This article provides a review of empirical studies of automated vehicle takeovers and driver modeling to identify influential factors and their impacts on takeover performance and suggest driver models that can capture them.
Background:
Significant safety issues remain in automated-to-manual transitions of vehicle control. Developing models and computer simulations of automated vehicle control transitions may help designers mitigate these issues, but only if accurate models are used. Selecting accurate models requires estimating the impact of factors that influence takeovers.
Method:
Articles describing automated vehicle takeovers or driver modeling research were identified through a systematic approach. Inclusion criteria were used to identify relevant studies and models of braking, steering, and the complete takeover process for further review.
Results:
The reviewed studies on automated vehicle takeovers identified several factors that significantly influence takeover time and post-takeover control. Drivers were found to respond similarly between manual emergencies and automated takeovers, albeit with a delay. The findings suggest that existing braking and steering models for manual driving may be applicable to modeling automated vehicle takeovers.
Conclusion:
Time budget, repeated exposure to takeovers, silent failures, and handheld secondary tasks significantly influence takeover time. These factors in addition to takeover request modality, driving environment, non-handheld secondary tasks, level of automation, trust, fatigue, and alcohol significantly impact post-takeover control. Models that capture these effects through evidence accumulation were identified as promising directions for future work.
Application:
Stakeholders interested in driver behavior during automated vehicle takeovers may use this article to identify starting points for their work.
AmeyoeA.ChevrelP.Le-CarpentierE.MarsF.IllyH. (2015). Identification of a linear parameter varying driver model for the detection of distraction. IFAC-PapersOnLine, 48(26), 37–42. doi:10.1016/j.ifacol.2015.11.110
2.
AndersenG. J.SauerC. W. (2007). Optical information for car following: The driving by visual angle (DVA) model. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 49, 878–896. doi:10.1518/001872007X230235
3.
AustM. L.EngströmJ.ViströmM. (2013). Effects of forward collision warning and repeated event exposure on emergency braking. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 18, 34–46. doi:10.1016/j.trf.2012.12.010
4.
BainbridgeL. (1983). Ironies of automation. In Analysis, design and evaluation of man–machine systems (Vol. 19, pp. 129–135). London: Elsevier.
5.
BanksV. A.ErikssonA.O’DonoghueJ.StantonN. A. (2018). Is partially automated driving a bad idea? Observations from an on-road study. Applied Ergonomics, 68, 138–145. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2017.11.010
6.
BanksV. A.PlantK. L.StantonN. A. (2017). Driver error or designer error: Using the perceptual cycle model to explore the circumstances surrounding the fatal Tesla crash on 7th May 2016. Safety Science, 108, 278–285. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2017.12.023
7.
BanksV. A.StantonN. A. (2015). Discovering driver-vehicle coordination problems in future automated control systems: Evidence from verbal commentaries. Procedia Manufacturing, 3, 2497–2504. doi:10.1016/j.promfg.2015.07.511
8.
BanksV. A.StantonN. A. (2016a). Driver-centred vehicle automation: Using network analysis for agent-based modelling of the driver in highly automated driving systems. Ergonomics, 59, 1442–1452 doi:10.1080/00140139.2016.1146344
9.
BanksV. A.StantonN. A. (2016b). Keep the driver in control: Automating automobiles of the future. Applied Ergonomics, 53, 389–395. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2015.06.020
10.
BanksV. A.StantonN. A. (2019). Analysis of driver roles: Modelling the changing role of the driver in automated driving systems using EAST. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/1463922X.2017.1305465
11.
BanksV. A.StantonN. A.HarveyC. (2014). Sub-systems on the road to vehicle automation: Hands and feet free but not “mind” free driving. Safety Science, 62, 505–514. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2013.10.014
12.
BärgmanJ.BodaC.-N.DozzaM. (2017). Counterfactual simulations applied to SHRP2 crashes: The effect of driver behavior models on safety benefit estimations of intelligent safety systems. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 102, 165–180. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2017.03.003
13.
