Driving Event Detection and Driving Style Classification using Artificial
Neural Networks
Patrick Brombacher1 , Johannes Masino2 , Michael Frey2 , Frank Gauterin2
Abstract— Knowledge about the driving behavior of a driver
is important for applications in many different areas, especially
for Advanced Driver Assistance Systems. The driving style does
not only affect the current driver and his vehicle but also his
environment. For example, usage-based insurances classify the
driving style in order to reward calm drivers by granting them a
discount. In this paper we present a novel algorithm to provide
an accurate classification of a person’s driving style. Our model
is based on the identification of driving maneuvers and the
classification of the driving style for these events using artificial
neural networks. Furthermore, an overall score of the driving
style for one trip is calculated based on the classified events. We
validate our developed model in 58 test trips from different test
drivers using a recently developed low-cost measuring device
based on a Raspberry Pi. The results of our validation show
that the model can identify more than 90 % of the driving
maneuvers correctly. Moreover, the driving style classification
matches the assessment of the driver in 81 % of the relevant
trips with a normalized average mean squared error of less
than 11 %. In addition, a moving average of the calculated
score for each event shows validated changes in the driving
behavior of the test persons.
I. I NTRODUCTION
Active vehicle safety systems have become more important
in recent years and are one reason for the decrease of
accidental deaths in road traffic [1]. The current driving style
could be an additional input for an active vehicle safety
system to warn the driver or to adjust vehicle dynamics in
an event of dangerous driving behavior or if the driving style
is not safe in the current environment, e.g. in case of low
frictional connection due to rain.
Moreover, driving style is one important factor for usage-
based insurances. Drivers with a less aggressive driving
behavior can benefit from reduced insurance premiums. The
knowledge about their driving styles and financial benefits
might also motivate drivers to adjust to a more efficient
and fuel saving driving behavior. The data used for driving
style classification can be recorded by vehicle or smartphone
sensors, or a dedicated black box. Furthermore, driving style
plays an important role in the charging strategy of hybrid
electric vehicles. The control strategy can be adjusted to
the driving behavior, e.g. to greater boosting capability for
dynamic driving styles [2].
1 Patrick Brombacher is with the School of Industrial Engineering and
Management, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Germany, and has
written his master thesis at the Institute of Vehicle System Technology, KIT
p.brombacher@gmx.net
2 Johannes Masino, Michael Frey and Frank Gauterin are with the Institute
of Vehicle System Technology, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT),
Kaiserstr. 12, 76131 Karlsruhe, Germany {johannes.masino,
michael.frey, frank.gauterin}@kit.edu
l-))) 
Since there are many applications for the knowledge of
driving style, many studies and patents exist, which present
models for driving style recognition. The methods to estimate
driving style presented in previous literature can be distin-
guished with respect to the hardware to collect the data on
the one hand as well as to the approach and the algorithm
used for classification on the other hand.
Many authors use sensors of modern smartphones [3]–
[5]. This approach has many advantages, since smartphones
are widely used and provide a powerful platform with both
multiple sensors and the possibility to implement an algo-
rithm for on-line calculations [6]. Furthermore, sensor data
for driving style classification can also be accessed through
the vehicle’s CAN bus [7]. However, the vehicle manufac-
turer usually encrypts such data, which makes it difficult
to read them without additional information. Summarized,
inertial sensor data, such as acceleration or angular rate, are
essentially important for driving behavior classification. In
addition, GPS sensors are often used to determine the speed
and position of the vehicle [3].
The driving style can either be classified continuously or
based on individual events of a trip, such as accelerations
or curves. The Dynamic Time Warping (DTW) algorithm is
often applied for the latter approach [3], [5]. An algorithm
often used for continuous classification independent from
driving maneuvers is the fuzzy logic [8]–[10]. In contrast
to binary logic, in which classifications are defined with
exact thresholds, one can implement continuous transitions
in fuzzy-logic systems by making gradations between the
individual thresholds via membership functions. The contin-
uous classification of driving style is often used for Advanced
Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS), whereas the event-based
classification is suitable for usage-based insurances, where
the average behavior of the driver is important. However, a
change of driving behavior can also be identified with the
event-based approach by analyzing each event and recogniz-
ing changes. An overview of previous approaches is given
in Table I.
In this study we present a novel method to identify and
classify driving maneuvers with respect to driving styles
based on artificial neural networks (ANNs). We use a self-
developed measurement device [11] to acquire data from a
GPS sensor and inertial sensors under real driving conditions.
In our algorithm for driving style classification we use
a threshold-based endpoint detection to extract maneuvers
from the trip. In contrast to previous literature [5], we post-
process the events automatically, e.g. by combining events,
such as accelerations with shift gears to get an improved data

