Manual Takeover and Handover of a Simulated Fully Autonomous Vehicle Within Urban and Extra-Urban Settings

  • Phillip L. Morgan
  • Chris Alford
  • Craig Williams
  • Graham Parkhurst
  • Tony Pipe
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 597)


Relatively little is known about human behavior and performance when retaking control of highly autonomous vehicles (AVs) at different speeds and under varied driving conditions. Past research has tended to focus on long periods of high-speed extra-urban autonomous driving before participants switch to manual mode. The current study investigated time to ‘takeover’ (reengage with vehicle controls) and ‘handover’ (regain baseline level of driving) when switching frequently between automated and manual modes within extra-urban and slower urban settings. Thirty-one drivers completed scenarios at different speeds (20–30-mph/urban; 40–50-mph/extra urban). Dependent measures included speed and lateral lane position. Takeover time was consistent in 30–50-mph conditions (~2-seconds) but significantly slower at 20-mph. Some other measures took 15–20-seconds to match baseline in 20–30-mph conditions and participants tended to drive slower than recommended speed limits after takeover. Baseline performance was not achieved at 50-mph. Implications for handover system design and AV insurance frameworks are discussed.


Automated vehicle Takeover Handover Urban settings 



The reported research forms part of an Innovate UK research project - VENTURER: Introducing driverless cars to UK roads (2015–2018). See We thank Carolyn Mitchell, Rebecca Tommey, and Peter Blackley (all at Atkins UK) for reading an earlier draft of this paper, and Dr. Alex Lenz and Jason Welsby (both at Bristol Robotics Laboratory) for assisting with programming the autonomous elements of the driving scenarios.


  1. 1.
    Department for Transport: The pathway to driverless cars: a detailed review of regulations for automated vehicle technologies (2015).
  2. 2.
    Walker, G.H., Stanton, N.A., Young, P.M.: Human Factors in Automotive Engineering and Technology. Ashgate, Surrey (2015)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ma, R.: Kaber.: Situation awareness and workload in driving while using adaptive cruise control and a cell phone. J. Ind. Ergon. 35(10), 939–953 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Stanton, N.A., Young, M.S.: Developing a psychological model of the driver. In: Eleventh Seminar. Behavioural Research in Road Safety (2002)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Stanton, N.S., Young, M.S.: Driver behavior with adaptive cruise control. Ergonomics 48, 1294–1313 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Morgan, P.L., Alford, C., Parkhurst, G.: Handover issues in autonomous driving: a literature review. Innovate UK Venturer Project Report D9, University West of the England, Bristol, UK (2016)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Eriksson, A., Stanton, N.S.: Take-over time in highly automated vehicles: Non-critical transitions to and from control. Hum. Factors 59(4), 689–705 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    SAE International: U.S. Department of transportation’s new policy on automated vehicles adopts SAE International’s levels of automation for defining driving automation in on-road motor vehicles (2016).
  9. 9.
    SAE International: Automated driving: levels of driving automation defined in new SAE international standard J3016 (2014).
  10. 10.
    Jamson, A.H., Merat, N., Carsten, O.M.J., Lai, F.C.H.: Behavioural changes in drivers experiencing highly-automated vehicle control in varying traffic conditions. Transp. Res C 30, 116–125 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Merat, N., Jamson, H.: How do drivers behave in a highly automated car? In: Proceedings of the Fifth International Driving Symposium on Human Factor in Driver Assessment, Training and Vehicle Design, pp. 514–521 (2009)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Merat, N., Waard, D.: Human factors implications of vehicle automation: current understanding and future directions. Transp. Res. F 27(Part B), 192–195 (2014)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Radlmayr, J., Gold, C., Lorenz, L., Farid, M., Bengler, K.: How traffic situations and non-driving related tasks affect the take-over quality in highly automated driving. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 58th Annual Meeting, pp. 2063–2067 (2014)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Merat, N., Jamson, A.H., Lai, F.C., Daly, M.R., Carsten, O.M.J.: Transition to manual: driver behaviour when resuming control from a highly automated vehicle. Transp. Res. F. 27(Part B), 274–282 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Neubauer, C., Matthews, G., Langheim, L., Saxby, D.: Fatigue and voluntary utilization of automation in simulated driving. Hum. Factors 54(5), 734–746 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Merat, N., Jamson, H., Lai, F., Carsten, O.: Highly automated driving, secondary task performance and driver state. Hum. Factors 54, 762–771 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gold, C., Damböck, D., Lorenz, L., Bengler, K.: “Take over!” How long does it take to get the driver back into the loop? In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 57th Annual Meeting (2013)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gold, C., Damböck, D., Bengler, K., Lorenz, L.: Partially automated driving as a fallback level of high automation. Tagung Fahrerassistenzsysteme. Der Weg zum automatischen Fahren. 28(29.11) (2013)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Merat, N., Jamson, A.H.: Is drivers’ situation awareness influenced by a fully automated driving scenario? In: de Waard, D., Godthelp, J., Kooi, F.L., Brookhuis, K.A. (eds.) Human Factors, Security and Safety, pp. 1–11. Shaker, Maastricht (2009)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Naujoks, F., Purucker, C., Neukum, A.: Secondary task engagement and vehicle automation—comparing the effects of different automation levels in an on-road experiment. Transp. Res. F 38, 67–82 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gold, C., Körber, M., Lechner, D., Bengler, K.: Taking over control from highly automated vehicles in complex traffic situations the role of traffic density. J. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. 58(4), 642–652 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Körber, M., Gold, C., Lechner, D., Bengler, K.: The influence of age on the take-over of vehicle control in highly automated driving. Transp. Res. F 39, 19–32 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.G., Buchner, A.: G* Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav. Res. Methods 39(2), 175–191 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cohen, J.: Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, Hillsdale (1998)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Louw, T., Merat, N., Jamson, H.: Engaging with highly automated driving: to be or not to be in the loop. In: 8th International Driving Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training and Vehicle Design (2015)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kerschbaum, P., Lorenz, L., Bengler, K.: A transforming steering wheel for highly automated cars. In: Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV), pp. 1287–1292. IEEE (2015)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Phillip L. Morgan
    • 1
    • 2
  • Chris Alford
    • 1
    • 2
  • Craig Williams
    • 1
    • 3
  • Graham Parkhurst
    • 1
    • 4
  • Tony Pipe
    • 1
    • 5
  1. 1.University of the West of England – BristolBristolUnited Kingdom
  2. 2.Psychological Sciences Research GroupUniversity of the West of England – BristolBristolUnited Kingdom
  3. 3.Centre for Health and Clinical ResearchUniversity of the West of England – BristolBristolUnited Kingdom
  4. 4.Centre for Transport and SocietyUniversity of the West of England – BristolBristolUnited Kingdom
  5. 5.Bristol Robotics LaboratoryUniversity of the West of England – BristolBristolUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations