Automated Driver and Responder Alert

System (ADRAS)

Operational Field Assessment Report 

February 2019 

Approved for Public Release RT-T-R-10
Approved for Public Release ii

The Automated Driver and Responder Alert System (ADRAS) Operational Field Assessment Report was 

prepared by the National Urban Security Technology Laboratory, U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

Science and Technology Directorate.

The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. government.

Reference herein to any specific commercial products, processes, or services by trade name, trademark, 

manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or 

favoring by the U.S. government.

The information and statements contained herein shall not be used for the purposes of advertising, nor to 

imply the endorsement or recommendation of the U.S. government.

With respect to documentation contained herein, neither the U.S. government nor any of its employees make 

any warranty, express or implied, including but not limited to the warranties of merchantability and fitness for 

a particular purpose. Further, neither the U.S. Government nor any of its employees assume any legal liability 

or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or 

process disclosed; nor do they represent that its use would not infringe privately owned rights.

The images included herein were provided by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Science and 

Technology Directorate, unless otherwise noted.
Approved for Public Release iii

FOREWORD

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Science and Technology Directorate (S&T) First 

Responder Technologies Division (R-Tech)i

i This report was developed under the S&T program formerly known as Responder Technologies (R-Tech). As of October

1, 2018, R-Tech is no longer an S&T program.

 works closely with the nation’s emergency response 

community to identify and prioritize mission capability gaps, and to facilitate rapid development of 

critical solutions to address responders’ everyday technology needs.

R-Tech gathers input from local, tribal, territorial, state and federal first responders and engages

them in all stages of research and development—from building prototypes to operational testing to

transitioning the tools that enhance safety and performance in the field—with the goal of advancing

technologies that address mission capability gaps in a rapid time frame, and then promoting a quick

transition of these technologies to the commercial market for use by the nation’s first responder

community.

As R-Tech projects near completion, the National Urban Security Technology Laboratory (NUSTL) 

conducts an operational field assessment (OFA) of the technology’s capabilities and operational 

suitability to verify and document that the project goals were achieved.

NUSTL’s R-Tech OFA reports are posted on the First Responder Communities of Practice (FRCoP) 

website, which is a professional networking, collaboration and communication platform created by 

the DHS S&T to support improved collaboration and information sharing amongst the nation's first 

responders. This vetted community of members focuses on emergency preparedness, response, 

recovery and other homeland security issues. To request an FRCoP account, complete the online 

form on www.communities.firstresponder.gov. 

Visit the R-Tech website, www.dhs.gov/science-and-technology/first-responder-technologies for more 

information on R-Tech and its projects. 
Approved for Public Release iv

POINTS OF CONTACT

National Urban Security Technology Laboratory

U.S. Department of Homeland Security

Science and Technology Directorate

201 Varick Street

New York, NY 10014

E-mail: NUSTL@hq.dhs.gov

Website: www.dhs.gov/science-and-technology/first-responder-technologies

Authors: 

Orly Amir, Program Analyst

Kris Dooley, Program Support

Blaise Linn, Junior Engineer

Tyler Mackanin, Junior Engineer
Approved for Public Release v 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

When working on roadways, the safety of responders and incident management personnel is at risk. 

Each year there are fatalities of and injuries to responders on roadways who are struck by motorists 

who may not see them. There is a need for additional mechanisms to alert motorists of an upcoming 

incident scene and to alert responders working on the roadway about oncoming vehicles. 

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology Directorate’s First Responder 

Technologies Division (R-Tech) initiated a project with the goal of enhancing roadway safety for 

responders. The Automated Driver and Responder Alert System (ADRAS) is designed to alert 

motorists to use caution as they approach a roadside incident, and to provide audible, tactile and 

visual alerts to responders at the incident site when inbound vehicles pose a hazard. ADRAS consists 

of two main components: (1) a vehicle-mounted mast comprised of loudspeakers, a radar system, a 

low frequency tone siren and two video cameras, and (2) a safety vest enhanced with light-emitting 

diode (LED) lights and a small oscillatory motor.

The National Urban Security Technology Laboratory conducted an operational field assessment (OFA) 

of ADRAS on August 23, 2018, at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Cheltenham, 

Maryland. Six evaluators—with competencies in roadway safety and responder operations—operated 

and wore components of ADRAS during simulated roadway incidents. Evaluators then provided 

feedback on ADRAS’ suitability to meet its intended objectives. 

The OFA results included in this report are grouped into four categories of evaluator feedback: 

(1) effectiveness for responders, (2) effectiveness for motorists, (3) optimal operational use cases

and (4) suggested enhancements.

(1) Effectiveness for responders—Evaluators agreed ADRAS provided sufficient alerts to inform

responders about an oncoming vehicle. Evaluators also agreed ADRAS would be easy to

deploy; however, opinions differed as to whether employing the technology would impede

response operations. While operational scenarios were conducted in daylight, evaluators

expected the enhanced safety vest lighting would increase their conspicuity during night time

operations. Lastly, evaluator opinions varied on the usability of the video cameras for their

operations.

(2) Effectiveness for motorists—Evaluators agreed it was easier to hear the loudspeaker in a quiet

vehicle, when vehicles were traveling at slower speeds, and when vehicles were in close

proximity to the incident scene. Evaluators varied on their ability to understand the

instructions conveyed by the loudspeaker; however, all evaluators concluded the audible

alerts would not be distracting to motorists.

(3) Operational use cases to optimize use—After completing the activities, evaluators provided

feedback on possible uses cases where the benefits of ADRAS may be maximized.

(4) Suggested enhancements—Evaluators discussed enhancements to ADRAS to increase its

effectiveness for use among responder agencies. The discussion centered around making the

components of ADRAS into a “menu of options” for responder organizations to choose from

based on their existing equipment and needs.

