Establishing secure connection… Loading editor… Preparing document…
Navigation

Fill and Sign the How to Claim Farm Wineries and Vineyards Tax Credit 2013 Form

Fill and Sign the How to Claim Farm Wineries and Vineyards Tax Credit 2013 Form

How it works

Open the document and fill out all its fields.
Apply your legally-binding eSignature.
Save and invite other recipients to sign it.

Rate template

4.6
51 votes
U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration DOT HS 809 561 March 2003 NHTSA Light Vehicle Antilock Brake System Research Program Task 5.2/5.3: Test Track Examination of Drivers' Collision Avoidance Behavior Using Conventional and Antilock Brakes This document is available to the public from the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161. DISCLAIMER This publication is distributed by the U. S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, in the interest of information exchange. The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the Department of Transportation or the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof. If trade or manufacturers’ names or products are mentioned, it is because they are considered essential to the object of the publication and should not be construed as an endorsement. The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. ii NOTE REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT SECTION 508 For the convenience of visually impaired readers of this report using text-to-speech software, additional descriptive text has been provided for graphical images contained in this report to satisfy Section 508 of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). This descriptive text can be found both within the body of the document and as alternate text. iii Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. DOT HS 809 561 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date NHTSA Light Vehicle Antilock Brake System Research Program Task 5.2/5.3: Test Track Examination of Drivers' Collision Avoidance Behavior Using Conventional and Antilock Brakes March 2003 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. NHTSA/NRD-22 Elizabeth N. Mazzae, Frank S. Barickman, Garrick Forkenbrock, NHTSA G. H. Scott Baldwin, Transportation Research Center Inc. 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Vehicle Research and Test Center P.O. Box 37 East Liberty, OH 43319 11. Contract or Grant No. 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 Final Report 14. Sponsoring Agency Code 15. Supplementary Notes The authors acknowledge the support of this effort by W. Riley Garrott of NHTSA VRTC, Mark Flick of RAI, and Heath Albrecht, Adam Andrella, Jan Cooper, David Dashner, Mark Gleckler, Lyle Heberling, Larry Jolliff, Ed Parmer, Jim Preston, and Judy Weiser of TRC 16. Abstract Numerous crash data statistical analyses conducted over the past few years suggest that, for automobiles, the introduction of fourwheel antilock brake systems (ABS) has produced net safety benefits much lower than originally expected. The studies indicate the apparent increase in single-vehicle crashes involving passenger cars equipped with four-wheel ABS almost completely offsets the safety advantage such vehicles have over their conventionally-braked counterparts. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has developed its Light Vehicle Antilock Brake Systems (ABS) Research Program in an effort to determine the cause(s) of the apparent increase in fatal single-vehicle run-off-road crashes as vehicles undergo a transition from conventional brakes to ABS. As part of this program, NHTSA conducted research examining driver crash avoidance behavior and the effects of ABS on drivers' ability to avoid a collision in a crash-imminent situation. The study described here was conducted on a test track under dry and wet pavement conditions to examine the effects of ABS versus conventional brakes, ABS brake pedal feedback level, and ABS instruction on driver behavior and crash avoidance performance. This study found that drivers do tend to brake and steer in realistic crash avoidance situations and that excessive steering can occur. However, a significant number of road departures did not result from this behavior for either pavement condition. ABS was found to reduce crashes significantly on wet pavement as compared to conventional brakes. 17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement Antilock Brake Systems, ABS, light vehicle braking, driver behavior, collision avoidance systems 19. Security Classif. (of this report) Unclassified Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) Unclassified Document is available to the public from the National Technical Information Service Springfield, VA 22161 21. No. of Pages 22. Price 161 Reproduction of completed page authorized iv TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION to the NHTSA LIGHT VEHICLE ABS RESEARCH PROGRAM .......................1 1.1. CRASH DATA...........................................................................................................................1 1.2. NHTSA’S LIGHT VEHICLE ABS RESEARCH PROGRAM.................................................2 1.3. INTENT OF THE RESEARCH PROGRAM ............................................................................5 1.4. TASK 5: DRIVER CRASH AVOIDANCE BEHAVIOR USING CONVENTIONAL AND ANTILOCK BRAKES – BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE................................................................5 2.0 RELATED RESEARCH..............................................................................................................................7 2.1. DRIVING SIMULATOR STUDY OF EMERGENCY BEHAVIOR .......................................7 2.2. OTHER RELEVANT STUDIES ...............................................................................................7 2.3. Comments on Related Research .................................................................................................10 3.0 METHOD......................................................................................................................................................11 3.1. SUBJECTS .................................................................................................................................11 3.2. PILOT TESTING FOR SCENARIO REFINEMENT ...............................................................12 3.3. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN......................................................................................................12 3.4. INSTRUMENTATION..............................................................................................................16 3.5. TEST SCENARIO......................................................................................................................20 3.6. 3.6 RUSE.................................................................................................................................26 3.6. 3.6 RUSE.................................................................................................................................27 3.7. TEST PROCEDURE..................................................................................................................27 3.8. DATA ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................................29 4.0 RESULTS......................................................................................................................................................31 4.1. Useful Definitions ......................................................................................................................31 4.2. OVERALL .................................................................................................................................35 4.3. BRAKE SYSTEM: ABS VS. CONVENTIONAL ...................................................................44 4.4. ABS BRAKE PEDAL FEEDBACK..........................................................................................66 4.5. VEHICLE ...................................................................................................................................72 4.6. ABS INSTRUCTION.................................................................................................................79 4.7. BRAKING