Human Factor Issues Associated with Lane Change Collision Avoidance Systems: Effects of Authority, Control, and Ability on Drivers’ Performance and Situation Awareness

In order to improve road traffic safety, increasingly sophisticated and robust collision avoidance systems are being developed. When employed in safety-critical situations, however, the interaction between the human factors and these systems may increase the complexity of the task of driving. Due to these human factors, the ability of the driver to respond to various traffic dangers is considered to be a function of the level of automation, balance of control authority, and the innate ability of the driver. For the purpose of this study, a driving experiment was designed using two types of lane change collision avoidance systems. One was a haptic warning system that provides a steering force feedback to avoid hazardous lane change, and the other, a semi-autonomous system that provides an automatic action to prevent hazardous lane change. While drivers had the final authority over the haptic system, they were unable to override the automatic action. Both systems were examined in three conditions: i) hazard that can be detected only by the system, ii) hazard that can be detected only by the driver, and iii) combined hazards. The different support systems were applied to the different hazards resulting in significant differences in drivers’ reaction time and steering behavior. The drivers’ subjective post-hazard assessments were significantly affected by the type of encountered hazard.

[1]  Toshiyuki Inagaki,et al.  Adaptive Automation: Sharing and Trading of Control , 2001 .

[2]  T. Inagaki,et al.  Design of human–machine interactions in light of domain-dependence of human-centered automation , 2006, Cognition, Technology & Work.

[3]  Jean-Michel Hoc,et al.  Analysis of Human-Machine Cooperation When Driving with Different Degrees of Haptic Shared Control , 2014, IEEE Transactions on Haptics.

[4]  Raja Parasuraman,et al.  Designing for Flexible Interaction Between Humans and Automation: Delegation Interfaces for Supervisory Control , 2007, Hum. Factors.

[5]  Mark Mulder,et al.  Neuromuscular Analysis as a Guideline in designing Shared Control , 2010 .

[6]  René van Paassen,et al.  Driver Adaptation to Driving Speed and Road Width: Exploring Parameters for Designing Adaptive Haptic Shared Control , 2015, 2015 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

[7]  Mark Mulder,et al.  Haptic shared control: smoothly shifting control authority? , 2012, Cognition, Technology & Work.

[8]  Rolf Isermann,et al.  Collision-avoidance systems PRORETA: Situation analysis and intervention control , 2010 .

[9]  Makoto Itoh,et al.  Toward overtrust-free advanced driver assistance systems , 2011, Cognition, Technology & Work.

[10]  Dario D. Salvucci,et al.  The time course of a lane change: Driver control and eye-movement behavior , 2002 .

[11]  Makoto Itoh,et al.  Driving with shared control: How support system performance impacts safety , 2016, 2016 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC).

[12]  Charles E. Billings,et al.  Aviation Automation: The Search for A Human-centered Approach , 1996 .

[13]  Erik Hollnagel,et al.  Joint Cognitive Systems: Foundations of Cognitive Systems Engineering , 2005 .