Overall, the evaluators found that ADRAS would be beneficial as part of the suite of tools at their 

disposal for improving safety of responders on the roadway.
Approved for Public Release vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Purpose .............................................................................................................................................. 1

1.2 Objectives........................................................................................................................................... 2

1.3 Participants ........................................................................................................................................ 2

1.4 Requirements .................................................................................................................................... 2

1.5 System Description ........................................................................................................................... 3

2.0 Operational Field Assessment Design ................................................................................................. 5

2.1 Event Design ...................................................................................................................................... 5

2.2 Scope and Limitations ...................................................................................................................... 5

2.3 Deviations from the Test Plan .......................................................................................................... 7

3.0 Results ................................................................................................................................................... 9

3.1 Effectiveness for Responders ........................................................................................................... 9

3.2 Effectiveness for Motorists ............................................................................................................. 14

3.3 Other Feedback ............................................................................................................................... 19

3.3.1 Use Cases ................................................................................................................................. 19

3.3.2 Adjustments to Enhance Safety Vest ...................................................................................... 20

3.3.3 Adjustments to Vehicle-Mounted System ............................................................................... 21

3.3.4 Additional Enhancements ........................................................................................................ 22

4.0 Conclusions .......................................................................................................................................... 23

5.0 References ........................................................................................................................................... 24

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-1 ADRAS Vehicle Mounted Deployment ...................................................................................... 3

Figure 1-2 ADRAS Controllers ...................................................................................................................... 4

Figure 1-3 ADRAS Enhanced Safety Vest ................................................................................................... 4

Figure 2-1 Map of OFA Activities ................................................................................................................. 5

Figure 2-2 OFA Participants Attending the Familiarization Session ......................................................... 6

Figure 2-3 ADRAS Vehicle Mounted System under Evaluation with Two Test Vehicles .......................... 8

Figure 3-1 Sufficiency of Alerts for Responder Action ............................................................................. 10

Figure 3-2 Deployment of ADRAS and Impact on Roadway Operations................................................. 11

Figure 3-3 Potential Effectiveness of Enhanced Safety Vest Lighting during Nighttime Operations ... 11

Figure 3-4 An Evaluator Demonstrates the Enhanced Safety Vest Lighting Feature ............................ 12

Figure 3-5 Usability of Videos for Post-Incident Activities ....................................................................... 12
Approved for Public Release vii

Figure 3-6 “Front” (Left) and “Rear” (Right) Images Taken from the ADRAS Video Cameras .............. 13

Figure 3-7 Screenshot of Sample Meta Data File .................................................................................... 13

Figure 3-8 ADRAS Vehicle under Evaluation at Site 3 ............................................................................. 14

Figure 3-9 Overall Ability of Evaluators to Hear Loudspeaker in Quiet Car across all Sites ................. 15

Figure 3-10 Overall Ability of Evaluators to Hear Loudspeaker in Loud Car across all Sites ................ 15

Figure 3-11 Ability of Evaluators to Hear Loudspeaker in Quiet Car by Site .......................................... 16

Figure 3-12 Ability of Evaluators to Hear Loudspeaker in Loud Car by Site .......................................... 16

Figure 3-13 Ability of Loudspeaker to Distract Motorists ........................................................................ 17

Figure 3-14 Clarity of Instructions Provided to Motorists by Site ........................................................... 17

Figure 3-15 Conspicuity of Responders and Responder Vehicles on Roadway in Daylight .................. 18

Figure 3-16 Overall Conspicuity of Responders and Responder Vehicles on Roadway ....................... 18

Figure 3-17 Evaluators, Wearing Safety Vests Test the Range of the Vests.......................................... 20

Figure 3-18 Telescopic Mast with Radar and Loudspeakers is Halfway Raised during Testing .......... 21

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1-1 OFA Participants .......................................................................................................................... 2

Table 1-2 ADRAS Requirements Matrix ...................................................................................................... 3

Table 2-1 Assessment Activities ................................................................................................................. 6

Table 2-2 Vehicle Speeds Adjusted for OFA ............................................................................................... 7
Approved for Public Release 1 

1.0 INTRODUCTION

In 2015, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Science and Technology Directorate’s 

(S&T’s) First Responder Technologies Division (R-Tech) issued a Broad Agency Announcement (BAA)

(U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Science and Technology Directorate, 2015)ii for 

technology solutions to meet the goal of enhancing roadway safety for responders, with a specific 

focus on maximizing visibility of the responder through personal protective equipment (PPE). This 

requirement was identified through DHS S&T First Responder Resource Group (FRRG), a collection of 

more than 100 first responders from across the country with experience and proficiency in various 

areas of emergency response activities. In 2016, Applied Research Associates Inc. (ARA) was 

awarded a contract by DHS S&T to develop a technology called the Automated Driver and Responder 

Alert System (ADRAS) to meet the stated objectives of the BAA.

ADRAS combines driver notification, increased responder and responder vehicle visibility and multimodal warnings (visual, tactile and audible) to improve the safety of responders facilitating roadway 

emergency operations. ADRAS consists of two main components: (1) a vehicle-mounted mast 

comprised of loudspeakers, a radar system, a low frequency tone siren and two video cameras, and 

(2) an enhanced safety vest equipped with light-emitting diode (LED) lights and a small oscillatory

motor. For the purpose of this report, “responders” will be used to describe the roadway incident

response personnel for whom this technology has been designed. Roadway incident response

personnel includes, but is not limited to, the following core competencies: law enforcement, fire

services, emergency medical services, roadway incident management and towing.

R-Tech’s goal is to develop technologies that address mission capability gaps in a rapid time frame.

As R-Tech projects near completion, the National Urban Security Technology Laboratory (NUSTL)

conducts an operational field assessment (OFA) of the technology’s capabilities and operational

suitability to verify and document that project goals were achieved. On August 23, 2018, NUSTL

conducted an OFA of ADRAS at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) in Cheltenham,

Maryland. During this OFA, six responders served as evaluators and engaged in various activities

using ADRAS’s vehicle mounted system and enhanced safety vest. They provided feedback on the

effectiveness, functionality, deployability and usability of the technology in various roadway

scenarios. This report describes the OFA activities performed, the results from those activities and

the evaluators’ feedback.

