The Development of a Method to Assess the Effects of Traffic Situation and Time Pressure on Driver Information Preferences

  • Alexander Eriksson
  • Ignacio Solis Marcos
  • Katja Kircher
  • Daniel Västfjäll
  • Neville A Stanton
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9174)

Abstract

Contemporary Driving Automation (DA) is quickly approaching a level where partial autonomy will be available, relying on transferring control back to the driver when the operational limits of DA is reached. To explore what type of information drivers might prefer in control transitions an online test was constructed. The participants are faced with a set of still pictures of traffic situations of varying complexity levels and with different time constraints as situations and time available is likely to vary in real world scenarios. The choices drivers made were then assessed with regards to the contextual and temporal information available to participants. The results indicate that information preferences are dependent both on the complexity of the situation presented as well as the temporal constraints. The results also show that the different temporal and contextual conditions had an effect on decision-making time, where participants orient themselves quicker in the low complexity situations or when the available time is restricted. Furthermore, the method seem to identify changes in behaviour caused by varying the traffic situation and external time pressure. If the results can be validated against a more realistic setting, this particular method may prove to be a cost effective, easily disseminated tool which has potential to gather valuable insights about what information drivers prioritize when confronted with different situations.

Keywords

Adaptation to task demands Driving automation Online survey Decision making 

References

  1. 1.
    National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Preliminary Statement of Policy Concerning Automated Vehicles, N.H.T.S. Administration, Editor (2013)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gasser, T.M., et al.: Legal consequences of an increase in vehicle automation. Die Bundesanstalt für Straßenwesen (BASt) Report F83 (2009) (2009)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Banks, V.A., Stanton, N.A., Harvey, C.: Sub-systems on the road to vehicle automation: hands and feet free but not ‘mind’ free driving. Saf. Sci. 62, 505–514 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    de Winter, J.C.F., et al.: Effects of adaptive cruise control and highly automated driving on workload and situation awareness: a review of the empirical evidence. Trans. Res. Part F: Traffic Psychol. Behav. 27, 196–217 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Strand, N., et al.: Semi-automated versus highly automated driving in critical situations caused by automation failures. Transp. Res. Part F: Traffic Psychol. Behav. 27, 218–228 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Young, M.S., Stanton, N.A.: Back to the future: brake reaction times for manual and automated vehicles. Ergonomics 50(1), 46–58 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Stanton, N.A., Young, M., McCaulder, B.: Drive-by-wire: the case of driver workload and reclaiming control with adaptive cruise control. Saf. Sci. 27(2–3), 149–159 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Desmond, P.A., Hancock, P.A., Monette, J.L.: Fatigue and automation-induced impairments in simulated driving performance. Hum. Perform. User Inf. Highway Des. 1628, 8–14 (1998)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    De Winter, J.C.F., et al.: The frustrated driver: an overlooked aspect of driving automation. Submitted to Applied ErgonomicsGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Molloy, R., Parasuraman, R.: Monitoring an automated system for a single failure: vigilance and task complexity effects. Hum. Factors 38(2), 311–322 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Merat, N., et al.: Transition to manual: driver behaviour when resuming control from a highly automated vehicle. Transp. Res. Part F: Traffic Psychol. Behav. 26,Part A, 1–9 (2014)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Young, M.S., Stanton, N.A.: Attention and automation: new perspectives on mental underload and performance. Theor. Issues Ergon. Sci. 3(2), 178–194 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Young, M.S., Stanton, N.A.: Malleable attentional resources theory: a new explanation for the effects of mental underload on performance. Hum. Factors 44(3), 365–375 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Summala, H.: Brake reaction times and driver behavior analysis. Transp. Hum. Factors 2(3), 217–226 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Swaroop, D., Rajagopal, K.R.: A review of constant time headway policy for automatic vehicle following. In: IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Conference Proceedings, Oakland (CA), USA (2001)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wolterink, W.K., Heijenk, G., Karagiannis,.G.: Automated merging in a cooperative adaptive cruise control (CACC) system. In: Fifth ERCIM Workshop on eMobility. Vilanova i la Geltrú, Catalonia, Spain (2011)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Stanton, N.A., Dunoyer, A., Leatherland, A.: Detection of new in-path targets by drivers using stop & go adaptive cruise control. Appl. Ergon. 42(4), 592–601 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Stanton, N.A., Marsden, P.: From fly-by-wire to drive-by-wire: safety implications of automation in vehicles. Saf. Sci. 24(1), 35–49 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Christoffersen, K., Woods, D.D.: How to make automated systems team players. Adv. Hum. Perform. Cogn. Eng. Res. 2, 1–12 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Michon, J.A.: A Critical View of Driver Behavior Models: What Do We Know, What Should We Do? In: Evans, L., Schwing, R.C. (eds.) Human Behavior and Traffic Safety. Plenum Press, New York (1985)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    De Craen, S., et al.: The development of a method to measure speed adaptation to traffic complexity: identifying novice, unsafe, and overconfident drivers. Accid. Anal. Prev. 40(4), 1524–1530 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kircher, K., Larsson, A., Hultgren, J.A.: Tactical driving behavior with different levels of automation. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. 15(1), 158–167 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexander Eriksson
    • 1
  • Ignacio Solis Marcos
    • 2
  • Katja Kircher
    • 2
  • Daniel Västfjäll
    • 3
  • Neville A Stanton
    • 1
  1. 1.Transportation Research Group, Faculty of Engineering and EnvironmentUniversity of Southampton, Boldrewood CampusSouthamptonUK
  2. 2.VTI, The Swedish National Road and Transport Research InstituteLinköpingSweden
  3. 3.Department of Behavioral Sciences and LearningLinköping UniversityLinköpingSweden

Personalised recommendations