Assessing Contextual Factors That Influence Acceptance of Pedestrian Alerts by a Night Vision System

Objective: We investigated five contextual variables that we hypothesized would influence driver acceptance of alerts to pedestrians issued by a night vision active safety system to inform the specification of the system’s alerting strategies. Background: Driver acceptance of automotive active safety systems is a key factor to promote their use and implies a need to assess factors influencing driver acceptance. Method: In a field operational test, 10 drivers drove instrumented vehicles equipped with a preproduction night vision system with pedestrian detection software. In a follow-up experiment, the 10 drivers and 25 additional volunteers without experience with the system watched 57 clips with pedestrian encounters gathered during the field operational test. They rated the acceptance of an alert to each pedestrian encounter. Results: Levels of rating concordance were significant between drivers who experienced the encounters and participants who did not. Two contextual variables, pedestrian location and motion, were found to influence ratings. Alerts were more accepted when pedestrians were close to or moving toward the vehicle’s path. Conclusion: The study demonstrates the utility of using subjective driver acceptance ratings to inform the design of active safety systems and to leverage expensive field operational test data within the confines of the laboratory. Application: The design of alerting strategies for active safety systems needs to heed the driver’s contextual sensitivity to issued alerts.

[1]  R Kulmala,et al.  An application of logit models in analysing the behaviour of pedestrians and car drivers on pedestrian crossings. , 1988, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[2]  S. Siegel,et al.  Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences , 2022, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[3]  Dick de Waard,et al.  A simple procedure for the assessment of acceptance of advanced transport telematics , 1997 .

[4]  Jan Noyes,et al.  How does our perception of risk influence decision-making? Implications for the design of risk information , 2007 .

[5]  John D. Lee,et al.  Alerts for In-Vehicle Information Systems: Annoyance, Urgency, and Appropriateness , 2007, Hum. Factors.

[6]  Thomas B. Sheridan,et al.  Risk, Human Error, and System Resilience: Fundamental Ideas , 2008, Hum. Factors.

[7]  Guy H. Walker,et al.  Feedback and driver situation awareness (SA): A comparison of SA measures and contexts , 2008 .

[8]  Raja Parasuraman,et al.  Humans and Automation: Use, Misuse, Disuse, Abuse , 1997, Hum. Factors.

[9]  David Crundall,et al.  What happens next? Predicting other road users' behaviour as a function of driving experience and processing time , 2009, Ergonomics.

[10]  E Farber,et al.  USING FREEWAY TRAFFIC DATA TO ESTIMATE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF REAR-END COLLISION COUNTERMEASURES , 1993 .

[11]  Sarah Schmidt,et al.  Pedestrians at the kerb – Recognising the action intentions of humans , 2009 .

[12]  R W Huey,et al.  Inappropriate , 2020, Encyclopedia of the UN Sustainable Development Goals.

[13]  J. Gibson,et al.  A theoretical field-analysis of automobile-driving , 1938 .

[14]  C. Trevarthen Review: Cognition and Reality: Principles and Implications of Cognitive Psychology , 1977 .