PRACTICE..............................................................................................................84 4.8. INTERACTION OF INSTRUCTION AND PRACTICE..........................................................89 4.9. TIME-TO-INTERSECTION (TTI)............................................................................................90 4.10. GENDER....................................................................................................................................92 4.11. INTERACTION OF GENDER AND BRAKE SYSTEM .........................................................98 5.0 EXAMINATION OF OBSERVED ROAD DEPARTURES ....................................................................99 5.1. FULL ROAD DEPARTURES ...................................................................................................99 5.2. PARTIAL ROAD DEPARTURES ............................................................................................102 6.0 QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS ...................................................................................................................107 6.1. DRIVER DEMOGRAPHICS.....................................................................................................107 6.2. Driving Habits and Experience ..................................................................................................107 6.3. DRIVER BEHAVIOR................................................................................................................109 6.4. VEHICLE INFORMATION ......................................................................................................112 6.5. PAST BRAKING EXPERIENCES ...........................................................................................112 6.6. RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS REGARDING THE INCURSION SCENARIO ...................114 6.7. QUESTIONS Regarding DRIVER KNOWLEDGE OF ABS ...................................................117 7.0 DISCUSSION................................................................................................................................................119 7.1. REALISM OF THE SCENARIO...............................................................................................119 7.2. RESEARCH QUESTIONS ........................................................................................................119 v 8.0 CONCLUSIONS...........................................................................................................................................124 9.0 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................................126 10.0 APPENDICES.............................................................................................................................................128 10.1. APPENDIX A: Subject Recruitment Newspaper Advertisement ..............................................129 10.2. APPENDIX B: Subject Recruitment Flier .................................................................................130 10.3. APPENDIX C: Information Summary and Informed Consent Form........................................131 10.4. APPENDIX D: Subject Data Form ............................................................................................134 10.5. APPENDIX E: Outline of Points Covered in ABS Instruction Video .......................................135 10.6. APPENDIX F: Script for Pre-Recorded CD Instructions In Dry Pavement Testing ................137 10.7. APPENDIX G: Script for Pre-Recorded CD Instructions in Wet Pavement Testing ...............138 10.8. APPENDIX H: In-Vehicle Log Sheet ........................................................................................139 10.9. APPENDIX I: Post-Drive Debrief ............................................................................................140 10.10. APPENDIX J: Post-Drive Questionnaire ..................................................................................141 vi LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Quad-frame DASCAR video showing a subject approaching the simulated intersection prior to incursion. .....................................................................................................................................19 Figure 2. Quad-frame DASCAR video showing a subject approaching the simulated intersection during the incursion. ...............................................................................................................................19 Figure 3. Illustration of location and layout of test courses used in the dry and wet pavement testing [14]. 21 Figure 4. Front view of incursion vehicle. ..................................................................................................22 Figure 5. Rear view of incursion vehicle showing truss support structure. ................................................22 Figure 6. Illustration of intersection layout and vehicle positioning prior to the incursion. .......................24 Figure 7. Illustration of incursion vehicle position after the incursion. ......................................................24 Figure 8. Photograph of intersection with actual vehicles in position prior to incursion scenario. ............26 Figure 9. Photograph of intersection with foam vehicles after incursion. ..................................................26 Figure 10. Sensor data plot showing evidence of wheel lockup. ..................................................................30 Figure 11. Sensor data plot showing evidence of ABS activation. ...............................................................30 Figure 12. Illustration of steering input definitions for a subject whose initial steering input was in the opposite direction of the avoidance steering input. .....................................................................33 Figure 13. Illustration of steering input definitions for a subject whose initial steering input was the same as the avoidance steering input. ...................................................................................................34 Figure 14. Maximum steering input rate frequency distribution by pavement condition. ...........................41 Figure 15. Maximum brake pedal force frequency distribution by pavement condition. .............................42 Figure 16. Brake pedal application duration frequency distribution by pavement condition. ......................43 Figure 17. Successful avoidance maneuver with conventional brakes in which the subject steered left around the incursion vehicle........................................................................................................46 Figure 18. Brake line pressure and wheel speed data illustrating lockup of the right front wheel. ..............47 Figure 19. Successful avoidance maneuver with ABS in which the subject steered left around the incursion vehicle..........................................................................................................................................48 Figure 20. Brake line pressure and wheel speed data illustrating ABS activation........................................49 Figure 21. Successful avoidance maneuver with conventional brakes in which the subject braked the vehicle to a stop. ..........................................................................................................................50 Figure 22. Successful avoidance maneuver with ABS in which the subject braked the vehicle to a stop....50 Figure 23. Frequency distribution of avoidance steering input magnitudes by brake system for dry pavement......................................................................................................................................54 Figure 24. Frequency distribution of avoidance steering input magnitudes by brake system for wet pavement......................................................................................................................................55 Figure 25. Frequency distribution of avoidance steering input range by brake system as a function of whether ABS was activated or whether wheels were locked with conventional brakes for wet pavement......................................................................................................................................56 Figure 26. Frequency distribution of maximum steering wheel input range by brake system and whether ABS was activated or whether wheels were locked in the conventional brake system condition. 