1.1 PURPOSE

The purpose of the OFA was to assess ADRAS’s effectiveness, functionality, deployability and 

usability for responders in a simulated operational environment.

ii The Emergency Vehicle Safety Initiative (U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Federal Emergency Management 

Agency, February 2014) stated that “historically approximately 25% of all firefighter fatalities in the U.S. are the result of 

vehicle-related incidents” and “the leading cause of law enforcement officer fatalities in the last 11 of the 12 previous 

years at the time this report was concluded.” Note that not all vehicle-related incidents occur when responding to 

emergency scenes on roadways; it also includes vehicle crashes in both official and personally owned vehicles.
Approved for Public Release 2 

1.2 OBJECTIVES

The OFA was designed to assess the:

• Effectiveness of the audible system (loudspeakers) and enhanced safety vests in alerting

motorists of an incident scene on the roadway

• Effectiveness and functionality of the vehicle-mounted system and enhanced safety vest in

alerting responders of an inbound vehicle in time to take proper protective action

• Deployability of the technology without impeding standard procedures

• Usability and donning of enhanced safety vests

1.3 PARTICIPANTS

Table 1-1 lists the OFA participants. Six evaluators from five different agencies participated, along 

with assessment team members, the technology developer, and stakeholder observers.

Table 1-1 OFA Participants 

Role Organization 

Evaluators 

• Maryland Department of Transportation (MD DOT)

• Silver Spring Fire Department (Maryland)

• Narragansett Police Department Retiree (Rhode Island)

• Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)

• National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)

Venue Host/Motorists Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC)

Program Managers and 

Support Staff 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Science and

Technology Directorate (S&T) First Responder Technologies 

Division (R-Tech)

OFA Test Director and Data 

Collectors DHS S&T National Urban Security Technology Laboratory (NUSTL) 

Technology Developer Applied Research Associates Inc. (ARA)

Observers DHS S&T, Department of Justice, FHWA

Photographer and 

Videographer

DHS S&T Communications, Outreach and Responder 

Engagement 

1.4 REQUIREMENTS

Table 1-2 summarizes the requirements of ADRAS and how it was assessed during the OFA. These

requirements are drawn from the Enhanced Roadway Safety for First Responders Statement of 

Objectives (U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Science and Technology Directorate, 

2015) and compiled into a Needs Notification Form completed by the R-Tech Program Manager 

and provided to NUSTL.
Approved for Public Release 3 

Table 1-2 ADRAS Requirements Matrix

Capability Requirement Test Method 

Effectiveness 

for Motorist(s)

Audible System (vehicle-mounted) 

• Loudspeakers provide clear instructions to the motorist(s) to

take action

• Loudspeakers do not distract or inhibit the oncoming

motorist(s) from driving safely

• Loudspeakers are installed on a tall upright pole (mast) to

increase conspicuity of the responder vehicle for motorist(s)

Enhanced Safety Vests (worn by responders)

• Enhanced safety vest lighting makes responders more visible

to oncoming motorist(s)

• Enhanced safety vest lighting does not distract or inhibit the

oncoming motorist(s) from driving safely

Evaluators, as passengers in 

vehicles approaching simulated 

roadway incidents, assessed the 

conspicuity of ADRAS for four 

different roadway geometries, with 

varying noise level conditions.

Additionally, evaluators assessed 

the visibility of the enhanced safety 

vest using a darkened classroom. 

Functionality for 

Responder(s)

• Enhanced safety vest lighting and vibration are sufficient to

alert responders of approaching vehicle

• Loudspeaker volume is sufficient to alert a responder of

approaching vehicle

Evaluators assessed the lighting, 

vibration and loudspeaker features 

of the system using simulated 

roadway incidents on four roadway 

geometries. 

Deployability

• ADRAS can be deployed by responder(s) without impeding their

emergency response activities

• With minimal training, responders can quickly establish

threshold speeds before deploying ADRAS

• Video recorded by ADRAS can be easily viewed by responder(s)

if needed

Evaluators deployed ADRAS and set 

threshold values to assess ease of 

use. Additionally, evaluators 

watched video recordings in a 

classroom to assess the camera’s 

ability to capture images of the 

roadway, and oncoming vehicles, 

from both the front and back of 

ADRAS. 

Usability 

• Donning of the enhanced safety vest does not impede

emergency response operations

• Wearing of the enhanced safety vest does not impede

emergency response activities

Evaluators donned enhanced safety 

vests for simulated emergency 

response operations to assess its 

impact on responder activities. 

1.5 SYSTEM DESCRIPTION

The vehicle-mounted component of ADRAS (Figure 1-1) 

consists of a telescoping mast with loudspeakers, a 

radar system, a low frequency tone siren, and two video 

cameras. It integrates existing technologies into a single 

platform and is designed to be deployable by a single 

responder. The mast can be raised, lowered and rotated 

on the roof of the vehicle using a controller (Figure 1-2, 

left). A second controller (Figure 1-2, right) is used to 

power on the radar and loudspeakers, and to set a 

threshold speed ranging from 25 to 65 miles per hour 

(mph). This controller also has a test button that allows 

responders to hear the system alerts at a lower volume. Figure 1-1 ADRAS Vehicle Mounted Deployment

Courtesy of ARA
Approved for Public Release 4 

The second component of ADRAS, the enhanced 

safety vest (or network of multiple vests), is an 

American National Standards Institute standard 

safety vest that has been equipped with LED 

lights and a small oscillatory motor on the left 

shoulder that provides tactile warning inside the 

vest (Figure 1-3). The enhanced safety vest is 

paired with the vehicle mounted system through a 

ZigBee® radio intended for low-power, low data 

rate, close proximity (estimated at about 50 

meters) wireless networks. The LED lights and 

oscillatory motors are activated when an 

oncoming vehicle does not heed the alert to slow 

down provided by the vehicle mounted system. 

ADRAS is intended to provide an early audible 

warning of an upcoming traffic incident area to 

approaching motorists, instructing them to slow 

down or take the necessary actions to safely 

avoid the scene. Once activated, ADRAS’s radar 

detects the speed of oncoming vehicles. If the 

speed exceeds the responder-set threshold, a first 

audible alert initiates a siren and can include a 

message through the loudspeaker. Audible 

messages can be pre-set or changed prior to 

deployment. If the system’s radar detects a 

vehicle that fails to slow down, the audible 

message increases in intensity and the 

responder’s enhanced safety vest will illuminate, 

providing the responder a visual warning of a 

possible threat and making the responder more 

visible to motorists. If the vehicle continues to pose a threat by failing to slow down or change 

lanes as it comes closer to the ADRAS, the enhanced safety vest will flash and vibrate, and the 

vehicle mounted system will sound a loud warning to alert the responders. In addition, ADRAS has 

the capability to continuously record video once it is deployed, which may be useful in accident 

investigations. This feature can be disabled, or omitted entirely, if not required or desired by the 

responder agency. 

