Exploring the Relationship between False Alarms and Driver Acceptance of a Pedestrian Alert System during Simulated Driving

In-vehicle pedestrian-alert-systems (PASs) can be prone to ‘false positive’ declarations, with the likelihood of false interventions increasing as time-to-collision (TTC) extends. A high number of false alarms can annoy drivers and lead to poor acceptance and low trust in the technology. To explore this relationship, 24 experienced drivers negotiated a single-lane urban high-street – moderately populated with pedestrians – during 12 five-minute drives in a medium-fidelity driving simulator. PAS warnings were presented in response to pedestrians who approached the roadside, either as a static visual alert icon presented on a HUD and/or auditory icon. The number of accurately detected pedestrians (i.e. those who entered the roadway rather than waiting at the kerbside) decreased with increasing TTC, giving rise to ‘false positive alarms’. Subjectively, participants associated the highest level of trust, confidence and desirability, and lower levels of annoyance, when warnings were presented at intermediate TTCs (3.0 and 4.0-seconds, corresponding to false-alarm rates of 40% and 60%, respectively); trust and confidence reduced significantly with both increasing and decreasing TTC. Driving performance data show that earlier warnings encouraged drivers to begin braking sooner and apply braking force more gradually, ultimately stopping further from the pedestrian – on average 18.0m following 5.0-second warnings compared to 6.2m with 2.0-second warnings. Nevertheless, evidence suggests that some drivers may have disregarded the system at longer TTCs, choosing to rely on their own judgement. The results have implications for the design, evaluation and acceptance of PASs.

[1]  Kip Smith,et al.  An Empirical Method for Quantifying Drivers’ Level of Acceptance of Alerts Issued by Automotive Active Safety Systems , 2018, Driver Acceptance of New Technology.

[2]  B. Schiele,et al.  How Far are We from Solving Pedestrian Detection? , 2016, 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR).

[3]  C. G. Keller,et al.  Will the Pedestrian Cross? A Study on Pedestrian Path Prediction , 2014, IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems.

[4]  Wassim G Najm,et al.  Target Crashes and Safety Benefits Estimation Methodology for Pedestrian Crash Avoidance/Mitigation Systems , 2014 .

[5]  R. Happee,et al.  Automated Driving: Human-Factors Issues and Design Solutions , 2012 .

[6]  Kip Smith,et al.  Assessing Contextual Factors That Influence Acceptance of Pedestrian Alerts by a Night Vision System , 2012, Hum. Factors.

[7]  Linda Ng Boyle,et al.  Extending the Technology Acceptance Model to assess automation , 2011, Cognition, Technology & Work.

[8]  Ho Gi Jung,et al.  A New Approach to Urban Pedestrian Detection for Automatic Braking , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems.

[9]  Carolina Burnier,et al.  Severity of injury resulting from pedestrian-vehicle crashes: What can we learn from examining the built environment? , 2009 .

[10]  T. Sheridan Risk, Human Error, and System Resilience: Fundamental Ideas , 2008, Hum. Factors.

[11]  Ann M Dellinger,et al.  Motor vehicle crash injury rates by mode of travel, United States: using exposure-based methods to quantify differences. , 2007, American journal of epidemiology.

[12]  John Richardson,et al.  Alarm timing, trust and driver expectation for forward collision warning systems. , 2006, Applied ergonomics.

[13]  John L. Campbell,et al.  Integrated Vehicle-Based Safety System Heavy Truck Driver Vehicle Interface (DVI) Literature Review , 2006 .

[14]  John D. Lee,et al.  Trust in Automation: Designing for Appropriate Reliance , 2004, Hum. Factors.

[15]  Daniel V. McGehee,et al.  Collision Warning Timing, Driver Distraction, and Driver Response to Imminent Rear-End Collisions in a High-Fidelity Driving Simulator , 2002, Hum. Factors.

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

[17]  J. B. Brooke,et al.  SUS: A 'Quick and Dirty' Usability Scale , 1996 .

[18]  Lisanne Bainbridge,et al.  Ironies of automation , 1982, Autom..

[19]  C. Dolea,et al.  World Health Organization , 1949, International Organization.

[20]  Lotta Jakobsson,et al.  Pedestrians interacting with a passenger car; A study of real world accidents , 2011 .

[21]  Emeli Adell,et al.  Driver experience and acceptance of driver support systems: a case of speed adaptation , 2009 .

[22]  J. Schade,et al.  Reactance or acceptance? Reactions towards the introduction of road pricing , 2007 .

[23]  Dot Hs,et al.  Crash Warning System Interfaces: Human Factors Insights and Lessons Learned , 2007 .

[24]  R Risser,et al.  Intelligent transport systems and services - chances and risks , 2005 .

[25]  D. Leblanc,et al.  DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF FUNCTIONAL DEFINITIONS AND EVALUATION PROCEDURES FOR COLLISION WARNING/AVOIDANCE SYSTEMS , 1999 .

[26]  Barry H. Kantowitz,et al.  PERCEPTUAL AND COGNITIVE ASPECTS OF INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS , 1998 .