The Ergonomics Application Research on Differences Between Adaptive Cruise Control System and Drivers

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering book series (LNEE, volume 318)


Adaptive cruise control (ACC) is an important part of intelligent transportation systems (ITS), and the ergonomics between driver and vehicle is changed. This article researches on the ergonomics between ACC and drivers. A series of vehicle road test is organized in Chinese urban driving conditions. The vehicle data, road data, and the drivers’ behavior data are analyzed during the researches. Drivers are interviewed on their feelings when they are applying the ACC system. At last, it shows the differences in behavior between the ACC system and drivers under several working conditions.


Adaptive cruise control Intelligent transportation Differences 


  1. 1.
    Marsden G, McDonald M, Brackstone M (2001) Towards an understanding of adaptive cruise control. Transp Res Part C Emerg Technol 9(1):33–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Winner H (1996) Adaptive cruise control system: aspects and development trends. In: Overview and update of ITS system developments, no. 961010. SAE technical paperGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sayer JR (1996) Intelligent cruise control-issues for consideration. Training 2010:03–15Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Larsson AF (2012) Driver usage and understanding of adaptive cruise control. Appl Ergon 43(3):501–506CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Stanton NA, Young MS (2005) Driver behaviour with adaptive cruise control. Ergonomics 48(10):1294–1313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hoedemaeker M, Brookhuis KA (1998) Behavioural adaptation to driving with an adaptive cruise control (ACC). Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav 1(2):95–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jones S, Philips BH (2013) Cooperative adaptive cruise control: critical human factors issues and research questions. In: In 7th international driving symposium on human factors in driver assessment, training, and vehicle designGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nilsson J, Strand N, Falcone P, Vinter J (2013) Driver performance in the presence of adaptive cruise control related failures: implications for safety analysis and fault tolerance. In: Dependable systems and networks workshop (DSN-W), 2013 43rd annual IEEE/IFIP conference on, IEEE, pp 1–10Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bifulco GN, Pariota L, Simonelli F, Di Pace R (2013) Development and testing of a fully adaptive cruise control system. Transp Res Part C Emerg Technol 29:156–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Beggiato M, Krems JF (2013) The evolution of mental model, trust and acceptance of adaptive cruise control in relation to initial information. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav 18:47–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schleicher S, Gelau C (2011) The influence of cruise control and adaptive cruise control on driving behaviour—a driving simulator study. Accid Anal Prev 43(3):1134–1139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nowakowski C, O’Connell J, Shladover SE, Cody D (2010) Cooperative adaptive cruise control: driver acceptance of following gap settings less than one second. In: Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting. SAGE Publications, vol 54(24), pp 2033–2037Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of EngineeringChina Agricultural UniversityBeijingChina
  2. 2.CH Auto Technology Corporation Ltd.BeijingChina

Personalised recommendations