Figure 1-2 ADRAS Controllers

Courtesy of DHS S&T (Left Image) and ARA (Right Image)

Figure 1-3 ADRAS Enhanced Safety Vest

Courtesy of ARA
Approved for Public Release 5 

2.0 OPERATIONAL FIELD ASSESSMENT DESIGN

2.1 EVENT DESIGN

For this OFA, six responders from the law enforcement, roadway incident management and 

operations and emergency medical service disciplines served as evaluators to assess the 

functionality, capability and usability of the system. The OFA was conducted at FLETC in 

Cheltenham, Maryland, where evaluators participated in various activities (Table 2-1) at four sites: 

a classroom located in Building 3 and three simulated roadway incident sites with various 

roadway geometries (Figure 2-1). Evaluators were grouped into pairs and a data collector from 

NUSTL was assigned to each pair. The data collectors facilitated the test activities, recorded

observations and comments during each activity and gathered feedback from each evaluator 

following the completion of all activities at each site using a questionnaire. Following the 

operational activities, a group debrief was held to solicit additional feedback from the evaluators.

Observers from federal agencies watched the OFA activities and provided feedback during the 

group debrief session. 

Figure 2-1 Map of OFA Activities 

2.2 SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS

The OFA consisted of the following components:

• Classroom Presentation and Technology Familiarization: The OFA began with an introductory

session providing participants with an overview of the R-Tech program, the schedule and

planned activities for the OFA and a site safety briefing. ARA provided an overview of ADRAS in

the classroom, which included background on the development of the technology and

previous testing conducted. This overview was followed by a familiarization session outdoors

on the driving track (Figure 2-2) where evaluators learned to power on, deploy and stow the

ADRAS mast, power on the system, set speed thresholds and use the test functionality.
Approved for Public Release 6 

Figure 2-2 OFA Participants Attending the Familiarization Session

• Assessment Activities: After the familiarization sessions, the evaluators performed the

activities listed in Table 2-1 at Sites 1 through 3 and inside the classroom. After completing

the activities at each site and in the classroom, evaluators provided direct feedback to NUSTL

data collectors. NUSTL data collectors also recorded any feedback and comments during the

activities. Full details of the event design are described in the Automated Driver and

Responder Alert System Operational Field Assessment Plan (U.S. Department of Homeland

Security (DHS), Science and Technology Directorate, August 2018).

Table 2-1 Assessment Activities 

Number Activity 

Title Activity Description Purpose 

1 Vest

Evaluators don enhanced safety 

vests and perform actions typical of 

their response operations at a 

roadway incident 

To assess the system’s ability to notify responders about 

an approaching vehicle and to assess the usability of the 

enhanced safety vest to ensure it does not impede 

evaluators’ normal wear and use of uniforms and PPE. 

2 Partner

Evaluators act as the response 

partner to evaluators in Activity 1 

and observe activities 

To assess the system’s ability to notify responders about 

an approaching vehicle; and to assess the usability of the 

enhanced safety vest to ensure it does not impede 

evaluators’ normal wear and use of uniforms and PPE.

3 Motorist Evaluators act as motorists To assess the system’s effectiveness for motorists on 

different roadway geometries.

4 Deployment Evaluators deploy ADRAS at the 

scene of a roadway incident To assess the ease of setting up and configuring ADRAS.

5 Night Use Evaluators don the safety vest in 

darkened room 

To assess the enhanced safety vest’s lighting system and 

its visibility in no or low light conditions.

6 Video Evaluators watch video replay of 

roadway activities 

To assess if this feature is effective for responders for 

capturing the scene, scene reconstruction and other postincident uses.
Approved for Public Release 7 

• Debrief: A debrief session, facilitated by the NUSTL OFA Test Director, was held at the

conclusion of all activities with all OFA participants.

As described in the test plan, the OFA had several limitations in the design and execution of the 

assessment, including:

• Effectiveness of the Loudspeaker: The OFA was held on a closed test site, where the drivers

and evaluators were all knowledgeable about the technology and its intended purpose to alert

drivers; therefore, the effectiveness of ADRAS’s loudspeaker for unknowing drivers in varying

environments was not assessed.

• Season, Weather, and Time of Day: The OFA was held in August in Maryland during traditional

work hours. Based on the time of sunrise and sunset, the OFA did not fully assess ADRAS in

all light levels nor did it assess ADRAS under various weather conditions such as rain or fog.

Classroom activities aimed to mimic conditions of low-and no-light.

2.3 DEVIATIONS FROM THE TEST PLAN

There were several deviations from the test plan, including:

• Speed of Vehicles on Tracks 1, 2a and 2b: During set-up the day before the OFA, speed limits

for three of the driving tracks were adjusted to accommodate for roadway conditions and

placements of ADRAS. Adjustments are shown in Table 2-2 below.

Table 2-2 Vehicle Speeds Adjusted for OFA

Track Label Description Test Plan: Estimated 

Speed of Vehicle 

OFA: Estimated Speed 

of Vehicle 

Track 1 (Blue) Straightaway 65 mph 55 mph

Track 2a (Green) Mild curve 55 mph 45 mph

Track 2b (Yellow) Large curve 35 mph 25 mph

Track 3 (Orange) 90-degree turn 25 mph No change

• Addition of Activity 3 (Motorist) at Site 2a: The test plan did not call for evaluators to execute

Activity 3 (motorist) on Track 2a. Based on time and availability of evaluators during the OFA,

evaluators performed Activity 3 on all four tracks. However, feedback from Activity 3 was

combined for Tracks 2a and 2b as Site 2 feedback.