BellerJ.HeesenM.VollrathM. (2013). Improving the driver-automation interaction: An approach using automation uncertainty. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 55, 1130–1141. doi:10.1177/0018720813482327
14.
BenderiusO.MarkkulaG. (2014). Evidence for a fundamental property of steering. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 58th Annual Meeting (pp. 884–888). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
15.
BenderiusO.MarkkulaG.WolffK.WahdeM. (2014). Driver behaviour in unexpected critical events and in repeated exposures—A comparison. European Transport Research Review, 6, 51–60. doi:10.1007/s12544-013-0108-y
16.
BevlyD.MurrayC.LimA.TurochyR.SesekR.SmithS.. . . KahnB. (2017). Heavy truck cooperative adaptive cruise control: Evaluation, testing, and stakeholder engagement for near term deployment: Phase two final report. Retrieved from http://atri-online.org/2015/05/27/4410/
17.
BiL.GanG.ShangJ.LiuY. (2012). Queuing network modeling of driver lateral control with or without a cognitive distraction task. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 13, 1810–1820. doi:10.1109/TITS.2012.2204255
18.
BrackstoneM.McDonaldM. (1999). Car-following: A historical review. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 2, 181–196. doi:10.1016/S1369-8478(00)00005-X
19.
BrandenburgS.SkottkeE.-M. (2014). Switching from manual to automated driving and reverse: Are drivers behaving more risky after highly automated driving? In IEEE 17th International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC) (pp. 2978–2983). Qingdao, China: IEEE. doi:10.1109/ITSC.2014.6958168
20.
BrownI. D. (1994). Driver fatigue. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 36, 298–314. doi:10.1177/001872089403600210
21.
BuenoM.DoganE.Hadj SelemF.MonacelliE.BoverieS.GuillaumeA. (2016). How different mental workload levels affect the takeover control after automated driving. In IEEE 19th International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC) (pp. 2040–2045). Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: IEEE. doi:10.1109/ITSC.2016.7795886
22.
CarstenO.LaiF. C. H.BarnardY.JamsonA. H.MeratN. (2012). Control task substitution in semiautomated driving: Does it matter what aspects are automated?Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 54, 747–761. doi:10.1177/0018720812460246
23.
CarterA. A.BurgettA. (2009). Safety impact methodology (SIM): Evaluation of pre-production systems. In Proceeding of the 21st International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles (ESV). Stuttgart, Germany: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
24.
CicchinoJ. B. (2017). Effectiveness of forward collision warning and autonomous emergency braking systems in reducing front-to-rear crash rates. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 99, 142–152. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2016.11.009
25.
CicchinoJ. B. (2018). Effects of blind spot monitoring systems on police-reported lane-change crashes. Traffic Injury Prevention, 19, 615–622. doi:10.1080/15389588.2018.1476973
26.
ClarkH.FengJ. (2017). Age differences in the takeover of vehicle control and engagement in non-driving-related activities in simulated driving with conditional automation. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 106, 468–479. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2016.08.027
27.
ClarkH.McLaughlinA. C.WilliamsB.FengJ. (2017). Performance in takeover and characteristics of non-driving related tasks during highly automated driving in younger and older drivers. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 61st Annual Meeting (pp. 37–41). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
28.
Da LioM.MazzalaiA.GurneyK.SaroldiA. (2018). Biologically guided driver modeling: The stop behavior of human car drivers. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 19, 2454–2469. doi:10.1109/TITS.2017.2751526
29.
de WinterJ. C. F.HappeeR.MartensM. H.StantonN. A. (2014). Effects of adaptive cruise control and highly automated driving on workload and situation awareness: A review of the empirical evidence. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 27, 196–217. doi:10.1016/j.trf.2014.06.016
30.
DeganiA.HeymannM. (2002). Formal verification of human-automation interaction. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 44, 28–43. doi:10.1518/0018720024494838
31.
DekkerS. W. A.WoodsD. D. (2002). MABA-MABA or Abracadabra? Progress on human-automation co-ordination. Cognition, Technology & Work, 4, 240–244. doi:10.1007/s101110200022
32.
