Searcharxiv⌕ Search

arXiv subjects

Leon Johann Brettin

Publications and source records attributed to Leon Johann Brettin.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

Safety Blind Spot in Remote Driving: Considerations for Risk Assessment of Connection Loss Fallback Strategies

As part of the overall goal of driverless road vehicles, remote driving is a major emerging field of research of its own. Current remote driving concepts for public road traffic often establish a fallback strategy of immediate braking to a standstill in the event of a connection loss. This may seem like the most logical option when human control of the vehicle is lost. However, our simulation results from hundreds of scenarios based on naturalistic traffic scenes indicate high collision rates for any immediate substantial deceleration to a standstill in urban settings. We show that such a fallback strategy can result in a SOTIF-relevant hazard, raising the question whether this design decision is acceptable. Therefore, from a safety perspective, we call this problem a safety blind spot, as safety analyses in this regard seem to be very rare. In this article, we first present a simulation on a naturalistic dataset that shows a high probability of collision in the described case. Second, we discuss the severity of the resulting potential rear-end collisions and provide an even more severe example by including a large commercial vehicle in the potential collision.

eess.SY↗

Teleoperation Operational Design Domain based on Minimal Risk Maneuver Capability

This article discusses the concept of an Operational Design Domain (ODD) designed specifically for teleoperated road vehicles. For this purpose, the ODD concept designed for automated driving is adapted for teleoperation. As teleoperation becomes more common in regular traffic, the question arises under which operating conditions such vehicles are able and allowed to drive. Currently, these conditions are selected primarily based on network performance. From a safety perspective, it is difficult to base such a selection on a reliable connection because it is almost impossible to guarantee sufficient reliability. With this in mind, the ODD concept designed for automated driving is adapted for teleoperation: A concept is proposed for basing the ODD for a teleoperation system on the capability of the teleoperated vehicle to perform a minimal risk maneuver using a dedicated system designed solely for this purpose. This concept is then demonstrated using a use case example.

eess.SY↗

Automated vehicles: Challenging transition from Minimal Risk Condition

If an automated vehicle is no longer capable of handling the dynamic driving tasks, regulations require that a minimal risk manouvre is initiated aimed at achieving minimum risk condition. Details on measures and actions to resolve this standstill position are missing. This article provides clues for closing this gap and addresses various states in which the human intervention operator must understand the current situation and decide whether it is more acceptable to maintain the stay, e.g. on road-shoulder, or to move the vehicle back into traffic flow or 'limp it' to another position, depending on the outcome of a health check. Our investigations, based on a list of nearly 30 reasons and a subsequent development of 'scenario trees' prove the complexity of the situation and the heavy difficulties faced by the operator to handle in a correct manner. We also discuss how the technical automated driving system can be enhanced so that it stronger supports the operator or allows to even dismiss human intervention. This deems technically feasible but limits became obvious, so that assistance from out side appears indispensable at least for the ramp-up phase of respective automated vehicle. The non-trivial problem of transitioning the 'stranded' vehicle needs to be addressed by further regulation for which this paper may provide useful input.

eess.SY↗

A Companion App for an Autonomous Family Vehicle: Identification of Values for an Autonomous Mobility System

In this paper, we present a companion app for an autonomous vehicle aimed at user groups who would normally require an accompanying person to drive them. Two aspects of a companion app are presented in this paper: First, the possibility for a trusted person to track the ride of the person in need of support and second, to put the settings of the vehicle for persons in need of support in the hands of a trusted person. In addition, this article describes the requirements and addressed values and discusses the safety-relevant aspects of such a companion app. We also discuss and identify the values that influence passengers and trusted persons using the companion app. Overall, a companion app can provide new perspectives and opportunities for people in need of support, allowing them to take advantage of the features offered by autonomous vehicles. It enables trusted individuals to configure the vehicle according to the passengers needs. Also such an app can be a mechanism to involve trusted persons in the options given by the vehicle and give them the possibility to adapt the vehicle to the needs of the person in need of support.

eess.SY↗

A Review of Conceptualizations of Safety and Risk in Current Automated Driving Regulation

"Safety" and "Risk" are key concepts for the design and development of automated vehicles. For the market introduction or large-scale field tests, both concepts are not only relevant for engineers developing the vehicles, but for all stakeholders (e.g., regulators, lawyers, or the general public) who have stakes in the technology. In the communication between stakeholder groups, common notions of these abstract concepts are key for efficient communication and setting mutual expectations. In the European market, automated vehicles require Europe-wide type approval or at least operating permits in the individual states. For this, a central means of communication between regulators and engineers are regulatory documents. Flawed terminology regarding the safety expectations for automated vehicles can unnecessarily complicate relations between regulators and manufacturers, and thus hinder the introduction of the technology. In this paper, we review relevant documents at the UN- and EU-level, for the UK, and Germany regarding their (implied) notions of safety and risk. We contrast the regulatory notions with established and more recently developing notions of safety and risk in the field of automated driving. Based on the analysis, we provide recommendations on how explicit definitions of safety and risk in regulatory documents can support rather than hinder the market introduction of automated vehicles.

eess.SY↗