• Number of Runs at Each Site: The test plan had prescribed a limited number of runs at each

site which took a shorter amount of time to complete than initially anticipated. As such,

additional time was available and used to fulfill specific requests from evaluators for the

vehicle to travel at other speeds and in different lanes than dictated in the test plan. This

flexibility allowed evaluators to get a stronger understanding of the system’s components.
Approved for Public Release 8 

• Additional Vehicle: During activities at Site 2a, an additional FLETC vehicle became available

on the track, as shown in Figure 2-3. Evaluators and observers requested this additional

vehicle drive past ADRAS in separate lanes, at various speeds and distances from the other

vehicle on the track to see how the system works with multiple vehicles. Feedback from

evaluators was incorporated into overall feedback provided in the questionnaire and allowed

evaluators to gain a stronger understanding of the technology.

Figure 2-3 ADRAS Vehicle Mounted System under Evaluation with Two Test Vehicles

• Activity 5 (Night Use): The test plan called for this activity to take place in a darkened

classroom so observers could also see the lights on the enhanced safety vest in low- and nolight conditions. The classroom could not be darkened, so this activity was conducted in a

smaller utility closet next to the classroom. All evaluators participated in this activityiii.

iii Some of the other OFA participants chose not to observe this activity. 
Approved for Public Release 9 

3.0 RESULTS

This section contains feedback from the evaluators’ questionnaires and group discussions. 

Section 3.1 summarizes the results of the evaluator feedback during activities that inform how 

effective ADRAS is for responders. Section 3.2 summarizes the results of the evaluator feedback 

during activities when evaluators were acting as motorists. Section 3.3 summarizes the feedback 

received during the familiarization session and during the group debrief session. This feedback 

includes evaluator feedback on possible operational scenarios where the technology may be best 

employed, enhancements to the vehicle-mounted and enhanced safety vests components and 

additional areas for innovation that may improve the technology’s operational use.

3.1 EFFECTIVENESS FOR RESPONDERS

Five of the activities were designed for responders to understand how ADRAS could enhance their 

safety and to determine if ADRAS would impede their normal activities while responding to a 

roadway incident: 

• Activity 1: Evaluators donned the enhanced safety vests and performed actions typical of their

response operation at a roadway incident to assess the system’s ability to notify responders

about an approaching vehicle and to assess the usability of the enhanced safety vest to

ensure that it does not impede evaluators’ wear and use of their uniforms and PPE.

• Activity 2: Evaluators acted as the response partner to evaluators in Activity 1 and observed

activities to assess the system’s ability to notify responders about an approaching vehicle and

to assess the usability of the enhanced safety vest.

• Activity 4: Evaluators deployed ADRAS at the scene of a roadway incident to assess the ease

of setting up and configuring the vehicle-mounted component of ADRAS.

• Activity 5: Evaluators donned the enhanced safety vest in a darkened room to assess the

lighting system and the ability to operate in no- or low-light conditions.

• Activity 6: Evaluators watched video replay of roadway activities to assess the effectiveness of

the camera in capturing the scene for scene reconstruction and other-post incident uses.

Sufficiency of Alerts for Responder Action 

During Activities 1 and 2, the six evaluators were asked the same questions regarding the 

sufficiency of the audible alerts from the loudspeakers and the low frequency tone siren as well as 

the enhanced safety vest vibrations, from the perspective of both a responder and a second 

responder observing activities of their partner. 

All evaluators either agreed or strongly agreed that the volume of the loudspeaker and low 

frequency tone siren were sufficient to alert them of an approaching vehicle, that both alerts gave 

them sufficient time to react or respond to the notification and that the vibration added to the 

enhanced safety vest was sufficient to alert them that a vehicle was approaching. These results 

are shown in Figure 3-1. 
Figure 3-1 Sufficiency of Alerts for Responder Action

Approved for Public Release 10

One evaluator noted that additional testing on the suitability of the enhanced safety vest vibration 

would be required for responders who wear heavier PPE, such as firefighter turnout gear, and 

warming layers during colder times of the year because thicker layers may inhibit their ability to 

feel the small vibration. Another evaluator noted that an unintended consequence of the high 

volume of the low frequency tone siren and loudspeaker volume could be that responders may 

not be able to hear each other while working on an incident scene or hear the public they are 

interacting with on the roadway.

Deployability of ADRAS and Impact on Roadway Operations 

Evaluators were asked to provide feedback on the deployment of the vehicle-mounted system 

(Activity 4) and if the enhanced safety vests would impede their activities (Activities 1, 2). All 

evaluators either agreed or strongly agreed that deployment of the vehicle-mounted system was 

simple and that establishing wanted threshold speeds for passing traffic was easy. Additionally, all 

evaluators either agreed or strongly agreed that the enhanced safety vests would not impede the 

activities they needed to complete when responding to a roadway incident. However, responses 

varied on whether the deployment of the vehicle-mounted system would interfere with duties. 

Three evaluators—from roadway incident management and law enforcement—did not believe they 

could deploy the system without interfering with their duties. During the debrief session, 

evaluators and observers noted that the time required for raising and lowering the mast of the 

vehicle-mounted component, approximately 30 seconds, may impede law enforcement operations 

on a roadway in cases such as speeding infractions and/or erratic driving. The results on the 

system’s deployability and its impact on operations are shown in Figure 3-2. 
Approved for Public Release 11

Figure 3-2 Deployment of ADRAS and Impact on Roadway Operations

Effectiveness During Nighttime Operations

During Activity 5, evaluators were asked to evaluate the enhanced safety vest lighting in a 

darkened room to assess its potential effectiveness during nighttime operations. Four of the 

evaluators either agreed or strongly agreed that the enhanced safety vest lighting would not 

impede their duties at night, nor would the lights be distracting while performing duties. Two of 

the evaluators answered not applicable as to whether the enhanced safest vest lighting was 

distracting during nighttime operations because they did not think the testing environment of a 

quiet, darkened room was representative of a nighttime roadway environment. The results for 

potential effectiveness of the enhanced safety vest during nighttime operations are shown in 

Figure 3-3. A photo of the enhanced safety vest lighting in a darkened room is in Figure 3-4. 

Figure 3-3 Potential Effectiveness of Enhanced Safety Vest Lighting during Nighttime Operations
Approved for Public Release 12

Figure 3-4 An Evaluator Demonstrates the Enhanced Safety Vest Lighting Feature

Usability of Videos and Radar Data for Post-Incident Activities 

During Activity 6, evaluators reviewed video camera images taken during the other activities. 

