Figure 24.2.13.2 — CACC additions to ACC

 

The V2V communications can provide the ACC system with frequent updates about the speed, acceleration and commands (throttle and brake) of multiple vehicles driving in the surrounding area of the CACC-equipped vehicle. This enables the following performance improvements over ACC:

• — higher-accuracy control of vehicle following gap, while maintaining smooth ride quality;

• — significantly faster responses to speed changes by multiple forward vehicles, not only the vehicle immediately ahead of the subject vehicle;

• — shorter vehicle-following gap settings, without compromising safety or driver confidence and comfort with the system.

These performance improvements produce the following benefits:

• — increased driver confidence in the responsiveness of the system, leading to willingness to select shorter gap settings and use ACC under a wider range of traffic conditions;

• — fewer cut-ins at the shorter gaps may make ACC acceptable to a wider range of drivers;

• — significant damping of traffic flow disturbances, improving traffic flow dynamics and thereby reducing energy use and emissions;

• — significant increase in the effective capacity (throughput) per lane of highway traffic.

 

The I2V communications can provide the ACC system with inputs from the local traffic management system, which determines the recommended values for set speed and vehicle-following gap. These can be used to enhance the effectiveness of traffic management strategies on limited access highways, where it is possible to determine the speed and gap settings that are likely to maximize the effective capacity of a bottleneck section. When the I2V CACC vehicles follow these recommended values, the overall traffic flow capacity can be optimized with a minimum of active intervention by the vehicle drivers (other than opting in to decide to follow the infrastructure-based guidance). This means that the driver of the subject vehicle gains a smoother trip, with less acceleration and braking and lower energy consumption, and the highway as a whole gains a higher effective capacity, reduced energy consumption and pollution, and reduced traffic delays.

 

Scope

Cooperative Adaptive Cruise Control (CACC) system is an expansion to existing Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC) control strategy by using wireless communication with preceding vehicles (V2V) and/or the infrastructure (I2V). Both multi vehicle V2V data and I2V infrastructure data are within the scope of this document. When V2V data is used CACC can enable shorter time gaps and more accurate gap control, which can help increase traffic throughput and reduce fuel consumption. It can also receive data from the infrastructure, such as recommended speed and time gap setting, to improve traffic flow and safety.

 

This document addresses two types of Cooperative Adaptive Cruise Control (CACC): V2V, and I2V. Both types of CACC system require active sensing using for example radar, lidar, or camera systems. The combined V2V and I2V CACC is not addressed in this document. The following requirements are addressed in this document:

​

— classification of the types of CACC;

— definition of the performance requirements for each CACC type;

— CACC state transitions diagram;

— minimum set of wireless data requirements;

— test procedures.

 

CACC:

— does only longitudinal vehicle speed control;

— uses time gap control strategy similar to ACC;

— has similar engagement criteria as ACC.

 

Coordinated strategies to control groups of vehicles, such as platooning, in which vehicle controllers base their control actions on how they affect other vehicles, and may have a very short following clearance gap are not within the scope of this document. CACC system operates under driver responsibility and supervision.

 

This document is applicable to motor vehicles including light vehicles and heavy vehicles.

 

 

 

24.2.14   ISO 22839:2013   Intelligent transport systems — Forward vehicle collision mitigation systems — Operation, performance, and verification requirements

 

ISO 22839:2013 specifies the concept of operation, minimum functionality, system requirements, system interfaces, and test methods for Forward Vehicle Collision Mitigation Systems (FVCMS). It specifies the behaviors that are required for FVCMS, and the system test criteria necessary to verify that a given implementation meets the requirements of ISO 22839:2013. Implementation choices are left to system designers, wherever possible.

 

 

24.2.15   ISO 22840:2010   Intelligent transport systems — Devices to aid reverse manoeuvres — Extended-range backing aid systems (ERBA)

​

Extended-range backing aids (ERBA) are detection devices with non-contact sensors that assist the driver during low- to mid-speed backing manoeuvring. These systems detect and warn the driver of objects in the pathway of the vehicle. In comparison to low-speed-only devices whose main purpose is assisting in parking manoeuvres (e.g. ISO 17386), the purpose of the ERBA is to assist in higher-speed backing manoeuvres associated with traversing longer distances.

 

Scope

This International Standard for extended-range backing aids (ERBA) addresses light-duty vehicles [e.g. passenger cars, pick-up trucks, light vans and sport utility vehicles (motorcycles excluded)] equipped with such ERBA systems. This International Standard establishes minimum functionality requirements that the driver can expect of the system, such as the detection of and information on the presence of relevant obstacles within a defined detection range. This International Standard also sets minimum requirements for failure indication as well as performance test procedures. This International Standard includes rules for the general information strategy but does not restrict the kind of information or display system.

 

ERBA systems are intended to provide backing aid functionality over an extended area located aft of the subject vehicle. ERBA systems are not intended for short-range detection of obstacles located immediately behind the vehicle. If a short-range detection system is needed, either in lieu of or in addition to an ERBA system, reference can be made to ISO 17386.