DinparastDjadidA.LeeJ. D.SchwarzC. W.VenkatramanV.BrownT. L.GasparJ.GunaratneP. (2017). After the fail: How far will drivers drift after a sudden transition of control? In Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Future Active Safety Technology—Towards zero traffic accidents. Nara, Japan: Society of Automotive Engineers of Japan.
33.
DoganE.RahalM. C.DeborneR.DelhommeP.KemenyA.PerrinJ. (2017). Transition of control in a partially automated vehicle: Effects of anticipation and non-driving-related task involvement. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 46, 205–215. doi:10.1016/j.trf.2017.01.012
34.
DongesE. (1978). A two-level model of driver steering behavior. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 20, 691–707. doi:10.1177/001872087802000607
35.
EdelmannJ.PlöchlM.ReinalterW.TieberW. (2007). A passenger car driver model for higher lateral accelerations. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 45, 1117–1129. doi:10.1080/00423110701203644
36.
EndsleyM. R. (2017). Autonomous driving systems: A preliminary naturalistic study of the Tesla Model S. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 11, 225–238. doi:10.1177/1555343417695197
37.
EndsleyM. R.KaberD. B. (1999). Level of automation effects on performance, situation awareness and workload in a dynamic control task. Ergonomics, 42, 462–492. doi:10.1080/001401399185595
38.
EndsleyM. R.KirisE. O. (1995). The out-of-the-loop performance problem and level of control in automation. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 37, 381–394. doi:10.1518/001872095779064555
39.
EngströmJ. (2010). Scenario criticality determines the effects of working memory load on brake response time. In KremsJ. F.PetzoldtT.HenningM. (Eds.), Proceedings of the European conference on human centred design for intelligent transport systems (HUMANIST) (pp. 25–36). Retrieved from http://conference2010.humanist-vce.eu/document/Proceedings/1a_Engstrom.pdf
40.
EngströmJ.BärgmanJ.NilssonD.SeppeltB. D.MarkkulaG.PiccininiG. B.VictorT. (2018). Great expectations: A predictive processing account of automobile driving. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 19, 156–194. doi:/10.1080/1463922X.2017.1306148
41.
EngströmJ.MarkkulaG.MeratN. (2017). Modelling the effect of cognitive load on driver reactions to a braking lead vehicle: A computational account of the cognitive control hypothesis. In Fifth International Conference on Driver Distraction and Inattention (pp. 1–13). Paris, France: White Rose Research.
42.
EngströmJ.MarkkulaG.VictorT.MeratN. (2017). Effects of cognitive load on driving performance: The cognitive control hypothesis. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 59, 734–764. doi:10.1177/0018720817690639
43.
EngströmJ.MarkkulaG.XueQ.MeratN. (2018). Simulating the effect of cognitive load on braking responses in lead vehicle braking scenarios. IET Intelligent Transport Systems, 12, 427–433. doi:10.1049/iet-its.2017.0233
44.
ErikssonA.BanksV. A.StantonN. A. (2017). Transition to manual: Comparing simulator with on-road control transitions. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 102, 227–234. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2017.03.011
45.
ErikssonA.PetermeijerS. M.ZimmermannM.de WinterJ. C. F.BenglerK. J.StantonN. A. (2019). Rolling out the red (and green)carpet: supporting driver decision making in automation-to-manual transitions. IEEE Transactions on Human Machine Systems, 49, 20–31.
46.
ErikssonA.StantonN. A. (2017a). Driving performance after self-regulated control transitions in highly automated vehicles. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 59, 1233–1248. doi:10.1177/0018720817728774
47.
ErikssonA.StantonN. A. (2017b). Takeover time in highly automated vehicles: Noncritical transitions to and from manual control. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 59, 689–705. doi:10.1177/0018720816685832
48.
FajenB. R. (2008). Perceptual learning and the visual control of braking. Perception & Psychophysics, 70, 1117–1129. doi:10.3758/PP.70.6.1117
49.