Evaluators had the opportunity to view several files—a “rear” camera image, facing the front of the 

vehicle that ADRAS is installed on and a “front” camera image, facing the back of that vehicle. 

Additionally, evaluators viewed a metadata file produced by the system, which could be used to 

view vehicle speeds captured by the radar and how the system was configured during operations. 

This log could be used after an incident to confirm measured vehicle speed or diagnose why the 

system did or did not trigger. Evaluators reviewed and provided feedback on several videos from 

Sites 1, 2 and 3. Overall, evaluators concurred that it was easy to obtain and review the videos 

from ADRAS. Evaluators’ opinions varied on the value of the video in supporting their operations. 

The results are shown in Figure 3-5. 

Figure 3-5 Usability of Videos for Post-Incident Activities
Approved for Public Release 13

During the debrief, evaluators expressed concerns with data management requirements of the 

video images, such as having to download, file, store and account for copious amounts of data,

and the concept of operations required for it to be effectively used by responder agencies, such as 

ensuring that responders have appropriate protocols for turning on and off the cameras and 

downloading the data. Figure 3-6 shows screen shots of video recordings from the two cameras 

installed in the vehicle-mounted system, and Figure 3-7 is a screenshot of the metadata collected 

by the system which may be reviewed as part of accident investigations. Note that after the 

system sat outside overnight, the video image quality was diminished by water on the lens (Figure 

3-6, left), likely due to rain or dew and to the fact that this ADRAS prototype does not contain a

waterproof camera. Metadata is recorded each time ADRAS alerts, and records the alert type,

date, time, speed setting and estimated speed of the passing vehicle.

Figure 3-6 “Front” (Left) and “Rear” (Right) Images Taken from the ADRAS Video Cameras

Figure 3-7 Screenshot of Sample Meta Data File 
Approved for Public Release 14

3.2 EFFECTIVENESS FOR MOTORISTS

In Activity 3, evaluators acted as motorists to assess the warning system’s effectiveness on 

different roadway geometries. This activity was completed with the vehicle-mounted system at 

three different drive-by locations under two different conditions—(1) with loud music playing in the 

vehicle and (2) with light conversation or a quiet car. The level of music or amount of conversation 

were not prescribed during the assessment; evaluators were instructed to play the music at levels 

they would normally use while driving and were instructed to converse normally as they would 

while driving or being a passenger in a vehicle. 

A baseline run was conducted for the evaluators to observe no audible alert. In both conditions as 

well as the baseline run, all windows in the vehicle were closed. The drive-by sites were used to 

depict varying roadway geometries and operational implementation of ADRAS. Site 1 was 

intended to be a straightaway at high speeds, similar to a two-lane highway. Site 1 had the highest 

speeds for the oncoming vehicle and the greatest distance between where the vehicle started and 

where the ADRAS was located. Site 2 included two tracks, a mild curve with an obstructed 

downhill view and a large curve, representing an interchange or ramp between roadways. Site 2 

had slower speeds than Site 1 and a shorter distance between the oncoming vehicle and the 

ADRAS than Site 1. Site 3 was a 90-degree turn, representing an urban area with obstructed views 

(trees). Speeds were the slowest for Site 3, and the distance between the oncoming vehicle and 

the ADRAS the shortest. These descriptions are included in Table 2-1. 

As stated in Section 2.2, the results on the effectiveness for motorists are limited as all evaluators 

were familiar with the technology and thus anticipated hearing the audible alerts and seeing

ADRAS placed on the simulated response vehicle. Figure 3-8 shows Activity 3 at Site 3.

Figure 3-8 ADRAS Vehicle under Evaluation at Site 3
Approved for Public Release 15

Ability for Passing Motorists to Hear Loudspeaker 

For quiet car situations at the three sites, most evaluators agreed they could clearly hear the 

audible alert (loudspeaker), though in a few cases, evaluators strongly disagreed or disagreed. 

With music playing, the evaluators mostly disagreed they could hear the audible alert. These 

results are shown in Figure 3-9 and Figure 3-10 as overall feedback across all three sites. One 

evaluator indicated they had limited hearing in one ear at the start of the OFA activities.

Figure 3-9 Overall Ability of Evaluators to Hear Loudspeaker in Quiet Car across all Sites

Figure 3-10 Overall Ability of Evaluators to Hear Loudspeaker in Loud Car across all Sites 
Approved for Public Release 16

Looking across the three sites, evaluators were able to hear the loudspeaker better in a quiet 

vehicle, over a vehicle with loud music playing. Additionally, as the vehicles got closer to the roadway 

incident sites where the ADRAS was located and speeds lowered (Site 1 being the furthest away and 

fastest speeds and Site 3 being the closet and slowest speeds), the ability to hear in a quiet car and 

with music playing did improve. These results are shown in Figure 3-11 and Figure 3-12. 

Figure 3-11 Ability of Evaluators to Hear Loudspeaker in Quiet Car by Site

Figure 3-12 Ability of Evaluators to Hear Loudspeaker in Loud Car by Site
Approved for Public Release 17

Effectiveness of Audible Alerts for Motorist Action 

At all three sites, evaluators either agreed or strongly agreed that the loudspeaker would not distract 

them while they were driving. These results are shown in Figure 3-13. However, at all three sites, 

evaluators had differing opinions as to whether instructions provided by ADRAS were clear and easy 

to follow. That is, while the evaluator may have heard the alerts and some messaging, they may not 

have heard the instruction, “slow down” or “slow down, now,” in a manner that would have allowed 

them to change their behavior. More evaluators agreed (though some still disagreed) that the 

instructions were easier to follow at Site 3, where the speeds were the lowest and evaluators started 

closer to the vehicle-mounted system. These results are shown in Figure 3-14. 