 

This International Standard does not include reversing aids and obstacle-detection devices for use on heavy commercial vehicles. Requirements for those systems are defined in ISO TR 12155. This International Standard does not include visibility-enhancement systems, such as video-camera aids that do not have distance ranging and warning capabilities.

 

ERBA systems use object-detection devices (sensors) for detection and ranging in order to provide the driver with information based on the distance to obstacles. The sensing technology is not addressed; however, technology does affect the performance test procedures defined in this International Standard. The test objects are defined based on systems using ultrasonic and radar sensors, which are the most commonly used detection technology for long-range applications at the time of publication of this International Standard.

 

ERBA systems are intended to supplement the interior and exterior rear view mirrors, not eliminate the requirement for such mirrors. Automatic actions (e.g. applying brakes to prevent a collision between the subject vehicle and the obstacle) are not addressed in this International Standard. Responsibility for the safe operation of the vehicle remains with the driver.

 

ERBA systems calculate a dynamic estimate of collision danger [e.g. perhaps using a time-to-collision, (TTC) algorithm] and warn the driver that immediate attention is required in order to avoid colliding with the detected obstacle. A dynamic warning is necessary for the higher vehicle speeds that occur in backing events where the relative closing velocities between the vehicle and the obstacle are greater as compared to low-speed situations, such as parking. The purpose of this dynamic warning is to deliver a more urgent warning to the driver in order for the driver to take timely action. Distance indications are optional, but if so included, it is recommended that reference be made to ISO 15008 for requirements.

 

 

24.2.16  ISO 26684:2015   Intelligent transport systems (ITS) — Cooperative intersection signal information and violation warning systems (CIWS) — Performance requirements and test procedures

 

 The main system function of cooperative intersection signal information and violation warning systems (CIWS) is to warn drivers who are about to violate an intersection’s traffic signal to stop at the prescribed location. The CIWS is intended to provide a cooperative vehicle and infrastructure system that reduces the likelihood and severity of crashes at signalized intersections by providing the signal phase information and/or by warning the driver that an intersection signal violation is about to occur. The system uses information communicated from the roadside infrastructure to determine if a warning should be given to a driver.

 

The purpose of implementing CIWS is to reduce violations of traffic signals at signalized intersections to: (a) reduce fatalities, (b) reduce the number and/or severity of injuries, and (c) reduce property damage associated with collisions.

 

This International Standard addresses CIWS for use in road vehicles approaching signalized intersections.

 

This International Standard may be used as a system level standard by other standards, which extend the CIWS to a more detailed standard utilizing wireless communication technologies. Issues such as the specific requirements for the function and performance of communication technology or traffic control facilities (including traffic signal controllers) will not be considered in this International Standard.

 

Scope

This International Standard specifies the concept of operation, system requirements, and test methods for cooperative intersection signal information and violation warning systems (CIWS) at signalized intersections. CIWS are intended to reduce the likelihood of crash injury, damage, and fatality by enhancing the capability of drivers to avoid crash situations at signalized intersections.

 

The scope of CIWS standardization includes basic functions, functional requirements, performance requirements, information contents, and test methods.

 

The characteristics of the technologies used to communicate between the signal controller and the vehicles are not addressed by this International Standard nor are the behavioural responses by drivers, the various capabilities of vehicles on the road, or the multitude of combinations of these two characteristics.

 

24.2.17   ISO/SAE PAS 22736:2021       Taxonomy and definitions for terms related to driving automation systems for on-road motor vehicles

 

This document describes [motor] vehicle driving automation systems that perform part or all of the dynamic driving task (DDT) on a sustained basis. It provides a taxonomy with detailed definitions for six levels of driving automation, ranging from no driving automation (Level 0) to full driving automation (Level 5), in the context of [motor] vehicles (hereafter also referred to as “vehicle” or “vehicles”) and their operation on roadways:

 

Level 0: No Driving Automation

Level 1: Driver Assistance

Level 2: Partial Driving Automation

Level 3: Conditional Driving Automation

Level 4: High Driving Automation

Level 5: Full Driving Automation

 

These level definitions, along with additional supporting terms and definitions provided herein, can be used to describe the full range of driving automation features equipped on [motor] vehicles in a functionally consistent and coherent manner. “On‑road” refers to publicly accessible roadways (including parking areas and private campuses that permit public access) that collectively serve all road users, including cyclists, pedestrians, and users of vehicles with and without driving automation features.

 

The levels apply to the driving automation feature(s) that are engaged in any given instance of on-road operation of an equipped vehicle. As such, although a given vehicle may be equipped with a driving automation system that is capable of delivering multiple driving automation features that perform at different levels, the level of driving automation exhibited in any given instance is determined by the feature(s) that are engaged.

 

This document also refers to three primary actors in driving: the (human) user, the driving automation system, and other vehicle systems and components. These other vehicle systems and components (or the vehicle in general terms) do not include the driving automation system in this model, even though as a practical matter a driving automation system may actually share hardware and software components with other vehicle systems, such as a processing module(s) or operating code.