57 Figure 27. Frequency distribution of maximum steering input rates by brake system for dry pavement.....57 Figure 28. Frequency distribution of maximum steering input rates by brake system for wet pavement. ...58 Figure 29. Frequency distribution of maximum steering wheel input rate by brake system and whether ABS was activated or whether wheels were locked with conventional brakes. ..........................58 Figure 30. Frequency distribution of first lane recovery steering input range by brake system and whether ABS was activated or whether wheels were locked with conventional brakes. ..........................59 Figure 31. Frequency distribution of maximum brake pedal force by brake system for dry pavement........61 Figure 32. Frequency distribution of maximum brake pedal force by brake system for wet pavement. ......62 Figure 33. Brake pedal application duration frequency by brake system for dry pavement.........................63 Figure 34. Brake pedal application duration frequency by brake system for wet pavement. .......................63 vii Figure 35. Figure 36. Figure 37. Figure 38. Figure 39. Figure 40. Figure 41. Figure 42. Figure 43. Figure 44. Figure 45. Figure 46. Figure 47. Figure 48. Figure 49. Figure 50. Figure 51. Figure 52. Figure 53. Frequency distribution graph for brake pedal application duration for ABS by vehicle for dry pavement. (Lumina = light feedback, Taurus = heavy feedback)...............................................70 Frequency distribution graph for brake pedal application duration for ABS by vehicle for wet pavement......................................................................................................................................70 Frequency distribution graph for brake pedal application duration for conventional brake system by vehicle for dry pavement. (Lumina = light feedback, Taurus = heavy feedback) .................76 Frequency distribution graph for brake pedal application duration for the conventional brake system condition by vehicle for wet pavement............................................................................76 Maximum steering wheel input range frequency distributions by vehicle. .................................79 Frequency distribution of avoidance steering input magnitudes by gender for dry pavement. ...95 Frequency distribution of avoidance steering input magnitudes by gender for wet pavement....95 Frequency distribution of avoidance steering input rate by gender for dry pavement. ...............96 Frequency distribution of avoidance steering input rate by gender for wet pavement. ...............96 Illustration of the avoidance maneuver of a female subject that ended in a four-wheel, left side road departure with ABS on dry pavement. ..............................................................................100 Measured applied brake pedal force and associated brake line pressures during an avoidance maneuver in which the vehicle fully departed the roadway and ABS activation is believed to have occurred.............................................................................................................................100 Illustration of the avoidance maneuver of a male subject that ended in a four-wheel, right side road departure with ABS on dry pavement. ..............................................................................101 Measured applied brake pedal forces and associated brake line pressures during an avoidance maneuver in which the vehicle fully departed the roadway and ABS activation is believed to have occurred.............................................................................................................................102 Illustration of the avoidance maneuver of a male subject that ended in a two-wheel, right side road departure with conventional brakes on dry pavement. ......................................................103 Measured applied brake pedal forces and associated brake line pressures during an avoidance maneuver in which the vehicle partially departed the roadway and wheel lockup with conventional brakes is believed to have occurred. ....................................................................103 Illustration of the avoidance maneuver of a female subject that ended in a two-wheel, left side road departure with ABS on dry pavement. ..............................................................................105 Measured applied brake pedal forces and associated brake line pressures during an avoidance maneuver in which the vehicle partially departed the roadway and ABS activation is believed to have occurred.............................................................................................................................105 Illustration of the avoidance maneuver of a female subject that ended in a one-wheel road departure with conventional brakes on wet pavement...............................................................105 Measured applied brake pedal forces, wheel speeds, and associated brake line pressures during an avoidance maneuver in which the vehicle partially departed the roadway and wheel lockup with conventional brakes is believed to have occurred. ............................................................106 viii LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Table 2. Table 3. Table 4. Table 5. Table 6. Table 7. Table 8. Table 9. Table 10. Table 11. Table 12. Table 13. Table 14. Table 15. Table 16. Table 17. Table 18. Table 19. Table 20. Table 21. Table 22. Table 23. Table 24. Table 25. Table 26. Table 27. Table 28. Table 29. Table 30. Table 31. Table 32. Table 33. Table 34. Table 35. Table 36. Table 37. Experimental Design for Main Test (shaded cells represent conditions not tested)....................14 Measured parameters (sensor data channels)...............................................................................17 Derived parameters......................................................................................................................18 Crash avoidance strategy prevalence and related crash results. ..................................................36 Percent of subjects that released throttle and percent that steered as initial reaction. .................36 Brake Input Transition Times. .....................................................................................................37 Steering Input Transition Times. .................................................................................................37 Crash avoidance strategy prevalence and related crash results. ..................................................38 Percentage of responses by steering input direction and related crashes by pavement condition. 38 Percentage of avoidance steering inputs in a particular direction based on initial steering direction and related crashes for the dry pavement condition.....................................................38 Percentage of avoidance steering inputs in a particular direction based on initial steering direction and related percent of crashes for the wet pavement condition....................................38 Selected steering input results. ....................................................................................................39 Average of avoidance steering input magnitudes and related crash results by crash avoidance strategy.........................................................................................................................................40 Average avoidance steering input ranges and crash results by crash avoidance strategy............40 Selected braking input results......................................................................................................42 Scenario Entrance Speed by Brake System. ................................................................................44 Reaction Time Measures by Brake System. ................................................................................44 Crash avoidance strategy prevalence and related crash percentages for dry pavement...............45 Crash avoidance strategy prevalence and related crash percentages for wet pavement. .............45 Transition Time Measures by Brake System. (P-values correspond to the comparison of the 2 rows they span. Non-significant results are denoted by p-values that are shaded.)