Figure 3-13 Ability of Loudspeaker to Distract Motorists 

Figure 3-14 Clarity of Instructions Provided to Motorists by Site
Approved for Public Release 18

Increased Conspicuity of Response Vehicle and Responders 

Lastly, evaluators were asked to assess if the ADRAS vehicle-mounted system would increase the 

conspicuity of the emergency response vehicle and if the enhanced safety vest lighting would 

increase the conspicuity of the responder. Across the three sites, evaluators mostly disagreed that 

the enhanced safety vest lighting made the responder more noticeable; however, evaluators noted 

that this was based on daylight conditions. Most responders declined to answer if the enhanced 

safety vest lighting was distracting because of the operational and light environment. Results from 

these three indicators are shown in Figure 3-15. Overall, across the three sites, evaluators agreed 

that the telescopic mast made the vehicle more noticeable. Note that during the OFA, the vehiclemounted system was placed on a mini-van, as shown in Figure 1-1. 

Figure 3-15 Conspicuity of Responders and Responder Vehicles on Roadway in Daylight 

Overall, across all three sites, evaluators all agreed or strongly agreed that the two-component 

system would not be distracting to motorists. This includes their feedback on both the loudspeaker

and the enhanced safety vest. This is shown in Figure 3-16. 

Figure 3-16 Overall Conspicuity of Responders and Responder Vehicles on Roadway
Approved for Public Release 19

3.3 OTHER FEEDBACK

Additional information was provided by the evaluators during the familiarization session and the 

debrief. Overall, the evaluators noted that ADRAS would be a valuable addition to existing safety 

mechanisms and technologies for responders on the roadway (such as cones and other markings 

that alert motorists to their presence) but not something that would be used as a stand-alone tool. 

One evaluator used the analogy of a seatbelt and air bags for motorist safety, by saying that 

airbags do not replace the safety need of wearing a seatbelt, but instead together seatbelts and 

airbags improve the safety of motorists.

3.3.1 USE CASES

For law enforcement use cases, evaluators expressed that ADRAS would be useful in urban 

and rural settings for crime scene investigations or crash reconstruction teams, where highspeed traffic volume is limited. Additional use cases may include traffic management and postaccident situations. Evaluators and observers with law enforcement experience noted that this 

technology would not applicable for traffic stops because the requirement of stowing the mast 

before driving would impede an officer’s ability to pursue a car fleeing the scene. An evaluator 

noted that this system may not require a mast, depending on the vehicle on which it was 

installed (i.e., a vehicle already equipped with radar and loudspeakers). 

For traffic incident management use cases, evaluators indicated that ADRAS would be useful

as an advance warning signal during incidents in rural settings and also for lane closures. 

Evaluators would not solely want to use ADRAS, but instead would use it as part of their 

existing tools to manage incidents and alerts motorists about activities on the roadway. One 

evaluator noted that cue warnings, (e.g., variable message and electronic signs that are 

routinely used to alert drivers to construction activity on the roadway) decrease secondary 

accidents, and ADRAS may be useful in that capacity. Another evaluator noted that rural 

usages might pose noise issues among neighbors if the system is consistently alerting on 

speeding traffic.

For emergency medical services, an evaluator noted that ADRAS would be useful in incidents

where extractions are needed, where the responders’ focus would primarily be on the patient

they are tending to, and during late-night scenarios, which are the most dangerous based on 

limited visibility. 

An evaluator noted that tow-truck drivers have the highest rate of death on the roadway from 

being struck by vehicles (Bergal, 2015), but integration of additional technology may not be 

practical to these applications as many tow-trucks are privately owned and operated. Lastly, an 

evaluator noted that another use case for the technology could be with the Corrections

departments, where in some jurisdictions, inmates perform trash collection in medians and on 

shoulders.
Approved for Public Release 20

3.3.2 ADJUSTMENTS TO ENHANCE SAFETY VEST

Evaluators indicated that increasing the vibration in the enhanced safety vest to both shoulders 

to add more points of contact and/or to a more sensitive area such as the back of the neck 

would increase the effectiveness for responders wearing it. Additionally, evaluators commented 

that battery management in the enhanced safety vests would be needed, noting that during the 

OFA the two AAA batteries used to power the vest drained between the dry-run conducted the 

day before and the actual event the next day. It was recommended that an “off” or “sleep” 

function for the enhanced safety vests be included to preserve battery life. Evaluators noted 

that responders may have a false sense of security that there was no risk if their vests did not 

light up/vibrate, but it may be a battery issue.

ARA-provided specifications indicated an approximate range of 50 meters for the ZigBee®; 

however, OFA participants observed a range of approximately 75 meters. Evaluators noted this 

range may be limiting, and suggested that a range of approximately 200 meters would be ideal 

in all directions from the incident. Figure 3-17 shows evaluators in safety vests on the very far 

left side (in the background of the image) assessing the range in distance of ADRAS.

Evaluators noted that a network calibration for the vests would be ideal to ensure all 

responders vests are activated at the same time. A best practice would need to be developed 

for responders at the start of their shift to ensure connectivity. Lastly, the enhanced safety 

vests that were used during the OFA did not include side tear-aways (Velcro strips on the side 

of safety vests from the arm-pit down to the bottom of the vest that allow for the vest to be 

easily torn off a responder if the safety vest becomes attached to something, such as a moving 

car). Multiple evaluators noted that tear-away safety vests were required for their agencies.

Figure 3-17 Evaluators, Wearing Safety Vests(on far left side in yellow circle), Test the Range of the Vests
Approved for Public Release 21

3.3.3 ADJUSTMENTS TO VEHICLE-MOUNTED SYSTEM

Evaluators suggested that the vehicle-mounted system could be offered in a “menu of options” 

for customization to responder organizations, as some organizations already use some of the 

components, such as the low frequency tone siren. This customization would allow for various 

configurations that may be optimal for different use cases. Evaluators noted that some 

components of the system could be integrated directly into the responder vehicle, so that the 

radar, loudspeaker and camera would be the only items needed outside the vehicle. 

Additionally, evaluators suggested that a single, combined controller, which could be activated 

from inside the emergency vehicle, possibly from the dashboard, would be useful. ARA noted 

that plans were already underway for this change. Discussion on the mast, as noted before,

focused on its deployability. An evaluator noted that an alert should be provided to responders 

if they begin to drive with the mast still deployed. Figure 3-18 shows the telescopic pole as its 

being raised or lowered—it is neither stowed nor operational as it is shown in this image.