 TABLE I
D[ Ȧ] D[ D\ Ȧ] W
OVERVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE   
(YHQWGHWHFWLRQ
Reference Year Methodology Data from Approach
(QGSRLQWGHWHFWLRQ )HDWXUHYHFWRUV
[5] 2011 DTW1 Smartphone Event-based
[4] 2012 DTW Smartphone Event-based
[3] 2014 DTW Smartphone Event-based
[8] 2012 Fuzzy Logic GPS tracker Continuous
[9] 2013 Fuzzy Logic Smartphone Continuous $UWL¿FLDOQHXUDO 'ULYLQJHYHQW
[10] 2014 Fuzzy Logic Simulations Continuous QHWZRUNV FODVVL¿FDWLRQ
[7] 2013 NN2, SVM3 Vehicle Sensors Event-based
1 Dynamic Time Warping
2 Nearest Neighbor
3 Support Vector Machine
'ULYLQJVW\OH
'ULYLQJVW\OH &ODVVL¿HGHYHQWV
FODVVL¿FDWLRQ
Y
set for our classification algorithm. We calculate statistical
Fig. 1. Block diagram of our developed algorithm for driving style
values from the sensor data to describe events and to build classification.
feature vectors, as input for our ANNs to classify the driving
style. We validate our algorithm in practical test runs.
III. A LGORITHM
II. M ETHODOLOGY The algorithm presented in this paper is based on a three-
step process, as shown in Fig. 1.
In our experimental setup, we use a Raspberry Pi based
In the first step of the model, the start- and endpoints of
measurement platform attached to the following sensors:
longitudinal and lateral driving events are detected based on
• Inertial module LSM9DS1 thresholds of the longitudinal acceleration ax and the yaw
• GPS module built around the MTK 3339 chipset rate ωz . Afterwards, the algorithm characterizes all events
This system provides a low-cost yet high-accuracy mea- by a set of statistical values calculated from the longitudinal
surement device for our application, even compared to pro- acceleration ax , lateral acceleration ay , yaw rate ωz , and the
fessional inertial measuring units [11]. The device is mounted length of the event t.
inside the car on the dashboard and vehicle dynamics is In the second step, all detected maneuvers are classified
measured according to ISO 8855:2011. into several categories by two ANNs, which have to be
For the classification of the driving style, we consider the generated and trained in advance. There are four categories
longitudinal acceleration ax , the lateral acceleration ay , the of longitudinal events and six categories of lateral events.
yaw rate ωz and the velocity v of the vehicle. All sensor At last, the algorithm calculates a score percentage from
data are stored with a uniform sampling rate of 20 Hz. all recognized driving events and classifies the overall driving
Due to vibrations in the interior of each vehicle all recorded style from this score based on thresholds for each of the five
data, particularly the acceleration, is subject to a significant different driving style categories.
amount of noise. Therefore, the acceleration and gyroscope
data is filtered using a Savitzky-Golay smoothing filter of A. Endpoint Detection
polynomial degree 2 and a window size of 9 samples [12]. After the import and pre-processing of all data from a
For the driving maneuver classification, we use two ANNs. trip, our endpoint detection algorithm identifies start and
The most important advantages of ANNs, which make them end points of lateral driving maneuvers, such as turns, and
suitable for our driving event classification algorithm, include longitudinal driving maneuvers, such as accelerations and
the comparably low computing time for output calculation decelerations. In order to detect the endpoints of those
and the possibility to allow a fuzzy classification output maneuvers, we use a threshold-based approach. For the lon-
in contrast to the discrete classification e.g. by a decision gitudinal events we determine a threshold for the longitudinal
tree. On the other hand, the larger computing costs for acceleration ax and for the lateral events we consider the yaw
initial training of the networks is not an issue since it rate ωz [5].
is done beforehand. Our networks are simple multilayer If the value of the signal exceeds the corresponding
perceptrons with one hidden layer and 8 hidden neurons threshold, a start point of an event is detected. If it drops
for the longitudinal events and 12 for the lateral events. below the threshold, the endpoint of this event is stored.
This structure has been determined empirically based on Typically, the absolute value of the longitudinal acceleration
the given number of input and output neurons. Since the is larger for braking events. Therefore, we distinguish be-
focus of this work is on the application for driving style tween acceleration and deceleration events and use a larger
recognition, we refer to the literature about ANNs for more threshold for deceleration events. The thresholds used in the
detailed information, e.g. [13]. endpoint detection were determined empirically based on