....................51 Percentage of responses for steering input direction by pavement condition..............................51 Steering input measures by brake system (P-values correspond to the comparison of the 2 rows they span. Non-significant results are denoted by p-values that are shaded.) ............................52 Steering input measures by brake system (Non-significant results denoted by shaded p-values. 53 Braking input measures by brake system (P-values correspond to the comparison of the 2 rows they span. Non-significant results are denoted by p-values that are shaded.) ............................60 Percent ABS activations and conventional wheel lockups by brake system. ..............................64 Percentage of brake pedal misses and braking application techniques by brake system.............64 Deceleration by brake system and wheel lockup / ABS activation. ............................................64 Lateral Acceleration by brake system and wheel lockup / ABS activation. ................................65 Percent of subjects who crashed into the incursion vehicle as a function of brake system and pavement condition. (Value pairs marked with one or more asterisks were significantly different.) .....................................................................................................................................65 Scenario entrance speed by ABS brake pedal feedback level. ....................................................66 Reaction times by ABS brake pedal feedback level. ...................................................................66 Steering behavior measures by ABS brake pedal feedback level................................................68 Braking behavior measures by ABS brake pedal feedback level. ...............................................69 ABS activations and conventional wheel lockup percentages by ABS brake pedal feedback levels, brake system, and vehicle.................................................................................................71 Percentages of brake pedal misses and braking application techniques by brake system. ..........71 Accelerations by ABS brake pedal feedback level. .....................................................................71 Percent Crashes by ABS brake pedal feedback levels, brake system, and whether ABS was activated.......................................................................................................................................72 ix Table 38. Table 39. Table 40. Table 41. Table 42. Table 43. Table 44. Table 45. Table 46. Table 47. Table 48. Table 49. Table 50. Table 51. Table 52. Table 53. Table 54. Table 55. Table 56. Table 57. Table 58. Table 59. Table 60. Table 61. Table 62. Table 63. Table 64. Table 65. Table 66. Table 67. Table 68. Table 69. Table 70. Comparisons for scenario entrance speed and reaction times by brake system, vehicle, and pavement condition. (Non-significant results are denoted by shaded p-values.).......................73 Comparisons for steering and brake input measures by brake system, vehicle, and pavement condition. (Non-significant results are denoted by p-values that are shaded.) ..........................74 Comparisons for brake input magnitudes by brake system, vehicle, and pavement condition (cont.). (Non-significant results are denoted by p-values that are shaded.)................................75 Comparisons for lane recovery, lateral acceleration, and crashes by brake system, vehicle, and pavement condition. (Non-significant results are denoted by p-values that are shaded.)..........77 Road departures by brake system, vehicle and pavement condition. ..........................................77 ABS activations and conventional wheel lockup percentages by ABS brake pedal feedback levels, brake system, and vehicle.................................................................................................78 Brake pedal misses and braking application techniques by vehicle and gender..........................78 Scenario Entrance Speeds by ABS instruction. ...........................................................................80 Reaction times by ABS instruction..............................................................................................80 Steering behavior by ABS instruction. ........................................................................................81 Braking behavior by ABS instruction (P-values correspond to the comparison of the 2 rows they span. Non-significant results are denoted by p-values that are shaded.) ....................................82 Percentage of ABS activations by ABS instruction and conventional brake system wheel lockup cases on dry pavement. ................................................................................................................83 Percentage of ABS activations by ABS instruction and conventional brake system wheel lockups on wet pavement.............................................................................................................83 Percentage of missed and non-standard brake pedal application techniques by ABS instruction and pavement condition...............................................................................................................83 Percent Crashes by ABS instruction............................................................................................84 Reaction times by braking practice for dry pavement. ................................................................85 Steering behavior by braking practice for dry pavement (P-values correspond to the comparison of the 2 rows they span. Non-significant results are denoted by p-values that are shaded.).......86 Braking behavior by braking practice for dry pavement (P-values correspond to the comparison of the 2 rows they span. Non-significant results are denoted by p-values that are shaded.).......87 Percentage of conventional brake system wheel lockups and ABS activations by braking practice for dry pavement. ...........................................................................................................87 Percentage of missed and non-standard brake pedal application techniques by brake system and braking practice. ..........................................................................................................................88 Deceleration results by braking practice for dry pavement. ........................................................88 Percent ABS activations, cases of conventional brake system wheel lockup, and associated crashes by braking practice for the dry pavement condition. ......................................................89 Crash results (in percentages) based on the two training methods of instruction and practice, and by brake system. (Value pairs marked with asterisks are significantly different.) ......................89 Scenario entrance speed by TTI. .................................................................................................90 Reaction times by TTI for dry pavement.....................................................................................90 Steering behavior by TTI (P-values correspond to the comparison of the 2 rows they span. Non-significant results are denoted by p-values that are shaded.)...............................................91 Braking behavior by TTI (P-values correspond to the comparison of the 2 rows they span. Non- significant results are denoted by p-values that are shaded.).......................................................91 Comparison of selected measures for the 2.5 second TTI condition dry versus wet pavement. .92 Scenario entrance speed by gender..............................................................................................93 Reaction times by gender for dry and wet pavements. ................................................................93 Steering behavior by gender (P-values correspond to the comparison of the 2 rows they span. Non-significant results are denoted by p-values that are shaded.)...............................................94 Braking behavior by gender (P-values correspond to the comparison of the 2 rows they span. Non-significant results are denoted by p-values that are shaded.)