Driver's avoidance characteristics to hazardous situations: A driving simulator study

Abstract When analyzing the causes of an accident, it is critical to determine whether the driver could have prevented the accident. In previous studies on the reaction times of drivers, the definition and values of reaction times vary, so applying reaction time is difficult. In such analysis, the driver’s reaction time from perception is required to determine whether the driver could have prevented the accident, but past studies are difficult to utilize in accident analysis as reaction time measurements were taken after the occurrence of hazardous situations. In this study, 93 subjects from age groups ranging from 20 s to 40 s participated in an experiment inside a full-scale driving simulator, to determine reaction time values that can be practically applied to accident analysis. A total of 4 hazardous accident situations were reproduced, including driving over the centerline, pedestrian jaywalking, a vehicle cutting in, and intersection traffic signal violation. The Time-To-Collision (TTC) was 2.5 s and the driving speed was set to the common city road speed limits of 60 and 80 km/h. An eye tracker was used to determine the driver’s Saccade Latency (SL) during hazardous situations. Brake Reaction Time from Perception (BRTP), Steer Reaction Time from Perception (SRTP), and Driver Reaction Time from Perception (DRTP) were derived, and the measurements were statistically analyzed to investigate differences by age group, gender, speed, and type of hazardous situation. Most participants were found to avoid collisions by braking first rather than steering for the presented hazardous situations, except for the cutting in situation. Also, to determine a reaction time that would cover most drivers, the 85th percentile of DRTP was calculated. The 85th percentile of DRTP was in the range of 0.550 – 0.800 s. Specifically for each hazardous situation, it was 0.650 s for driving over the centerline, 0.800 s for the pedestrian jaywalking, 0.660 s for cutting in, and 0.550 s for the intersection traffic signal violation. For all 4 hazardous situations combined, the 85th percentile of DRTP was 0.646 s. The findings can be utilized to determine the driver’s likelihood of avoiding accidents when faced with similar hazardous situations.

[1]  F. Mannering,et al.  The role of gender and temporal instability in driver-injury severities in crashes caused by speeds too fast for conditions. , 2021, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[2]  Sophia Nimphius,et al.  Offensive and defensive agility: a sex comparison of lower body kinematics and ground reaction forces. , 2014, Journal of applied biomechanics.

[3]  Pin-Kai Goh,et al.  Driver perception response time during the signal change interval , 2004, Applied health economics and health policy.

[4]  Ryan Toxopeus,et al.  Driver Response Time to Left-Turning Vehiclesat Traffic Signal Controlled Intersections , 2018 .

[5]  Paul L. Olson,et al.  DRIVER PERCEPTION RESPONSE TIME , 1989 .

[6]  Syed Bilal Ahmed Zaidi,et al.  Evaluating the Nature of Distractive Driving Factors towards Road Traffic Accident , 2020 .

[7]  Yiik Diew Wong,et al.  DRIVER PERCEPTION-RESPONSE TIME FOR BRAKING ACTION DURING SIGNAL CHANGE INTERVAL. , 2000 .

[8]  Mouyid Islam.  The effect of motorcyclists' age on injury severities in single-motorcycle crashes with unobserved heterogeneity. , 2021, Journal of safety research.

[9]  S. Ozkul,et al.  Identifying Fatality Risk Factors for the Commercial Vehicle Driver Population , 2019, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board.

[10]  Alain Muzet,et al.  Influence of age, speed and duration of monotonous driving task in traffic on the driver’s useful visual field , 2004, Vision Research.

[11]  Gustav Markkula,et al.  A farewell to brake reaction times? Kinematics-dependent brake response in naturalistic rear-end emergencies. , 2016, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[12]  Ryan Toxopeus,et al.  Driver Response Time to Cyclist Path Intrusions , 2018 .

[13]  M. A. Recarte,et al.  Mental workload while driving: effects on visual search, discrimination, and decision making. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[14]  Hiroshi Uno,et al.  COLLISION AVOIDANCE CAPABILITIES OF OLDER DRIVERS AND IMPROVEMENT BY WARNING PRESENTATIONS , 2001 .

[15]  Birsen Donmez,et al.  The effect of cognitive distraction on perception-response time to unexpected abrupt and gradually onset roadway hazards. , 2019, Accident; analysis and prevention.

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

[17]  Masoud Bagheri Ramiani,et al.  Ranking and Determining the Factors Affecting the Road Freight Accidents Model , 2020 .

[18]  Reza Sigari Tabrizi,et al.  The role of human factor in incidence and severity of road crashes based on the CART and LR regression: a data mining approach , 2011, WCIT.

[19]  Nagendra R. Velaga,et al.  Overall performance impairment and crash risk due to distracted driving: A comprehensive analysis using structural equation modelling , 2020 .

[20]  Tomasz Stańczyk,et al.  Driver reaction time to lateral entering pedestrian in a simulated crash traffic situation , 2014 .

[21]  Digvijay S. Pawar,et al.  Response of major road drivers to aggressive maneuvering of the minor road drivers at unsignalized intersections: A driving simulator study , 2018 .

[22]  Ryan Toxopeus,et al.  Driver Response Time to Midblock Crossing Pedestrians , 2018 .