Figure 3-18 Telescopic Mast with Radar and Loudspeakers is Halfway Raised during Testing

Differing opinions emerged on the type and range of the radar. One evaluator noted that a twopanel radar may provide additional range. This evaluation was noted after evaluators 

completed Activity 4 (Deployment) and intentionally placed the radar in a non-line of sight angle 

to see if ADRAS was triggered (it was not). However, other evaluators noted that it would be 

preferable if the system only concerned one or two lanes of traffic to minimize false alerts. It 

was suggested a lidar would be better because lidar has better bearing resolution, allowing it to 

better distinguish which lane a vehicle is in.

As noted in Section 3.1, evaluators had mixed responses to the inclusion of the video cameras. 

Evaluators noted that requirements for records retention and data management differ by 

organization, and applicable laws and regulations may require organizations to have 

procedures and policies before they could integrate this into their operations. ARA noted that 

the recording capabilities could easily be removed from the system by simply taking out the

USB where videos are saved and, if ADRAS was customizable, the camera could be optional.
Approved for Public Release 22

3.3.4 ADDITIONAL ENHANCEMENTS

Evaluators noted that an additional feature that would benefit both motorists and responders 

would be connecting the deployment of the mast to mapping services, such as Waze or Google 

Maps, which would notify motorists of an incident scene as well. One evaluator noted that the 

audible alerts could also be integrated into upcoming “smart highway” projects that would air 

alerts through radios in personal vehicles. Evaluators also noted that additional technology and 

alerts could be added to the system, such as an alert from a lightning detection device to 

protect responders on the roadway from lightning strikes. While not noted by evaluators, the 

developer plans additional weather proofing of the camera lens and system connections based 

on their experience from the OFA. Lastly, it was noted that any new equipment would need to 

fall within a category of the Federal Emergency Management Agency Authorized Equipment List 

to facilitate responder purchasing.
Approved for Public Release 23

4.0 CONCLUSIONS

The objectives of the OFA were to obtain responder feedback on ADRAS’s effectiveness, functionality, 

deployability and usability. 

Overall, evaluators agreed on the effectiveness of the technology in alerting responders through both 

audible, visible and tactile notifications in the vehicle-mounted system and the enhanced safety vest. 

However, some evaluators noted the technology would not be applicable to all operational use cases, 

specifically for law enforcement, and may impede their ability to conduct their operations while 

responding to roadway incidents.

When evaluators assessed the effectiveness of the system as occupants of a vehicle driving by a 

scene, they found that it was easier to hear the loudspeaker in a quiet car over a car with loud music 

playing, when cars were traveling at slower speeds and when in closer proximity to the incident 

scene. Evaluators varied on their ability to understand the instructions to the passing vehicle 

provided during the test; however, all evaluators concluded that it would not be distracting to 

motorists. In this test, the evaluators were familiar with the technology and expected to hear the 

audible alerts and see ADRAS placed on the simulated response vehicle; reactions of drivers not 

anticipating the warnings may differ.

Evaluators offered several ideas for enhancing the technology to make it more effective and useable. 

They concurred that the components of ADRAS should be offered as a “menu of options” for 

responder organizations to pick and choose from based on their existing equipment and response 

needs. They suggested increasing the usability of the vehicle-mounted system through the use of 

different radar options, a single (one-piece) controller or integrating ADRAS controls into the vehicle 

dashboard and adding alerts to notify responders that the telescopic-mast is deployed before they 

begin to drive again. Evaluators varied in their feedback on the usefulness of the video camera 

systems, primarily due to the concerns associated with varying data management policies.

Overall, evaluators found that ADRAS would be beneficial as part of the suite of tools at their disposal 

for improving safety of responders on the roadway. 
Approved for Public Release 24

5.0 REFERENCES

Applied Research Associates, Inc. (2015, November 20). Broad Agency Announcement Proposal, BAA 

13-012 Call 0004-TTA-6-0001-I: A System to Enhance Roadway Safety for First Responders.

Applied Research Associates, Inc. (2018, April 27). Phone conference with technology developers 

and NUSTL.

Bergal, J. (2015, 3 June). More Over Laws Aim to Save Emergency Responders' Lives on Highways. 

Emergency Management. GOVTECH.COM. Retrieved from Government Technology: 

http://www.govtech.com/em/safety/Move-Over-Laws-Aim-Save-Lives-Highways.html

National Highway Transportation Safety Administration. (2014, December 12). Get the Facts: Move 

Over. It's the Law. Retrieved from 

https://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/communications/pdf/MoveOver_QA.pdf

U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Compliance Assurance Program Office. (June 2018, 

June 28). DHS Regulatory Compliance Assessment: First Responder Technology (R-Tech) 

Study. DHS Science and Technology Directorate.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Federal Emergency Management Agency. (February 

2014). Emergency Vehicle Safety Initiative (FA-336). U.S. Fire Administration. Retrieved from 

https://www.usfa.fema.gov/operations/ops_vehicle.html 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Science and Technology Directorate. (2015, October 

13). Enhanced Safety for First Responders Statement of Objectives (BAA 13-012/Call 

0004/S00F).

U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Science and Technology Directorate. (2018, May 16). 

Retrieved from Automated Driver and Responder Alert System (ADRAS) Fact Sheet: 

https://www.dhs.gov/publication/adras-fact-sheet

U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Science and Technology Directorate. (August 2018). 

Automated Driver and Responder Alert System Operational Field Assessment Plan. National 

Urban Security Technology Laboratory. New York, NY: DHS Science and Technology 

Directorate.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Science and Technology Directorate. (July 2014). 

Project Responder 4: 2014 National Technology Plan for Emergency Response to 

Catastrophic Incidents. Falls Church, VA: Homeland Security Studies and Analysis Institute, 

Analytic Services Incorporated. Retrieved from https://www.dhs.gov/publication/pr4-

emergency-response-plan-incidents-2014

U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), Federal Highway Administration. (2009). Manual on 

Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways. DOT. Retrieved from 

https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/kno_2009r1r2.htm

U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), Federal Highway Administration. (January 2010). 2010 

Traffic Incident Management Handbook Update. Office of Transportation Operations. DOT. 

Retrieved from https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/eto_tim_pse/publications/timhandbook/index.htm