...............................................97 Crashes as a function of gender, brake system, and pavement condition....................................98 x Table 71. Table 72. Table 73. Table 74. Table 75. Table 76. Table 77. Table 78. EMPLOYMENT STATUS: Response Percentages. ................................................................107 DRIVING EXPERIENCE: Response Percentages...................................................................108 DRIVING BEHAVIOR: Response Percentages. .....................................................................110 DRIVING BEHAVIOR: Response Percentages (Continued). .................................................111 VEHICLE INFORMATION: Response Percentages...............................................................112 PAST BRAKING / OFF ROAD EXPERIENCES: Response Percentages..............................113 Summary of crash results by condition for dry pavement. ........................................................122 Summary of crash results by condition for wet pavement.........................................................122 xi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In 1997, NHTSA initiated a three-year Light Vehicle ABS Research Program to examine all plausible reasons why crash data studies had not shown that ABS had improved automobile safety by producing a net reduction in fatal crashes. In fact, ABS was associated with a statistically significant increase in the frequency of single-vehicle, run-off-road (rollovers or impacts with fixed objects) fatal crashes, as compared to cars without ABS. One hypothesis for this phenomenon was based on the idea that, if drivers tend to "oversteer" during a crash avoidance maneuver, ABS may give them the ability to steer their vehicles off-road in cases in which a vehicle equipped with conventional brakes would experience wheel lockup and skid in the direction of the vehicle's momentum with little directional control. To investigate this hypothesis, an experiment was conducted in which drivers' collision avoidance behavior in a simulated right-side intersection incursion scenario was examined as a function of vehicle brake system (conventional, ABS) and pavement condition (dry, wet). A crash avoidance scenario was staged in which a stopped vehicle would suddenly move across the path of a subject vehicle at an intersection causing the subject to take some evasive action to avoid colliding with the incursion vehicle. This scenario was run with a large number of subjects under both dry and wet pavement conditions to examine drivers' behavior in a crash-imminent situation and evaluate their crash avoidance performance with ABS versus conventional brakes. In addition to brake system and pavement condition, independent variables examined included time-to-intersection, ABS brake pedal feedback level, gender, and the effects of ABS instruction and braking practice. Results of this study found that nearly all subjects both braked and steered during their crash avoidance maneuvers. In fact, subjects in these studies demonstrated the capability to make aggressive steering and braking inputs. Some evidence of driver oversteering was seen. However, despite the high magnitudes and rates of many steering inputs observed, very few road departures occurred. Those road departures that were observed could not be judged attributable to ABS performance nor driver interaction with ABS. Although these data suggest that oversteering with ABS may not be responsible for the increase in single-vehicle road departure crashes, it is not clear whether the extent to which oversteering was seen in this study is comparable in proportion to that associated with the road departure crash trend phenomenon. ABS was found to have beneficial effects on crash rates for some conditions in this research. On wet pavement, 97 percent of subjects activated ABS in the intersection incursion scenario. ABS was associated with significantly fewer crashes on wet pavement as compared to conventional brakes. With no ABS instruction or braking practice, subjects in the ABS condition crashed 50% less than those in the conventional brake system condition on wet pavement. No significant reduction in crashes was seen on dry pavement for ABS versus conventional brakes regardless of training provided. Providing subjects with video instruction on the proper use of ABS did not produce a significant reduction in crashes for either pavement condition. For subjects in the dry pavement study who received braking practice prior to the incursion event, those with ABS crashed half as much as those with conventional brakes. Although providing ABS instruction did not reduce crashes in this research, there was evidence that ABS instruction may reinforce proper braking techniques. xii Heavy ABS brake pedal feedback was associated with fewer crashes on wet pavement than was light ABS brake pedal feedback, however, not at a significant level. No evidence of subjects being startled by ABS brake pedal feedback and removing their foot from the brake pedal was seen in this research. In conclusion, the results of this study do not appear to indicate that a problem exists due to driver crash avoidance behavior or driver interaction with ABS that would contribute to the apparent increase in fatal single-vehicle crashes as identified in conjunction with vehicles transitioning from conventional to antilock brake systems. Results from this study will be examined in conjunction with the results of other tasks included in NHTSA's Light Vehicle ABS Research Program to determine whether the collective results viewed as a whole provide some insight into the cause of the increase in fatal single-vehicle crashes observed in conjunction with the implementation of ABS. The authors acknowledge that these results are specific to the particular intersection incursion scenario used in this study. The results may not apply to other types of crash avoidance scenarios. In addition, the authors feel testing of this sort involving higher travel speeds (greater than 45 mph on dry and 35 mph on wet pavement) should be investigated. Additional insight may be obtained by conducting similar research using different crash avoidance scenarios and vehicle travel speeds. xiii 1.0 INTRODUCTION to the NHTSA LIGHT VEHICLE ABS RESEARCH PROGRAM Since 1985, antilock brake systems (ABS) have been increasingly available on many passenger car and light truck make/models. ABS has been sold in four-wheel and two-wheel versions, with four-wheel ABS being found primarily on passenger cars and two-wheel ABS being prevalent on light trucks. These systems have been marketed as an added safety feature designed to enhance drivers' ability to control a vehicle. With the introduction of ABS, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) undertook a series of investigations to determine the potential benefits of ABS and the effect of ABS on crash rates. Test programs have shown that these systems appear to be very promising safety devices when evaluated on a test track. Under many braking conditions on paved surfaces, four-wheel ABS allows the driver to stop a vehicle more rapidly than with conventional brakes while maintaining steering control even during situations of extreme, panic braking. Brake experts anticipated that the introduction of ABS on passenger vehicles would reduce both the number and severity of crashes. However, a number of crash data analyses have been performed in recent years by NHTSA, automotive manufacturers, and others which have shown for passenger cars that the introduction of ABS has not been associated with a net reduction in crashes to the expected extent. 