing the road safety effectiveness of rider training interventions. Our aim is to define a methodology that uses in-depth data to identify the skills needed by riders in the highest risk crash configurations to reduce casualty rates. METHODS: The methodology is illustrated through a case study using in-depth data of 803 powered-two-wheeler crashes. Seven types of high-risk crash configuration based on pre-crash trajectories of the road-users involved were considered to investigate the human errors as crash contributors. Primary crash contributing factor, evasive maneuvers performed, horizontal roadway alignment and speed-related factors were identified, along with the most frequent crash configurations and those with the greatest risk of severe injury. RESULTS: Straight Crossing Path/Lateral Direction was the most frequent crash configuration and Turn Across Path/Opposing Direction was identified as that with the highest risk of serious injury. Multi-vehicle crashes cannot be considered as a homogenous category of crashes to which the same human failure is attributed, as different interactions between motorcyclists and other road users are associated with both different types of human error and different rider reactions. Human error in multiple-vehicle crashes differed between those configurations related to crossroads and those related to rear-end and head-end crashes. Both single-vehicle crashes and multi-vehicle head-on crashes frequently occur along curves. The involved collision avoidance maneuvers of the riders differed significantly among the highest risk crash configurations. The most relevant lack of skills are identified and linked to their most representative context. In most cases a combination of different skills was required simultaneously to avoid the crash. CONCLUSIONS: The results contribute to understand the motorcyclists' responses in high-risk crash scenarios. The findings underline the need to group accident cases, beyond the usual single-vehicle versus multi-vehicle collision approach. The different interactions with other road users should be considered to identify the competencies of the motorcyclists needed to reduce crash risks. Our methodology can be applied to increase the motorcyclists' safety by supporting preventive actions based on riders' training and eventually ADAS design.

E-bikers' braking behavior: Results from a naturalistic cycling study.

Objective: The number of e-bike users has increased significantly over the past few years and with it the associated safety concerns. Because e-bikes are faster than conventional bicycles and more prone to be in conflict with road users, e-bikers may need to perform avoidance maneuvers more frequently. Braking is the most common avoidance maneuver but is also a complex and critical task in emergency situations, because cyclists must reduce speed quickly without losing balance. The aim of this study is to understand the braking strategies of e-bikers in real-world traffic environments and to assess their road safety implications. This article investigates (1) how cyclists on e-bikes use front and rear brakes during routine cycling and (2) whether this behavior changes during unexpected conflicts with other road users.Methods: Naturalistic data were collected from 6 regular bicycle riders who each rode e-bikes during a period of 2 weeks, for a total of 32.5 h of data. Braking events were identified and characterized through a combined analysis of brake pressure at each wheel, velocity, and longitudinal acceleration. Furthermore, the braking patterns obtained during unexpected events were compared with braking patterns during routine cycling.Results: In the majority of braking events during routine cycling, cyclists used only one brake at a time, favoring one of the 2 brakes according to a personal pre-established pattern. However, the favored brake varied among cyclists: 66% favored the rear brake and 16% the front brake. Only 16% of the cyclists showed no clear preference, variously using rear brake, front brake, or combined braking (both brakes at the same time), suggesting that the selection of which brake to use depended on the characteristics of the specific scenario experienced by the cyclist rather than on a personal preference. In unexpected conflicts, generally requiring a larger deceleration, combined braking became more prevalent for most of the cyclists; still, when combined braking was not applied, cyclists continued to use the favored brake of routine cycling. Kinematic analysis revealed that, when larger decelerations were required, cyclists more frequently used combined braking instead of single braking.Conclusions: The results provide new insights into the behavior of cyclists on e-bikes and may provide support in the development of safety measures including guidelines and best practices for optimal brake use. The results may also inform the design of braking systems intended to reduce the complexity of the braking operation.