Driving With a Partially Autonomous Forward Collision Warning System

Objective: The effects of a forward collision warning (FCW) and braking system (FCW+) were examined in a driving simulator study analyzing driving and gaze behavior and the engagement in a secondary task. Background: In-depth accident analyses indicate that a lack of appropriate expectations for possible critical situations and visual distraction may be the major causes of rear-end crashes. Studies with FCW systems have shown that a warning alone was not enough for a driver to be able to avoid the accident. Thus, an additional braking intervention by such systems could be necessary. Method: In a driving simulator experiment, 30 drivers took part in a car-following scenario in an urban area. It was assumed that different lead car behaviors and environmental aspects would lead to different drivers’ expectations of the future traffic situation. Driving with and without FCW+ was introduced as a between-subjects factor. Results: Driving with FCW+ resulted in significantly fewer accidents in critical situations. This result was achieved by the system’s earlier reaction time as compared with that of drivers. The analysis of the gaze behavior showed that driving with the system did not lead to a stronger involvement in secondary tasks. Conclusion: The study supports the hypotheses about the importance of missing expectations for the occurrence of accidents. These accidents can be prevented by an FCW+ that brakes autonomously. Application: The results indicate that an autonomous braking intervention should be implemented in FCW systems to increase the effectiveness of these assistance systems.

[1]  Karel Brookhuis,et al.  How much visual road information is needed to drive safely and comfortably , 2004 .

[2]  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.

[3]  Mark Vollrath,et al.  Expectations while car following--the consequences for driving behaviour in a simulated driving task. , 2010, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[4]  Harold Lunenfeld,et al.  HUMAN FACTORS IN HIGHWAY DESIGN AND OPERATIONS , 1984 .

[5]  David Shinar,et al.  Effects of an In-Vehicle Collision Avoidance Warning System on Short- and Long-Term Driving Performance , 2002, Hum. Factors.

[6]  H Alm,et al.  The effects of a mobile telephone task on driver behaviour in a car following situation. , 1995, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[7]  Joshua D. Hoffman,et al.  Collision warning design to mitigate driver distraction , 2004, CHI.

[8]  Eugene Farber,et al.  Forensic Aspects of Driver Perception and Response , 1996 .

[9]  Gerald J.S. Wilde,et al.  The Theory of Risk Homeostasis: Implications for Safety and Health , 1982 .

[10]  Marieke Hendrikje Martens,et al.  Does road familiarity change eye fixations? A comparison between watching a video and real driving , 2007 .

[11]  Andy Shea,et al.  Traffic Safety and the Driver , 1992 .

[12]  Mica R. Endsley,et al.  Toward a Theory of Situation Awareness in Dynamic Systems , 1995, Hum. Factors.

[13]  Daniel V. McGehee,et al.  Prior Exposure, Warning Algorithm Parameters and Driver Response to Imminent Rear-End Collisions on a High-Sfideltiy Simulator , 2000 .

[14]  Yoichi Watanabe,et al.  Influence of Vehicle Properties and Human Attributes on Neck Injuries in Rear-End Collisions , 2007 .

[15]  H Summala,et al.  Attention and expectation problems in bicycle-car collisions: an in-depth study. , 1998, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[16]  Robert Graham,et al.  The Format and Presentation of Collision Warnings , 1997 .

[17]  Pratyush Bhatia.  Vehicle Technologies to Improve Performance and Safety , 2003 .

[18]  R. Näätänen,et al.  Road user behavior and traffic accidents , 1976 .

[19]  E R Russell.  USING CONCEPTS OF DRIVER EXPECTANCY, POSITIVE GUIDANCE AND CONSISTENCY FOR IMPROVED OPERATION AND SAFETY , 1998 .

[20]  Jan Theeuwes,et al.  VISUAL SEARCH OF TRAFFIC SCENES: ON THE EFFECT OF LOCATION EXPECTATIONS , 1993 .

[21]  John Richardson,et al.  The influence of alarm timing on braking response and driver trust in low speed driving , 2005 .

[22]  H D Robertson,et al.  A USERS' GUIDE TO POSITIVE GUIDANCE , 1977 .

[23]  Marieke H. Martens,et al.  Stimuli Fixation and Manual Response as a Function of Expectancies , 2004, Hum. Factors.

[24]  David Shinar,et al.  Imperfect In-Vehicle Collision Avoidance Warning Systems Can Aid Drivers , 2004, Hum. Factors.

[25]  G. Johansson,et al.  Drivers' Brake Reaction Times , 1971, Human factors.

[26]  Thomas A. Dingus,et al.  Human Factors Field Evaluation of Automotive Headway Maintenance/Collision Warning Devices , 1997, Hum. Factors.

[27]  Raymond J. Kiefer.  Developing a Forward Collision Warning System Timing and Interface Approach by Placing Drivers in Realistic Rear-End Crash Situations , 2000 .

[28]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation , 2000, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part A.

[29]  P L Olson,et al.  Perception-Response Time to Unexpected Roadway Hazards , 1986, Human factors.