1.1. CRASH DATA Kahane [1] found that, for passenger cars, involvements in multi-vehicle crashes on wet roads were significantly reduced for cars equipped with ABS: fatal crashes were reduced by 24 percent, and nonfatal crashes by 14 percent. A significant 27 percent decrease in fatal collisions with pedestrians and bicyclists was also found to be associated with ABS. However, these reductions were offset by a statistically significant increase in the frequency of single-vehicle, run-off-road crashes, as compared to cars without ABS. Run-off-road crashes, as considered in this report, included rollovers, side impacts with fixed objects, and frontal impacts with fixed objects. Fatal run-off-road crashes were up by 28 percent and nonfatal crashes by 19 percent with ABS. On wet roads, fatal run-off-road crashes increased 17 percent and non-fatal run-off-road crashes increased by 24 percent. On dry roads, fatal run-off-road crashes increased by 29 percent while non-fatal crashes increased by 17 percent. It is unknown to what extent, if any, this increase is due to ABS or other causes. It is also unknown to what extent, if any, this increase is due to drivers incorrect usage of ABS or incorrect responses by drivers to their ABS. Hertz, Hilton, and Johnson [2] presented results for passenger car run-off-road crashes according to the following crash types: rollovers, side impacts with parked vehicles or fixed objects, and frontal impacts with parked vehicles or fixed objects. For dry roads, ABS was found to be associated with a 17 percent decrease in all rollover crashes, a 13 percent decrease in all frontal impacts with parked vehicles or fixed objects, and a 7 percent increase in all side impacts with parked cars or fixed objects. For all pedestrian crashes, ABS was associated with a 30 percent reduction on dry roads and a 10 percent reduction in unfavorable road conditions (i.e., wet, snowy, icy, gravel). In regards to only those crashes involving fatalities, ABS was found to be associated with a 51 percent increase in fatal rollover crashes on dry roads. For fatal side impact crashes, ABS produced a 69 percent increase for unfavorable road conditions, and a 61 percent increase for favorable road conditions. ABS was associated with a 38 percent decrease in fatal 1 pedestrian crashes in unfavorable road conditions. Fatal frontal impact crashes in unfavorable road conditions were also decreased by 40 percent with the introduction of ABS. In comparison, some benefits were observed for light vehicles other than automobiles (pickup trucks, sport utility vehicles, and vans), equipped with two-wheel ABS (instead of the four-wheel ABS used on automobiles). Rear-wheel antilock brake systems have been effective in reducing the risk of nonfatal run-off-road crashes for almost every type of light truck [3]. Nonfatal rollovers were reduced by 30 to 40 percent. Side impacts with fixed objects were reduced by 15 to 30 percent. Frontal impacts with fixed objects were reduced by 5 to 20 percent. 1.2. NHTSA’S LIGHT VEHICLE ABS RESEARCH PROGRAM In an effort to investigate possible causes of the crash rate phenomena identified, NHTSA developed its Light Vehicle ABS Research Program. This program contained nine separate tasks which address potential theories as to the cause of the lack of net crash benefits such as driver behavior in a crash-imminent situation, driver response to ABS activation, ABS hardware performance, and environmental factors (as outlined in [7]). To date, NHTSA research has found no systematic hardware deficiencies in its examination of ABS hardware performance (as documented in [8]). It is unknown, however, to what extent the increase in run-off-road crashes may be due to drivers’ incorrect usage of ABS, incorrect response to ABS activation, incorrect instinctive driver response (e.g., oversteering), changes in driver behavior (i.e., behavioral adaptation) as a result of ABS use, and/or some other factor. Task 1 of NHTSA’s Light Vehicle ABS Research Program, performed by Hertz in 2000 [5] as mentioned in the previous section, involved performing a new crash data study of the effect on safety of adding four-wheel ABS to automobiles. This study differed from those previously conducted [1, 2, 3, 4] in that it focused on newer vehicles and antilock brake systems and included some methodological improvements. This study endeavored to address whether whatever problem may have caused the apparent increase in single-vehicle crashes for ABSequipped automobiles still existed following the introduction of newer generation ABS hardware. Task 2 [9] of this program involved conducting a national telephone survey to determine drivers’ knowledge and expectations about ABS. The purpose of this 1998 survey was to assess whether the apparent increase in single-vehicle crashes for automobiles might be due to drivers’ misunderstanding of ABS functionality. Results of the survey showed that, although most drivers had heard of ABS, many did not know what it did or how it affected vehicle performance, when it functioned, or even if their vehicle was so equipped. Certain types of brake pedal feedback from an activated ABS were often misinterpreted, making driver reaction inappropriate and in some cases potentially dangerous. There was also some evidence drivers of ABS-equipped vehicles placed more confidence in ABS and what it could do for them than the non-ABS owners did. Lastly, this survey also found that information imparted at the time of purchase was the means by which the majority of drivers find out about the brakes on their vehicle. However, approval ratings for lengthy or mandatory information sessions were not well received, though some methods held promise. Task 3 involved the examination of 257 selected single-vehicle 1996 crash reports collected by the National Automotive Sampling System (NASS). The goal of this work was to determine 2 what differences could be identified in the characteristics of single-vehicle crashes incurred by ABS-equipped versus non-ABS-equipped automobiles using NASS Crashworthiness Data System (CDS) cases. Results of this examination of crash cases did not provide conclusive evidence that ABS had a significant effect on crash rates for the time period covered. Task 4 [8] measured the braking performance of a group of model year 1993-97 production ABS-equipped vehicles over a broad range of surfaces and maneuvers. While ABS stopping performance has been measured by many groups over many years, there is a possibility that poor performance on some unusual surface or during some maneuver may have been overlooked. If such could be found, this might explain the apparent increase in single-vehicle crashes of ABSequipped automobiles. Results of this 1997-98 study showed that for most maneuvers, on most surfaces, ABS-assisted stops yielded distances shorter than those made with the ABS disabled. The one exception was on loose gravel where stopping distances increased by an average of 27.2 percent overall. Additionally, the vehicular stability observed during testing was almost always superior with ABS. For the cases in which instability was observed, ABS was not deemed responsible for its occurrence. Task 5 examined the hypothesis that the apparent increase in single-vehicle crashes with ABSequipped vehicles is due to driver “oversteering” in crash-imminent situations. In a crash imminent situation, a driver’s first action is expected to be a very hard application of the brake pedal. Oversteering occurs when the driver, possibly believing that the hard braking input is insufficient to avoid the upcoming obstacle (such as another vehicle), rapidly turns the steering wheel by a large amount. For conventionally braked or rear-wheel ABS only vehicles, this oversteering has little effect, since the initial driver brake pedal activation is likely to lock the vehicle’s front wheels. However, for a vehicle equipped with four-wheel ABS (where the ABS minimizes front wheel lockup and allows the driver to maintain steering capability), the oversteering may result in the vehicle missing the upcoming obstacle, going off of the roadway, and being involved in a single-vehicle crash. Task 5 was divided into multiple subtasks to examine driver crash avoidance behavior with and without ABS. This task sought to assess the prevalence of driver oversteering and examined the effects of ABS instruction and braking practice on successfully avoiding a crash. Task 5.1 used a driving simulator to address this issue. Task 5.2 examined driver crash avoidance behavior in a test track environment on a dry, high coefficient of friction road surface. Task 5.3 also studied driver crash avoidance behavior in a test track environment but on a wet, low coefficient of friction road surface. Results of the 1997-98 test track studies, Tasks 5.2 and 5.3 [10], showed that drivers do tend to brake and steer in realistic crash avoidance situations and that excessive steering can occur. However, a significant