Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2006.07022

A Study of the Minimum Safe Distance between Human Driven and Driverless Cars Using Safe Distance Model

Tesfaye Hailemariam Yimer·Chao Wen·Xiaozhuo Yu·Chaozhe Jiang
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

When driving,it is vital to maintain the right following distance between the vehicles to avoid rear-end collisions. The minimum safe distance depends on many factors, however, in this study the safe distance between the human-driven vehicles and a fully autonomous vehicle at a sudden stop by an automatic emergency brake was studied based on the human driver ability to react in an accident, the vehicles' braking system performance, and the speed of vehicles. For this approach, a safe distance car-following model was proposed to describe the safe distance between vehicles on a single lane dry road under conditions where both vehicles keep moving at a constant speed, and a lead autonomous vehicle suddenly stops by automatic emergency braking at an imminent incident. The proposed model then finally was being tested using MATLAB simulation, and results showed that confirmed the effectiveness of this model and the influence of driving speed and inter-vehicle distance on the rear-end collision was also indicated as well compared with the two and three seconds rule of safe following distance. The three seconds safe distance following rules is safe to be applied for all speed limits; however, the two seconds can be used on speed limits up to 45 Km/hr. A noticeable increase in rear-end collision was observed according to the simulation results if a car follows a driverless vehicle with two seconds rule above 45 km/hr.

Explore related subjects

cs.ROphysics.soc-ph

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Tesfaye Hailemariam Yimer, Chao Wen, Xiaozhuo Yu, Chaozhe Jiang. 2020-06-12. A Study of the Minimum Safe Distance between Human Driven and Driverless Cars Using Safe Distance Model. https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.07022

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

IMLE-VLA: Fast Single-Step Action Generation for Vision-Language-Action Policies

Vision-language-action (VLA) policies leverage pretrained vision-language backbones to achieve strong cross-task generalization. A leading design couples this backbone with a dedicated continuous action head trained via diffusion or flow matching. However, such heads rely on iterative multi-step sampling, for example 10 Euler steps in $\pi_{0.5}$. This creates an inference bottleneck that produces stop-and-go movement in the robot and slower task completion. We introduce IMLE-VLA, which replaces the iterative action head with a single-step conditional generator trained via conditional Implicit Maximum Likelihood Estimation (cIMLE). The cIMLE objective promotes multimodal action coverage, avoiding the mode collapse of naive regression heads while eliminating multi-step sampling entirely. When IMLE-VLA is applied to $\pi_{0.5}$, it increases inference frequency 3.67x (55 Hz vs. 15 Hz), enabling up to 11x higher action throughput. On the 40-task LIBERO benchmark, IMLE-VLA achieves the highest average success rate (98.0%) among all baselines while leading in inference frequency. Under the test-time perturbations of LIBERO-plus, IMLE-VLA retains $\pi_{0.5}$'s robustness while other baselines degrade sharply, confirming that the cIMLE head preserves generalization. Real-world experiments on a Franka Emika Panda across four tasks demonstrate smoother motion (2.2x to 3.0x lower jerk) and faster task completion, with IMLE-VLA outperforming $\pi_{0.5}$ on every task and reducing average VLA inference time per episode by 3.9x to 6.6x. Videos and code are available at https://kianhk6.github.io/IMLE-VLA/

cs.RO↗
arXiv2026

ObstaDiff: Generalizable Diffusion Policy Learning via Obstacle-aware Representations

Imitation learning has achieved impressive results in robotic manipulation, yet most existing approaches assume clean backgrounds and lack explicit mechanisms for obstacle-aware motion generation. Extending such policies to cluttered, real-world scenes with unstructured obstacles remains a key generalization challenge. We present ObstaDiff, a decomposed diffusion-policy framework with a lightweight obstacle-aware visual encoder. ObstaDiff extracts a structured target-obstacle-background representation, enabling the downstream alignment policy to generate end-effector trajectories toward a target-centered bottleneck pose while reasoning about surrounding obstacles. We evaluate ObstaDiff on 61 real-robot greenhouse trials per method (366 executions in total). ObstaDiff achieves 75.41% average task success and 8.20% average obstacle collision rate, outperforming representative imitation-learning baselines and improving generalization in cluttered agricultural scenes.

cs.RO↗
arXiv2026

Testing Between the Test Cases: Proving End-to-End Steering in Conditions You Never Drove

AI-based automated vehicle testing is challenging because a model that passes every test condition can still fail in the real world. Formal verification offers a way to directly address this gap. On a simulated highway and an arterial road we trained two small end-to-end steering networks each in CARLA, one on clear conditions alone and one on clear, fog, night and low sun. All four models were driven against a 2.19 ft lane-departure budget. Without driving again, we used bound propagation, a formal method that reads the trained weights, to compute how far steering can drift at every disturbance strength between two captured images. One calculation covers more than a campaign could drive: on the arterial it spans 133 poses, where ten intensities each would be 10^133 combinations, in minutes on one GPU. Not only did formal verification find conditions that broke the clear-trained policy without simulation testing, it provided some preliminary evidence for potential failures between the test cases. Our overall conclusion is that formal verification is a viable complement to simulation, and could be adopted as a part of verification and validation for automated driving.

cs.RO↗