 

The levels of driving automation are defined by reference to the specific role played by each of the three primary actors in performance of the DDT and/or DDT fallback. “Role” in this context refers to the expected role of a given primary actor, based on the design of the driving automation system in question and not necessarily to the actual performance of a given primary actor. For example, a driver who fails to monitor the roadway during engagement of a Level 1 adaptive cruise control (ACC) system still has the role of driver, even while s/he is neglecting it.

 

Active safety systems, such as electronic stability control (ESC) and automatic emergency braking (AEB), and certain types of driver assistance systems, such as lane keeping assistance (LKA), are excluded from the scope of this driving automation taxonomy because they do not perform part or all of the DDT on a sustained basis, but rather provide momentary intervention during potentially hazardous situations. Due to the momentary nature of the actions of active safety systems, their intervention does not change or eliminate the role of the driver in performing part or all of the DDT, and thus are not considered to be driving automation, even though they perform automated functions. In addition, systems that inform, alert, or warn the driver about hazards in the driving environment are also outside the scope of this driving automation taxonomy, as they neither automate part or all of the DDT, nor change the driver’s role in performance of the DDT (see 8.13).

 

It should be noted, however, that crash avoidance features, including intervention-type active safety systems, may be included in vehicles equipped with driving automation systems at any level. For automated driving system (ADS) features (i.e., Levels 3 to 5) that perform the complete DDT, crash mitigation and avoidance capability is part of ADS functionality.

 

 

 

24.2.18   ISO 22737:2021           Intelligent transport systems — Low-speed automated driving (LSAD) systems for predefined routes — Performance requirements, system requirements and performance test procedures

 

Scope

 

This document specifies:

— requirements for the operational design domain,

— system requirements,

— minimum performance requirements, and

— performance test procedures

 

for the safe operation of low-speed automated driving (LSAD) systems for operation on predefined routes. LSAD systems are designed to operate at Level 4 automation (see ISO/SAE PAS 22736), within specific operational design domains (ODD).

 

This document applies to automated driving system-dedicated vehicles (ADS-DVs) and can also be utilized by dual-mode vehicles (see ISO/SAE PAS 22736). This document does not specify sensor technology present in vehicles driven by LSAD systems.

 

Introduction

 

The move towards automated driving systems is leading to a shift in the way people, goods and services are transported. One such new mode of transport is low-speed automated driving (LSAD) systems, which operate on predefined routes. LSAD systems will be used for applications like last-mile transportation, transport in commercial areas, business or university campus areas and other low-speed environments.

 

A vehicle that is driven by the LSAD system (which can include interaction with infrastructure) can potentially have many benefits, like providing safe, convenient and affordable mobility and reducing urban congestion. It can also provide increased mobility for people who are not able to drive. However, with different applications of LSAD systems in the industry worldwide, there is a need to provide guidance for manufacturers, operators, end users and regulators to ensure their safe deployment.

The LSAD system requirements and procedures specified herein are intended to assist manufacturers of the LSAD systems in incorporating minimum safety requirements into their designs and to allow end users, operators and regulators to reference a minimum set of performance requirements in their procurements.

 

 

24.2.19   ISO 23376:2021           Intelligent transport systems — Vehicle-to-vehicle intersection collision warning systems (VVICW) — Performance requirements and test procedures

 

Scope

 

This document specifies performance requirements and test procedures for systems capable of Scope This document specifies performance requirements and test procedures for systems capable of warning the subject vehicle driver of a potential crossing-path collision with other vehicles at intersecting road segments. Vehicle-to-vehicle intersection collision warning systems (VVICW) rely on vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communications and relative positioning between the subject vehicle and crossing-path vehicles (remote vehicles). V2V data, such as position, speed and heading are used to evaluate if an intersection collision is imminent between the subject and remote vehicles.

 

The performance requirements laid out in this document specify the warning criteria for these systems. In addition, VVICW operate in specified subject and remote vehicle speed ranges, road intersection geometries and target vehicle types. Moreover, the requirements for the V2V data are  specified.

The scope of this document includes operations on intersecting road segments (physically intersecting roads), and motor vehicles including cars, trucks, buses and motorcycles. Responsibility for the safe operation of the vehicle remains with the driver

 

Introduction

 

Vehicle-to-vehicle intersection collision warning systems (VVICW) warn the driver to avoid potential collisions at intersections. The VVICW warns the driver of imminent crashes with other vehicles crossing at a road junction. The system relies on relative positioning, speed and heading between vehicles determined using vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communication, such as dedicated short-range communication (DSRC). It is intended to be used to avoid intersection crossing crashes, the most severe crashes based on fatality counts. Due to limited field of view sensing, on-board sensor systems such as camera, lidar and radar systems cannot be used efficiently for such systems.

 

The VVICW is a road level system that deals with conflict scenarios between vehicles driving on two connected road segments sharing a common intersection. VVICW positioning requirements are not demanding compared to those of red light violation warning systems.

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​