 TABLE II
F EATURE V ECTORS AS I NPUTS FOR THE M ODEL
 #!
" #!
"
#$
!#
" 

#!#
# 
# Index Longitudinal events Lateral events


1 Mean(ax ) Mean(Abs(ωz ))
2 Max(ax ) Max(Abs(ωz ))

3 Min(ax ) Var(Abs(ωz ))
 4 Var(ax ) Mean(Abs(ay ))
!"
 5 Length of event Max(Abs(ay ))
 6 Var(Abs(ay ))
 7 Length of event

  TABLE III

" C LASSES FOR L ONGITUDINAL AND L ATERAL D RIVING E VENTS

Fig. 2. Example of a filtered and unfiltered signal of a longitudinal

Longitudinal events Lateral events
acceleration event with shift gears. We applied a Savitzky-Golay filter with
window size 9 and polynomial order 2 to reduce noise. We use a threshold Class Event Class Event
of 1.0 m/s2 for start point and end point detection. In the post processing,
the detected acceleration events between the shift gears are combined to 1 Defensive acceleration 1 Defensive light turn
one event. 2 Sporty acceleration 2 Sporty light turn
3 Defensive deceleration 3 Defensive medium turn
4 Sporty deceleration 4 Sporty medium turn
several test runs of the algorithm. The numerical values are 5 Defensive sharp turn
as follows: 6 Sporty sharp turn
• Acceleration: ax > 1.0 s2
m

• Deceleration: ax < −1.5 m

s2
Curve: |ωz | ≥ 8.7 ∗
• 10−2 rad
s
In the post-processing of the event detection our algorithm
addresses several issues to get a more accurate sample of
events.
First, due to filtering, fast changes of the vehicle dynamics
might not be detected. For example, if a driver has to break
sharply during an acceleration event, the filtered values might
not drop below the threshold, although the raw signal of the
acceleration did, hence the two events cannot be separated.
Therefore, our endpoint detection algorithm analyzes the raw
signal of the events for zero-crossings and separates such
maneuvers.
In the second step, consecutive detected events are com-
bined, if their average longitudinal acceleration or yaw rate
shows the same sign and if they fall within a short interval of
2 seconds. The main intention behind this step is to combine
acceleration events when the driver has to shift gears and
therefore the moving average acceleration drops below the
respective threshold.
In the final step, we erase events that are too short or
too long to be accurately classified by the ANNs. We only
consider events with a time length of 1 to 30 seconds for the
further process.
When the endpoint detection is completed, the algorithm
calculates a feature vector for each detected event. This
vectors consist of several statistical values summarized in
Table II. The feature vectors serve as input for the event
classification in the following step. We composed our feature
vectors based on Ly, Martin and Trivedi [7], who tested
several different sets of data describing driving maneuvers
in order to identify different drivers.
B. Driving Event Classification
In the second step of our driving style classification
algorithm, the detected events are classified using two ANNs.
The calculated feature vectors of the detected events serve
as inputs for the classification. From these input vectors, the
networks classify the respective event into different classes.
For the longitudinal driving maneuvers we distinguish be-
tween the two categories accelerating and braking, both
defensive and sporty resulting into four different classes.
The lateral events are divided into light, medium and sharp
turns based on the yaw rate, each classified as defensive or
sporty, which leads to six classes. The distinction between
two extreme aggressiveness categories is sufficient because
the ANN classification provides a fuzzy output and therefore
can account for gradations. All possible maneuver classes are
summarized in Table III.
From the input vector of each event, the corresponding
ANN calculates an output membership vector that indicates
the probability for each class. This fuzzy classification output
for each event is adjusted by erasing possible classifications
with weights under 0.05 because they are not significant.
The other entries of the respective classification vector are
normalized in order to sum up to 1.
C. Driving Style Classification
In the third step, our algorithm classifies the driving style
of a trip based on the detected events. The score for each
individual event is calculated as the sum of the adjusted ANN
classification output of the defensive maneuver classes for
both longitudinal and lateral events. Therefore, it indicates
the probability, that an event was driven defensively. The


