Drivers’ Collision Avoidance Pattern Before Imminent Intersection Accidents

  • Mengxia Hu
  • Wenhui Zhang
  • Penghui Li
  • Zhixiao Zheng
  • Yibing LiEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering book series (LNEE, volume 503)


There is a tendency that drivers do not usually use optimal strategy in imminent intersection conflicts. Drivers usually swerve to the same direction as the obstacle, which sometimes results in accidents. In this paper, driving simulation experiments were conducted focusing on drivers’ reaction—especially, the swerving behavior—in critical intersection situations. The influences of incursion side and obstacle velocity were examined during the experiments. The results proved the existence of drivers’ same-direction-pattern (SDP) swerving maneuver, as the proportion of same-direction-swerving (SDS) was tremendously higher than what it should be in both left- and right incursion situations. The work serves as a foundation for further research on accident causation and Advanced Driver Assistant Systems (ADAS) development.


Collision avoidance Swerving maneuver Intersection conflict Same-direction-pattern 



The work is supported by Individual Research Founding of State Key Laboratory of Automotive Safety & Energy, Tsinghua University (ZZ2016-032).


  1. 1.
    Figueiredo L, Jesus I, Machado JAT, Ferreira JR, Martins (2001) Towards the development of intelligent transportation systems. In: Intelligent transportation systems proceedings, pp 1206–1211Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Adams LD (1994) Review of the literature on obstacle avoidance maneuvers: Braking versus steering (Tech. Rep. No. UMTRI-94-19),” Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Transportation Research InstituteGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Edwards ML, Malone S (1982) Driver crash avoidance behavior. Unpublished manuscript. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. NHTSA Driver Performance HandbookGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Limpert R, Garnero FE (1974) The accident avoidance potential of the motor vehicle: accident data, vehicle handling and safety standards. In: Proceedings of the third international congress on automotive safety, vol 11. Washington D.C., GPO, 61pGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Malaterre B, Ferrandez F, Fleury D, Lechner D (1988) Decision making in emergency situations. Ergonomics 31(4), 643–655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ferrandez F, Fleury D, Lepesant D (1984) Analysetypologique des manoeuvresd’urgence. Rapport ONSERGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hatterick GR, Bathurst JR (1976) Accident avoidance skill training and performance testing (Final Report No. DOT/HS 801852). Falls Church, VA: URSIMatrix CompanyGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hancock P, Ridder SD (2003) Behavioural accident avoidance science: understanding response in collision incipient conditions. Ergonomics 46(12):1111–1135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sieber M, Färber B (2016) Driver perception and reaction in collision avoidance: implications for ADAS development and testing. In: 2016 IEEE intelligent vehicles symposium (IV) Gothenburg, Sweden, 19–22 June 2016Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Xuedong Y, Rami H, Essam R (2008) Analyses of factors of crash avoidance maneuvers using the general estimates system. Traffic Inj Prev 9:2Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kramer F, Israel M (2014) “VirtuellerGreifreflex” — einKonfliktpotenzial und die Möglichkeiten der Kompensation in PersonenkraftwagenmithilfemodernerAssistenzsysteme [“Virtual Grasp Reflex” — a potential for conflict and the possibilities of compensation in passenger cars with the aid of modern assistance systems]. VKU Verkehrsunfall Fahrzeugtechnik 52(11):390–399Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Weber S (2013) GibtesStandardreaktionenimUnfallgeschehen? Internal presentation for AUDI AG, Ingolstadt, Germany, 25 Nov 2013Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Weber S, Färber B (2015) Driver reactions in critical crossing situations. In: 2015 IEEE 18th international conference on intelligent transportation systems. Las PalmasGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Weber S, Blum K, Ernstberger A, Färber B (2015) Standard reactions—driver reactions in critical driving situations. In: 6th international conference on applied human factors and ergonomics and the affiliated conferences, Las VegasGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lechner D, Malaterre G (1991) Emergency maneuver experimentation using a driving simulator. In: Presented at Autotechnologies, 5th Conference and Exposition, Monte Carlo, Monaco. Report No. SAE 910016Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hankey JM, McGehee DV, Dingus TA, Mazzae EN, Garrott WR (1996) Initial driver avoidance behavior and reaction time to an unalerted intersection incursion. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 40th annual meeting. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Santa Monica, CA, pp 896–899CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    McGehee DV, Mazzae EN, Baldwin GHS, Grant P, Simmons CJ, Hankey J, Forkenbrock G (1999) Examination of drivers’ collision avoidance behavior using conventional and antilock brake systems on the Iowa driving simulator (Final rep.). University of Iowa, Iowa CityGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mengxia Hu
    • 1
  • Wenhui Zhang
    • 2
  • Penghui Li
    • 1
  • Zhixiao Zheng
    • 1
  • Yibing Li
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.State Key Laboratory of Automotive Safety & EnergyTsinghua UniversityBeijingChina
  2. 2.Traffic SchoolNortheast Forestry UniversityHarbinChina

Personalised recommendations