number of road departures did not result from this behavior for dry or wet pavement. ABS was found to significantly reduce crashes on wet pavement as compared to conventional brakes. Results of the 1997 simulator study (Task 5.1) [11] also showed that excessive steering can occur during realistic crash avoidance situations. However, this steering was not found to result in a significant number of road departures. In 2000, Task 6 investigated the effects of ABS during road recovery maneuvers (i.e., when a driver attempts to maneuver an automobile back onto the roadway after a departure). Many road departures occur when the driver drives the vehicle in an essentially straight line that leaves the road. This action may be due to driver inattention, sleepiness, or intoxication. None of these 3 causes are related to the presence or absence of ABS. However, the presence of ABS may or may not influence the ability of the driver to safely maneuver the vehicle back onto the roadway. Task 7 involved two separate studies that examined the issue of ABS and behavioral adaptation. Several studies have found that people drive faster or more aggressively on test tracks in ABSequipped vehicles than with conventionally braked vehicles. The goal of this task was to try to determine if these trends occur during typical driving on actual public roads. Task 7 was divided into multiple subtasks. Task 7.1 [12] involved remote, unobtrusive observation methods to collect data about the behavior (e.g., speed) of drivers. Although a consistent trend was seen in mean speed by brake system for each site with slightly higher speeds being observed for drivers of ABS-equipped vehicles, this trend was not statistically significant. This study showed that type of brake system (ABS or conventional) had no significant effect on driving speed under the conditions examined. Task 7.2, the subject of this report, sough to assess possible ABS-related behavioral adaptation through the collection of more detailed data about the driving behavior of a small number of subjects using instrumented vehicles in a naturalistic research setting. Task 8 involved the integration of data from all of the preceding tasks in an attempt to infer why the crash data studies did not find the anticipated increase in safety for ABS-equipped automobiles. Task 9 involved the dissemination of task results. NHTSA has shared knowledge gained through the program’s research efforts by reporting its findings with interested parties within NHTSA and the public at large. Summaries of current research efforts and results-to-date have been presented for discussion. NHTSA’s Light Vehicle ABS Research Program has only been a first step in assessing the anticipated safety benefits from ABS. This program deals solely with trying to learn why the crash data studies did not find the anticipated increase in safety (i.e., reduction in crashes) for ABS-equipped automobiles. The development of countermeasures to resolve any problems discovered is left to future research. 4 1.3. INTENT OF THE RESEARCH PROGRAM NHTSA’s Light Vehicle ABS Research Program is only a first step in assessing the anticipated safety benefits from ABS. This program deals solely with trying to learn why the crash data studies did not find the anticipated increase in safety for ABS-equipped automobiles. The development of countermeasures to resolve any problems discovered is left to future research. 1.4. TASK 5: DRIVER CRASH AVOIDANCE BEHAVIOR USING CONVENTIONAL AND ANTILOCK BRAKES – BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE To determine whether some aspect of driver behavior in a crash-imminent situation may be counteracting the potential benefits of ABS, NHTSA embarked on a series of human factors studies. These studies, which compose Task 5 of the research program, focus on the examination of driver crash avoidance behavior as a function of brake system and various other factors. One theory, which Task 5 sought to address, was whether the apparent increase in fatal single-vehicle crashes involving ABS-equipped vehicles may be due to characteristics of driver steering and braking behavior in crash-imminent situations. According to this theory, in situations of extreme, panic braking, drivers may have a tendency to brake hard and make large, potentially excessive, steering inputs in an attempt to avoid a crash. In a crash-imminent situation, a driver’s initial reaction may be either to steer or release the throttle. If a driver steers as the initial reaction, the secondary response may be to release the throttle and then apply the brakes (third response). In rare circumstances, a driver may steer initially, release the throttle, and then never apply the brakes. If the driver releases the throttle as the initial reaction, the secondary response may be to either brake or steer. If a driver then steers as the secondary response after having released the throttle, the third response may be to apply the brakes; likewise, if the secondary response was to brake, the third response may be to steer. Depending on which combination of reaction possibilities the driver exercises, the implications of oversteering occurring may be more or less severe. If the driver brakes hard and steers, oversteering may occur when the driver, possibly believing that the hard braking input will be insufficient to avoid the obstacle, rapidly turns the steering wheel by a large amount. For conventionally braked or rear-wheel ABS vehicles, aggressive braking may lock the front wheels of the vehicle, eliminating directional control capability, rendering the driver's steering behavior irrelevant. However, with four-wheel ABS, wheel lockup is minimized. As a result, the vehicle does not lose directional control capability during hard braking and driver’s steering inputs are then effective in directing the vehicle's motion. This directional control could result in drivers avoiding multi-vehicle crashes by driving off the road and, instead, experiencing single-vehicle crashes. To investigate this theory, Task 5 sought to address issues such as whether: • Drivers tend to both brake and steer (as opposed to only braking or only steering) during crash avoidance maneuvers; • Drivers tend to make large, potentially excessive, steering inputs during crash avoidance maneuvers; 5 • Drivers' crash avoidance maneuvers in ABS-equipped vehicles result in road departures more often than in vehicles with conventional brakes; and • Drivers avoid more crashes in ABS-equipped vehicles than in vehicles with conventional brakes. Task 5 of NHTSA's Light Vehicle ABS Research Program includes three studies. Two studies were conducted on a test track (one on dry pavement, Task 5.2; and one on wet pavement, Task 5.3) and one on the University of Iowa’s Iowa Driving Simulator (IDS) (Task 5.1). These studies used a right-side intersection incursion scenario to elicit a crash avoidance response from human subjects. This scenario was chosen because it was likely to induce steering behavior and had the potential for subjects driving the vehicle off of the road. This obstacle avoidance scenario is not responsible for all, or even most, run-off-road crashes and results may not be representative of driver behavior in all situations leading to vehicle road departure. Many run-off-road crashes occur when drivers are unable to maneuver through a curve in the roadway or when they are drowsy or under the influence of alcohol. However, it is believed that the results of this study will be useful in determining not only the extent to which drivers are able to maneuver a vehicle, but also drivers' physical capacity to supply control inputs to the vehicle. Insight into drivers' ability to maintain vehicle control during a panic maneuver and ability to avoid a collision can also be gained from this research. Although the same intersection incursion scenario was involved in each of these experiments, each experimental venue provided unique advantages for observing driver behavior. The test track experiments allowed driver behavior to be examined in a realistic environment at moderate speeds in real vehicles with simulated obstacles on both dry and wet pavement. The IDS study allowed for driver behavior to be examined using a highly repeatable test method in a simulated environment at higher travel speeds and with no chance of actual physical collision or injury. The fundamental knowledge gained through these tests will aid researchers in assessing the extent of drivers’ abilities in crash imminent situations. Through this assessment of driver behavior with both conventional and antilock brakes, researchers will be able to infer whether ABS enhances drivers’ collision avoidance capabilities over those attainable with conventional brakes without increasing the probability of roadway departure. This final report discusses the methods used and results obtained from both the dry and wet pavement test track studies and attempts to address these issues. 