FeldhütterA.GoldC.SchneiderS.BenglerK. (2017). How the duration of automated driving influences takeover performance and gaze behavior. In SchlickC. M.DuckwitzS.FlemischF.FrenzM.KuzS.MertensA.Mütze-NiewöhnerS. (Eds.), Advances in ergonomic design of systems, products and processes (pp. 309–318). Berlin: Springer.
50.
FildesB.KeallM.BosN.LieA.PageY.PastorC.. . . TingvallC. (2015). Effectiveness of low speed autonomous emergency braking in real-world rear-end crashes. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 81, 24–29. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2015.03.029
51.
FitchG. M.RakhaH. A.ArafehM.BlancoM.GuptaS. K.ZimmermannR. P.HanowskiR. J. (2008). Safety benefit evaluation of a forward collision warning system: Final report (NHTSA DOT HS, 810, 910). Retrieved from https://one.nhtsa.gov
52.
ForsterY.NaujoksF.NeukumA.HuesteggeL. (2017). Driver compliance to takeover requests with different auditory outputs in conditional automation. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 109, 18–28. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2017.09.019
53.
FritzscheH.AgD. (1994). A model for traffic simulation. Traffic Engineering & Control, 35, 317–321.
54.
GazisD. C.HermanR.RotheryR. W. (1961). Nonlinear follow-the-leader models of traffic flow. Operations Research, 9, 545–567. doi:10.1287/opre.9.4.545
55.
GippsP. G. (1981). A behavioural car-following model for computer simulation. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 15, 105–111. doi:10.1016/0191-2615(81)90037-0
56.
GoldC.BerishaI.BenglerK. J. (2015). Utilization of drivetime—Performing non-driving related tasks while driving highly automated. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 59th Annual Meeting (pp. 1666–1670). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
57.
GoldC.DamböckD.BenglerK. J.LorenzL. (2013). Partially automated driving as a fallback level of high automation. In 6. Tagung Fahrerassistenzsysteme. Der Weg zum automatischen Fahren. Munich, Germany: Technische Universität München.
58.
GoldC.DamböckD.LorenzL.BenglerK. J. (2013). Take over! How long does it take to get the driver back into the loop?Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 57th Annual Meeting (pp. 1938–1942). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
59.
GoldC.HappeeR.BenglerK. J. (2017). Modeling takeover performance in level 3 conditionally automated vehicles. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 116, 3–13. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2017.11.009
60.
GoldC.KörberM.HohenbergerC.LechnerD.BenglerK. (2015). Trust in automation—Before and after the experience of takeover scenarios in a highly automated vehicle. In Procedia Manufacturing 6th International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics (AHFE) and the Affiliated Conferences (Vol. 3, pp. 3025–3032). London: Elsevier.
61.
GoldC.KörberM.LechnerD.BenglerK. J. (2016). Taking over control from highly automated vehicles in complex traffic situations. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 58, 642–652. doi:10.1177/0018720816634226
62.
GonçalvesJ.HappeeR.BenglerK. J. (2016). Drowsiness in conditional automation: Proneness, diagnosis and driving performance effects. In IEEE 19th Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC) (pp. 873–878). Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: IEEE.
63.
GordonT.SardarH.BlowerD.Ljung AustM.BareketZ.BarnesM.. . . TheanderH. (2010). Advanced crash avoidance technologies (ACAT) program—Final report of the Volvo-Ford-UMTRI project: Safety impact methodology for lane departure warning-method development and estimation of benefits (NHTSA DOT HS 811 405). Retrieved from https://one.nhtsa.gov
64.
GordonT.SrinivasanK. (2014). Modeling human lane keeping control in highway driving with validation by naturalistic data. In 2014 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC) (pp. 2507–2512). San Diego, CA, IEEE.
65.
GordonT.ZhangY. (2015). Steering pulse model for vehicle lane keeping. In 2015 IEEE International Conference on Computational Intelligence and Virtual Environments for Measurement Systems and Applications (CIVEMSA). Shezhen, China: IEEE.
