ITFVHA Becker

Slide1: 

ITFVHA Workshop 1st of December 2000 Tsukuba, Japan

Introducing RESPONSEVehicle Automation – Driver Responsibility – Provider Liability – Legal and Institutional Consequences: 

Introducing RESPONSE Vehicle Automation – Driver Responsibility – Provider Liability – Legal and Institutional Consequences Consortium Manufacturer: BMW, DC, Fiat, Ford, Jaguar, PSA, Renault, Volvo, VW Law Firms: Alain Bensoussan (Paris), Barlow Lyde & Gilbert (London), Clifford Chance Pünder (Munich), Sanchez (Madrid), Macchi di Cellere e Gangemi (Milano), Setterwalls (Malmö) Supplier: Bosch, Thomson-CSF Detexis Research Institutes: MIRA, TRL, TÜV Kraftfahrt, VTI

Introducing RESPONSE: 

Introducing RESPONSE Duration From July 1998 to December 2000 Principal Approach Integration of Legal, User and System Perspective

Objectives and RESPONSE “Products”: 

Objectives and RESPONSE “Products” Concept for the interaction between system safety, safety of usage and product liability Analysis of legal aspects of testing and market introduction of ADAS Conceptual Checklist for translation of user needs into product design Validation procedure for the user centred assessment of ADAS Recommendations for functional specifications, standardisation and type approval

Final Output: 

Final Output Final Workshop at BMW in Munich, 11/12 December 2000 Published Final Report

Slide6: 

Standards for ”Mr. Everyman” Test of ADAS Dr. Stefan Becker, Stephan Cieler, Thomas Johanning, Dr. Axel Schatz TÜV Kraftfahrt GmbH Innovation, Market, and Consumer Research (User Center) Köln, Germany

The Problem (I): 

The Problem (I) In Comparison to well know assistance systems like ABS or ESP more complex and ”intelligent” functionalities imitating and in partial substituting human behaviour but with environmental sensors with limited situation coverage with more potential safety risks (system safety and safety of usage) and only limited verification and validation possibilities

The problem (II): 

The problem (II) Development and market introduction on the background of the failure term of the European Product Liability Directive: Failure of construction, of instruction, and product monitoring

User Centred Design and Validation: Four Fundamental Concepts: 

User Centred Design and Validation: Four Fundamental Concepts Comprehensibility comprehensibility of system function including traffic situation coverage, system operation and product information Predictability conformity of system reactions with user expectations in certain traffic situations Controllability user’s ability – in principle and / or in practice – to switch off or override a system Misuse Potential risk potential, which can be brought about through non-compliant / non-intended usage of the system

Methods and Procedures of user centred Development and Validation:Usage Safety by ”Mr Everyman” Test (I): 

Methods and Procedures of user centred Development and Validation: Usage Safety by ”Mr Everyman” Test (I) Objective of methodological development translation of the four fundamental design and validation concepts into risk identification and risk assessment procedures as a development-accompanying process risk reduction via step-by-step procedures clearly defined decision-making criteria and processes observation of everyday use and long term effects broad spectrum of applicability representative nature of the sample investigated, taking risk groups into account

Mr Everyman Test (II): 

Mr Everyman Test (II) Risk Identification Conceptual Check List conceptual and risk oriented questions Task Analysis and Situation Analysis new / modified tasks and their interference with learned skills Activity Analysis understanding users’ variance in carrying out a task checked by small clinics

Mr Everyman Test (III): 

Mr Everyman Test (III) Risk Assessment Selection of a ”representative” sample for the ”average” driver Sample selection inclusion of risk groups: ”Less informed driver” / ”most endangered driver” Comprehensibility: Technical Comprehensibility Test (KFP-30) Controllability: Vigilance Performance and Reaction time

Mr Everyman Test (IV): 

Mr Everyman Test (IV) Experimental Procedure / Car Clinics Test Track Procedures Controllability Testing using artificially induction of System Failures (e.g. steer by wire system) Short Term Testing on Public Roads Comprehensibility, Predictability, Quality of Driving Long-Term-Testing Misuse Potential, Quality of Driving in routine usage

Mr Everyman Test (V): 

Mr Everyman Test (V) Decision criteria Pragmatically oriented to observable behaviour, not to constructs like ”mental workload” Unacceptable incidents (K.O.-Criteria) e.g. leaving the track while using an lane guiding system Quality of Driving (QUOD) e.g. more or less better / worse tracking behaviour (frequency and amplitude of steering behaviour)

Experience and Outlook: 

Experience and Outlook pragmatically and efficient able for a broad consensus effective and appropriate to the complexity of the term ”safety” including user, system and legal aspects Improvement of methodology for failure induction / controllability experiments (human factors side of Failure Mode and Effects Analysis FMEA) Improvement of methodology for long term testing Towards a commonly accepted ”Code of Practice” for design and validation of ADAS