Driving with a partially autonomous forward collision warning system: how do drivers react?
- PMID: 23156616
- DOI: 10.1177/0018720812439712
Driving with a partially autonomous forward collision warning system: how do drivers react?
Abstract
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.
Similar articles
-
Age and gender differences in time to collision at braking from the 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study.Traffic Inj Prev. 2014;15 Suppl 1:S15-20. doi: 10.1080/15389588.2014.928703. Traffic Inj Prev. 2014. PMID: 25307380
-
Simulator training with a forward collision warning system: effects on driver-system interactions and driver trust.Hum Factors. 2012 Oct;54(5):709-21. doi: 10.1177/0018720812441796. Hum Factors. 2012. PMID: 23156617
-
A comparison of tactile, visual, and auditory warnings for rear-end collision prevention in simulated driving.Hum Factors. 2008 Apr;50(2):264-75. doi: 10.1518/001872008X250674. Hum Factors. 2008. PMID: 18516837
-
The influence of distraction and driving context on driver response to imperfect collision warning systems.Ergonomics. 2007 Aug;50(8):1264-86. doi: 10.1080/00140130701318749. Ergonomics. 2007. PMID: 17558669 Review.
-
Tactile warning signals for in-vehicle systems.Accid Anal Prev. 2015 Feb;75:333-46. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2014.12.013. Epub 2015 Jan 7. Accid Anal Prev. 2015. PMID: 25569607 Review.
Cited by
-
Trauma care in Germany: an inclusive system.Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013 Sep;471(9):2912-23. doi: 10.1007/s11999-013-2967-x. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013. PMID: 23633181 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources