Human Factors of Highly Automated Driving: Results from the EASY and CityMobil Projects

  • Natasha Merat
  • Hamish A. Jamson
  • Frank Lai
  • Oliver Carsten
Part of the Lecture Notes in Mobility book series (LNMOB)


This chapter reports on a series of studies on driver behavior with a highly automated vehicle, conducted as part of the European project CityMobil and the UK project EASY. Using the University of Leeds Driving Simulator, a number of urban and highway scenarios were devised, where lateral and longitudinal control of the vehicle was managed by an automated controller. Drivers’ uptake of non-driving related tasks, their response to critical events, and their ability to resume control of driving, were some of the factors studied. Results showed some differences in performance based on the road environment studied, and suggest that whilst resuming control from automation was manageable when attention was dedicated to the road, diversion of attention by secondary tasks impaired performance when manual control resumed.


Human factors of automation Situation awareness Visual attention Eye tracking Transfer of control Highly automated driving 


  1. 1.
    Google’s driverless cars are ‘safer’ than human drivers, Telegraph Newspaper, 25 October 2013, see:
  2. 2.
    Klauer SG, Dingus TA, Neale VL, Sudweeks JD, Ramsey DJ (2006) The impact of driver inattention on near-crash/crash risk: an analysis using the 100-Car naturalistic driving study data (Report No. DOT HS 810 594). National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, USDOTGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ioannou PA (ed) (1997) Automated HIGHWAYSYSTEMs. Kluwer, NorwellGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    US DOT ITS Strategic plan 2015–2019,
  5. 5.
    Merat N, Jamson AH (2009) Is drivers’ situation awareness influenced by a fully automated driving scenario? In: de Waard D, Godthelp J, Kooi FL, Brookhuis KA (eds) Human factors, security and safety. Shaker Publishing, Maastricht, pp 1–11Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Happee R, Amditis A, Kunert M, Hoess A, Flemish F, Krueger HP, Bartels A, Beutner A, Pagle K (2008) Highly automated vehicles for intelligent transport: HAVEit approach. In: Conference proceedings of the 15th World Congress on ITS, New York City, USAGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hesse T, Fricke N, Flemisch F, Engström J, Johansson E, Varalda G, Brockmann M, Rambaldini A, Kanstrup L (2011) Towards user-centred development of integrated information, warning, and intervention strategies for multiple ADAS in the EU project interactive. In: Proceedings of the 14th HCI international 2011, Orlando, USAGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Toffetti A, Wilschut E, Martens MH, Schieben A, Rambaldini A, Merat N, Flemisch F (2009) CITYMOBIL: human factors issues regarding highly-automated vehicles on an eLane. Transp Res Rec J Transp Res Board 2110:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ma R, Kaber DB (2005) Situation awareness and workload in driving while using adaptive cruise control and a cell phone. Int J Ind Ergon 35:939–953CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Stanton NA, Young MS (2005) Driver behavior with adaptive cruise control. Ergonomics 48(10):1294–1313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rudin-Brown CM, Parker H (2004) Behavioural adaptation to adaptive cruise control (ACC): implications for preventive strategies. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav 7:59–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Merat N, Lee JD (2012) Preface to the special section on human factors and automation in vehicles: designing highly automated vehicles with the driver in mind. Hum Factors 54:681–686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Merat N, Jamson AH, Carsten OMJ, Lai F (2012) Highly automated driving, secondary task performance and driver state. Hum Factors 50:762–771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    NHTSA (2013) US Department of Transportation Policy on Automated Vehicle Development. See:
  15. 15.
    Flemisch F (2005) DLR’s potential contribution: eLane as a missing piece of the CityMobil automation concept, proposal to the CityMobil Preparatory CommitteeGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schieben A, Flemisch F, Marten M, Wilschut E, Rambaldini A, Toffetti A, Turi G, Arduino C, Merat N, Jamson AH (2008) Test results of HMI in use on cars and with simulators, Deliverable 3.2.2., EU Project CityMobil.
  17. 17.
    Victor TL (2005) Keeping eye and mind on the road. Digital comprehensive summaries of Uppsala Dissertations from the Faculty of Social Sciences 9, Uppsala University, UppsalaGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Parasuraman R, Riley V (1997) Humans and automation: use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Hum Factors 39:230–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Summala H (2000) Brake reaction times and driver behavior analysis. Transp Hum Factors 2:217–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Green M (2000) How long does it take to stop? Methodological analysis of driver perception-brake. Transp Hum Factors 2:195–216Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Llaneras RE, Salinger J, Green CA (2013) Human factors issues associated with limited ability autonomous driving systems: Drivers’ allocation of visual attention to the forward roadway. In: Proceedings of the 7th international driving symposium on human factors in driver assessment, training, and vehicle design, New York, USA, pp 92–98Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Merat N, Coleman J (2013) Does personality influence engagement in mobile phone tasks? In: Proceedings of the 7th international international driving symposium on human factors in driver assessment, training, and vehicle design, pp 502–508Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Saxby DJ, Matthews G, Hitchcock EM, Warm JS, Funke GJ, Gantzer T (2008) Effects of active and passive fatigue on performance using a driving simulator. In: Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society, vol 52, pp 1252–1256Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hancock PA, Verwey WB (1997) Fatigue, workload, and adaptive driver systems. Accid Anal Prev 29:495–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wierwille WW, Ellsworth LA, Wreggit SS, Fairbanks RJ, Kirn CL (1994) Research on vehicle based driver status/performance monitoring: development, validation and refinement of algorithms for detection of driver drowsiness. Final report (DOT HS 808 247), National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Dinges DF, Grace R (1998) PERCLOS: a valid psychophysiological measure of alterness as assessed by the psychomotor vigilance.
  27. 27.
    Lal S, Craig A (2001) A critical review of psychophysiology of driver fatigue. Biol Psychol 55:173–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Merat N, Jamson AH (2013) The effect of three low-cost engineering treatments on driver fatigue: a driving simulator study. Accid Anal Prev 50:8–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Oron-Gilad T, Ronen A (2007) Road characteristics and driver fatigue: a simulated study. Transp Inj Prev 8:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Thiffault P, Bergeron J (2003) Monotony of road environment and driver fatigue: a simulator study. Accid Anal Prev 35:381–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Carsten O, Lai F, Barnard Y, Jamson AH, Merat N (2012) Control task substitution in semiautomated driving does it matter what aspects are automated? Hum Factors 54:747–761Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Merat N, Jamson AH, Lai F, Daly M, Carsten O Transition to manual: driver behavior when resuming control from a highly automated vehicle. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav, submittedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Natasha Merat
    • 1
  • Hamish A. Jamson
    • 1
  • Frank Lai
    • 1
  • Oliver Carsten
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Transport StudiesUniversity of LeedsLeedsUK

Personalised recommendations