 TABLE IV
S CORE I NTERVALS FOR D RIVING S TYLE C LASSIFICATION
Score interval Driving style
[%]
[0...57] Very sporty
(57...69] Sporty
(69...81] Normal
(81...92] Defensive
(92...100] Very defensive
summation is necessary because especially turns often cannot
be categorized exclusively into one of the three sharpness
categories. The overall score for a trip is calculated as
the average score of all classified events. Hence, a high
score characterizes a defensive overall driving behavior. In
a simplified example with only two longitudinal maneuvers,
one of which is an acceleration classified as 70 % defensive
and 30 % sporty and the other one is a deceleration classified
as 50 % defensive and 50 % sporty, the calculated overall
score would be 60 %.
In addition to the classification of the detected driving
maneuvers, we include sections with high velocity as a sec-
ond factor to calculate the overall driving style classification
score. When a driver exceeds a speed threshold of 42 m/s
for 30 seconds it is considered as one equivalent sporty event
and therefore leads to a lower overall score. This parameter
values were determined empirically, are defined for German
motorways without speed limit, and can easily be adjusted
via a central parameter file. The reason for this second factor
is that driving on motorways with high speed cannot be
detected by our driving event detection algorithm since the
thresholds for longitudinal acceleration or yaw rate usually
are not exceeded on these type of roads.
At last, we classify the driving style into one of five
categories based on the calculated overall score. A high score
leads to a more defensive driving style classification whereas
a lower score characterizes a sporty driving behavior. Values
lower than 50 % are hardly achieved because even in a very
sporty test run on public roads, there are usually several
defensive events. The empirically determined thresholds for
the driving style classification are shown in Table IV.
IV. VALIDATION
We validate the developed model in two steps using differ-
ent methodologies. In the first part, we analyze the driving
event classification accuracy of the ANNs by comparing
the results to manually classified events as benchmark. In
the second step, we analyze our algorithm for driving style
recognition by comparing the classification to the assessment
of test drivers. In total we analyze 58 trips of different
drivers, different cars and on different routes.
A. Training Data
The neural networks are created and trained in advance by
manually labeled training examples using a backpropagation
algorithm. Therefore, we classified a large number of events

#!
!#

" 

"%
#
#$!

&
!#
!"



 
 
 

"
#!
!#

" 

 !#'
"!
#$!

&
!#
!"



 
 
 

"
Fig. 3. Example of lateral acceleration and yaw rate of a defensive light
turn and a sporty sharp turn. The sharpness of a turn is determined by the
characteristics of the yaw rate whereas the lateral acceleration defines its
sportiness, depending on the sharpness classification.
from seven test trips resulting in a range of 20 to more than
100 training examples for each class.
We labeled longitudinal events based on the longitudinal
acceleration whereas for the lateral events, we used the yaw
rate to identify the angle of a turn and the lateral acceleration
to classify its driving style.
B. Methodology
1) Driving Event Classification: In the first step of the
validation, we compare manually classified driving events
with the output of the neural networks. Since the model
calculates a fuzzy classification output for each event, but
the manual labeling can only be conducted ”binary”, i.e.
every event is classified into one specific class, we have
to adjust the neural network output to be able to compare
both classifications. In particular, we derive the ”binary”
classification of a maneuver by taking the class with the
maximum output value ignoring all other entries of the
fuzzy classification vector. We also analyze the classification
accuracy by a confusion matrix for each of the two neural
networks.
2) Driving Style Recognition: In the second step, we
evaluate the driving style classification accuracy based on
a set of 58 trips by comparing the subjective assessment
of the driver to the classification output of the algorithm.
We distinguish between the three different precision ratings
correct classification, differing classification, where model
and driver classification differ by one class, and wrong
classification, where model and driver classification differ
by more than one class.
 TABLE V TABLE VI
N UMBER OF D ETECTED E VENTS AND P ERCENTAGE OF C ORRECTLY C ONFUSION M ATRIX FOR THE C LASSIFICATION OF L ONGITUDINAL
C LASSIFIED E VENTS FOR E ACH VALIDATION T RIP E VENTS

Detected Correctly classified Target class

Trip Driving style
events events 1 2 3 4 [%]
Overall Lon Lat Overall 1 208 21 0 0 91
[N] [%] [%] [%] Model 2 0 55 0 0 100
output 3 1 0 82 12 86
1 Very sporty 132 90 95 92
4 0 0 0 41 100
2 Very sporty 139 94 89 92
[%] 100 72 100 77 92
3 Very defensive 146 93 97 96
4 Very sporty 211 89 91 90
5 Normal 111 91 82 86 TABLE VII
6 Defensive 163 94 90 92 C ONFUSION M ATRIX FOR THE C LASSIFICATION OF L ATERAL E VENTS
Overall 902 92 91 91
Target class
1 2 3 4 5 6 [%]
1 141 11 0 0 0 0 93
Based on a numerical encryption of the five driving style
2 0 56 0 3 0 0 95
categories, we also calculate an error, represented by the
Model 3 7 3 88 6 2 0 83
normalized root mean squared deviation (NRMSD). The root
output 4 0 0 1 71 0 3 95
mean squared deviation (RMSD) is defined as the square
5 0 0 0 0 53 5 91
root of the mean square deviation of the model output o
6 0 0 0 1 1 30 94
and the target output t from the assessment of the driver.
[%] 95 80 99 88 95 79 91
It is normalized with the maximum value tmax minus the
minimum value tmin of the target output data:
 n network but again showing a slight trend towards a more
k=1 (tk − ok )2
RM SD = (1) defensive ranking of the detected curves.
n
2) Driving Style Recognition: In addition to the set of all
RM SD 58 recorded trips we built two subsets in order to analyze the
N RM SD = (2)
tmax − tmin driving style classification accuracy. In the first subset, we
erased trips based on two factors, which lead to difficulties
Moreover, we analyze the consecutively calculated score in our event-based algorithm. First, an accurate classification
of the trips of our test drivers in more detail to verify the cannot be guaranteed if there are not enough events detected,
robustness of detecting changes in driving style within a trip. i.e. the first subset does not contain those trips with less
than 70 events. Second, traffic jams lead to a major dis-
C. Results tortion because numerous defensive acceleration events are
1) Driving Event Classification: The set of manually detected and prevent an accurate driving style classification.
labeled data consists of 902 maneuvers from six different Therefore, those trips are also excluded resulting in 42 trips
trips. 91.90 % of the 420 longitudinal events and 91.08 % remaining in the first subset. The second subset only consists
of the 482 lateral events are classified correctly resulting of 9 test drives on a particular chosen route with a sufficient
in an overall correct classification rate of 91.46 % for all number of events to be identified. Those runs are also
events. Only in one of the six analyzed trips, the classification classified by the authors as driver or co-driver and therefore
accuracy of the lateral events drops significantly below 90 %. differing subjective assessments of the driving style could be
An overview about the event classification accuracy for all eliminated. All results are summarized in Table VIII.
analyzed trips is provided in Table V. Overall, 65.52 % of the recorded trips were classified cor-
The confusion matrix of the longitudinal events in Ta- rectly by our driving style recognition algorithm compared
ble VI shows that, apart from one exception, no acceleration to the subjective assessment of the driver. Only in two trips,
event is classified as deceleration or vice versa (with the the classification differed by more than one class with the
single error being in fact a mistake in the manual classifica- main reason being not enough events identified in those trips.
tion). The model generally tends towards a more defensive The NRMSD of the classification using all data is 16.47 %.
classification of the longitudinal events compared to the Classification accuracy increases to more than 80 % with no
manual benchmark classification. remaining false classifications when we only consider the
The second confusion matrix in Table VII also shows no data in the first subset which has been filtered as described.
obvious wrong classification results since no sharp turns were The calculated error drops to 10.91 %. Last, on our developed
classified as light or vice versa. The classification accuracy is test route, the model can detect the driving style of all 9 runs
more balanced over all classes compared to the longitudinal correctly, indicated by the second subset.


 TABLE VIII
S UMMARY OF THE ACCURACY OF D IFFERENT DATA S ETS the driving maneuvers when compared to manually labeled
data. We validated our driving style classification algorithm
Set Trips Classification Error using a large set of trips from different drivers, vehicles and
correct differing wrong NRMSD on different routes. In the most relevant subset containing 42
1 58 66 % 31 % 3% 17 % trips, we achieved a classification accuracy of 81 % with no
2 42 81 % 19 % 0% 11 % wrong classifications, according to our proposed definition.
3 9 100 % 0% 0% 0% Our approach could be extended by using data about the
steering wheel angle and the throttle or brake pedal to allow
for a more accurate endpoint detection. This signals could
 be extracted from the vehicle’s CAN bus. In addition, more
#
 "
 different classes of events could be distinguished, since the
 " neural network classification accuracy is very high and more
 classes could provide more information for the driving style

!



classification. Furthermore, the model could be extended to
recognize traffic jams on motorways in order to remove
!#
 the respective events for driving style classification. Also,
a current score could be calculated continuously based on

#
!# a range of the last detected events to classify the current
 driving style for applications in ADAS.


      
"!