6 2.0 RELATED RESEARCH This study was not the first to examine driver behavior in an obstacle avoidance scenario. The following are descriptions of studies of driver behavior in crash-imminent situations including one study involving ABS. 2.1. DRIVING SIMULATOR STUDY OF EMERGENCY BEHAVIOR A previous NHTSA study [7,8] performed under Contract No. NRD-20-95-08086 on the Iowa Driving Simulator (IDS) utilized a crash scenario which was very similar to the one employed in this research. The IDS study was conducted to examine the collision avoidance behavior and reaction time to an unexpected intersection incursion while driving a vehicle equipped with conventional brakes only, since at the time the IDS did not have the capability to simulate ABS. This study involved an intersection incursion, which occurred at the intersection of two, two-lane rural highways. Traffic on the crossing road was controlled by stop signs, while the roadway on which the subject was traveling had no traffic signals and thus had the right of way through the intersection. The speed limit on this roadway was 55 mph. At one of three possible time-tointersection (TTI) values an incursion vehicle began moving into the intersection in front of the subject vehicle. The incursion vehicle could intersect from either the driver’s left or right side, and either completely blocked the driver’s lane or blocked one-half of the driver’s lane. The principle results of the IDS study indicate drivers are most successful at avoiding an incursion vehicle when the escape gap is large and/or the required steering magnitude is small. Drivers appear to use this information, along with the time-to-intersection in the formulation of an avoidance strategy. The study demonstrated that drivers have more difficulty avoiding an incursion vehicle when it intrudes into the driver’s lane from the left than from the right. During a severe obstacle avoidance maneuver, drivers will often lock the brakes and attempt to steer (with the brakes locked). Drivers may input large amplitude steering movements, or “oversteer”, in emergency avoidance situations. With conventional brakes locked (the vehicle in a longitudinal skid with minimal lateral control), the oversteering does no harm. However, for an ABS-equipped vehicle, a large amplitude steering input is likely to increase the chance of lateral skidding, roadway departures, and subsequent roll-over crashes. In this study, more than 80% of subjects in this study locked wheels when attempting to avoid the incursion vehicle. Over 70% of subjects attempted to steer when the wheels were locked. Over 80% of the subjects who attempted to steer when wheels were locked collided with the incursion vehicle. Thus, it appears that the hypothesis that drivers tend to exhibit instinctive steering inputs of significant magnitudes in panic situations is a plausible one and that ABS, by allowing the vehicle’s wheels to continue to roll during aggressive braking, may be allowing drivers to maneuver their vehicles into potentially dangerous off-road situations. 2.2. OTHER RELEVANT STUDIES Several field studies in which an object was projected into the subject vehicle’s path have been performed to examine drivers’ obstacle avoidance behavior. The method has been successfully used to investigate driver reaction times and behavior in response to an incursion obstacle. The following are brief summaries of three such studies. 7 2.2.1. Prynne, K. and Martin, P.: Braking Behavior in Emergencies (1995) This study [10], performed by Lucas Industries, endeavored to determine in what way, if any, a typical driver’s emergency braking behavior was inadequate. The experiment created an unexpected, sudden, obstacle avoidance situation so as to generate driver panic braking behavior. Seventy-seven subjects were recruited. Subjects were characterized by gender, age, and level of driving experience. Tests were initially conducted using a polystyrene obstacle that was propelled into the path of the subject vehicle. The polystyrene obstacle did not, however, elicit a sufficiently authentic crash avoidance response from the drivers and was eventually replaced with life-size painted figures representing children running out into the road. These child-like obstacles were judged to be successful in achieving a higher degree of realism. The life-size painted figures proved to be realistic enough to elicit a genuine crash avoidance response from subjects but not so life-like that the subjects feared that they were facing a potential collision with an actual child. This study found that drivers typically exhibit a two-stage braking behavior in response to potential frontal crash conflicts. Most subjects initially applied the brake moderately and then hesitated momentarily, holding the brake pedal steady at a moderate application level. Then, when subjects perceived the threat could not be avoided by a moderate brake application and required an all-out avoidance response, they continued their brake application to achieve full brake application. For tests involving the child-like obstacles, 66 of the 77 subjects demonstrated a pause or break in their brake application. Fifteen subjects collided with the obstacles. Prynne, et al. attempted to create a realistic driving event by projecting obstacles in the path of unprepared drivers. In this regard, the study is very similar to that used in Task 5 of NHTSA’s Light Vehicle ABS Research Program. Unfortunately,

Valuable tips on preparing your ‘How To Claim Farm Wineries And Vineyards Tax Credit 2013 Form’ online

Are you fed up with the inconvenience of handling paperwork? Look no further than airSlate SignNow, the premier electronic signature solution for individuals and companies. Bid farewell to the lengthy procedure of printing and scanning documents. With airSlate SignNow, you can easily fill out and sign forms online. Utilize the extensive tools offered by this user-friendly and cost-effective platform to transform your document management process. Whether you need to approve forms or collect eSignatures, airSlate SignNow manages it all seamlessly, needing just a few clicks.

Adhere to this comprehensive guide:

  1. Sign into your account or sign up for a complimentary trial with our service.
  2. Click +Create to upload a document from your device, cloud storage, or our template collection.
  3. Access your ‘How To Claim Farm Wineries And Vineyards Tax Credit 2013 Form’ in the editor.
  4. Select Me (Fill Out Now) to set up the document on your end.
  5. Add and designate fillable fields for others (if needed).
  6. Continue with the Send Invite settings to solicit eSignatures from others.
  7. Save, print your version, or convert it into a reusable template.

Don't worry if you need to collaborate with your teammates on your How To Claim Farm Wineries And Vineyards Tax Credit 2013 Form or send it for notarization—our solution has you covered with everything you require to accomplish such tasks. Register with airSlate SignNow today and elevate your document management to a new height!

Here is a list of the most common customer questions. If you can’t find an answer to your question, please don’t hesitate to reach out to us.

Need help? Contact Support
How to claim farm wineries and vineyards tax credit form online
Virginia farm winery tax credit
How to make your property a farm for tax purposes
Farm tax credits
How to become a tax exempt farm
How to get farm tax ID number
Tax benefits of owning a farm in California
Tax exempt form for farm equipment
Sign up and try How to claim farm wineries and vineyards tax credit 2013 form
  • Close deals faster
  • Improve productivity
  • Delight customers
  • Increase revenue
  • Save time & money
  • Reduce payment cycles