Fig. 4. 20 sample moving average of the individual scores of all
consecutively arranged events of one trip. In the first part of this trip,
which corresponds to the first 70 events, our test driver drove defensively,
whereas he pursued a more sporty driving style during the last part of the
trip corresponding to the last 40 detected events.
In addition, Fig. 4 shows a 20 sample moving average of
the scores of the consecutively arranged classified events of
one trip. A change in driving style can easily be detected
by comparing the first part of this trip to the second part,
where the average detected score is lower and therefore the
detected driving style is much more sporty. This finding is
coherent with the statement of our test driver. This shows that
our method can also detect changes in driving style within a
trip, which is a key requirement for applications in ADAS.
The analysis shows that our model is able to classify the
driving style precisely on most routes with different drivers
and different cars. Apart from few situations, i.e. when not
enough events can be detected or the driver has to adjust
his driving style according to the environment in a traffic
jam, the developed algorithm shows a very high classification
accuracy.
V. C ONCLUSION
In this paper we present a model that can detect longitudi-
nal and lateral driving maneuvers from inertial sensor data.
The detected events are classified by two ANNs, especially to
distinguish between defensive and sporty driving maneuvers.
From the event classification, our algorithm calculates an
overall driving style classification score to rate the driving
style into five categories.
The model is based on sensor data from a low-cost
measuring device and correctly detects more than 90 % of
R EFERENCES

[1] A. Jarašūniene and G. Jakubauskas, “Improvement of road safety
using passive and active intelligent vehicle safety systems,” Transport,
vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 284–289, 2007.
[2] A. Wilde, J. Schneider, and H.-G. Herzog, “Driving situation and
driving style dependent charging strategy in hybrid electric vehicles,”
ATZ worldwide, vol. 110, no. 5, pp. 18–24. [Online]. Available:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF03225005
[3] J. Engelbrecht, M. J. Booysen, and G.-J. Van Rooyen, “Recognition
of driving manoeuvres using smartphone-based inertial and gps mea-
surement,” in Proceedings of the First International Conference on the
use of Mobile Informations and Communication Technology (ICT) in
Africa UMICTA, 2014.
[4] H. Eren, S. Makinist, E. Akin, and A. Yilmaz, “Estimating driving be-
havior by a smartphone,” in 2012 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium
(IV), 2012, pp. 234–239.
[5] D. A. Johnson and M. M. Trivedi, “Driving style recognition using
a smartphone as a sensor platform,” in 2011 14th International IEEE
Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC), Oct 2011,
pp. 1609–1615.
[6] M. Pfriem and F. Gauterin, “Employing smartphones as a low-cost
multi sensor platform in a field operational test with electric vehicles,”
in 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS),
Jan. 2014, pp. 1143–1152.
[7] M. V. Ly, S. Martin, and M. M. Trivedi, “Driver classification
and driving style recognition using inertial sensors,” in 2013 IEEE
Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV), June 2013, pp. 1040–1045.
[8] A. Aljaafreh, N. Alshabatat, and M. S. N. Al-Din, “Driving style
recognition using fuzzy logic,” in 2012 IEEE International Conference
on Vehicular Electronics and Safety (ICVES), July 2012, pp. 460–463.
[9] G. Castignani, T. Derrmann, R. Frank, and T. Engel, “Driver behavior
profiling using smartphones: A low-cost platform for driver monitor-
ing,” IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Magazine, vol. 7, no. 1,
pp. 91–102, Spring 2015.
[10] D. Dörr, D. Grabengiesser, and F. Gauterin, “Online driving style
recognition using fuzzy logic,” in 2014 IEEE 17th International
Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC), Oct 2014,
pp. 1021–1026.
[11] J. Masino, M. Frey, F. Gauterin, and R. Sharma, “Development of a
highly accurate and low cost measurement device for field operational
tests,” in 2016 IEEE International Symposium on Inertial Sensors and
Systems, Feb 2016, pp. 74–77.
[12] A. Savitzky and M. J. E. Golay, “Smoothing and differentiation of data
by simplified least squares procedures.” Analytical Chemistry, vol. 36,
no. 8, pp. 1627–1639, 1964.
[13] E. Alpaydin, Introduction to machine learning. Cambridge, Mas-
sachusetts: The MIT Press, 2014.