66.
GreenleeE. T.DeLuciaP. R.NewtonD. C. (2018). Driver vigilance in automated vehicles: Hazard detection failures are a matter of time. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 60, 465–476. doi:10.1177/0018720818761711
HamdarS. H.MahmassaniH. S.TreiberM. (2015). From behavioral psychology to acceleration modeling: Calibration, validation, and exploration of drivers’ cognitive and safety parameters in a risk-taking environment. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 78, 32–53. doi:10.1016/j.trb.2015.03.011
69.
HamdarS. H.TreiberM.MahmassaniH. S.KestingA. (2008). Modeling driver behavior as sequential risk-taking task. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2088, 208–217. doi:doi.org/10.3141/2088-22
70.
HancockP. A. (2007). On the process of automation transition in multitask human-machine systems. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics Part A: Systems and Humans, 37, 586–598. doi:10.1109/TSMCA.2007.897610
71.
HaoH.MaW.XuH. (2016). A fuzzy logic-based multi-agent car-following model. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 69, 477–496. doi:10.1016/j.trc.2015.09.014
72.
HappeeR.GoldC.RadlmayrJ.HergethS.BenglerK. J. (2017). Takeover performance in evasive manoeuvres. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 106, 211–222. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2017.04.017
73.
HarbR.YanX.RadwanE.SuX. (2009). Exploring precrash maneuvers using classification trees and random forests. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 41, 98–107. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2008.09.009
74.
HergethS.LorenzL.KremsJ. F. (2017). Prior familiarization with takeover requests affects drivers’ takeover performance and automation trust. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 59, 457–470. doi:10.1177/0018720816678714
75.
HergethS.LorenzL.KremsJ. F.ToenertL. (2015). Effects of takeover requests and cultural background on automation trust in highly automated driving. In Proceedings of the 8th International Driving Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training, and Vehicle Design (pp. 331–337). Iowa City, IA: Iowa Research Online.
76.
HeymannM.DeganiA. (2007). Formal analysis and automatic generation of user interfaces: Approach, methodology, and an algorithm. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 49, 311–330. doi:10.1518/001872007X312522
77.
HoultW.ColeD. J. (2008). A neuromuscular model featuring co-activation for use in driver simulation. Vehicle System Dynamics, 46, 175–189. doi:10.1080/00423110801935798
78.
HuM.LiaoY.WangW.LiG.ChengB.ChenF. (2017). Decision tree-based maneuver prediction for driver rear-end risk-avoidance behaviors in cut-in scenarios. Journal of Advanced Transportation, 2017, 7170358. doi:10.1155/2017/7170358
79.
JamsonA. H.MeratN.CarstenO. M. J.LaiF. C. H. (2013). Behavioural changes in drivers experiencing highly-automated vehicle control in varying traffic conditions. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 30, 116–125. doi:10.1016/J.TRC.2013.02.008
80.
JinS.WangD.-H.YangX.-R. (2011). Non-lane-based car-following model with visual angle information. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2249, 7–14. doi:10.3141/2249-02
81.
JohnsT. A.ColeD. J. (2015). Measurement and mathematical model of a driver’s intermittent compensatory steering control. Vehicle System Dynamics, 53, 1811–1829. doi:10.1080/00423114.2015.1100748
82.
JurgensohnT. (2007). Control theory models of the driver. In CacciabueP. C. (Ed.), Modelling driver behaviour in automotive environments: critical issues in driver interactions with intelligent transport systems (pp. 277–292). New York, NY: Springer.
83.
KaberD. B.EndsleyM. R. (2004). The effects of level of automation and adaptive automation on human performance, situation awareness and workload in a dynamic control task. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 5, 113–153. doi:10.1080/1463922021000054335
84.
KalraN.PaddockS. M. (2016). Driving to safety: How many miles of driving would it take to demonstrate autonomous vehicle reliability?Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 94, 182–193 doi:10.1016/j.tra.2016.09.010
85.
KaplanS.PratoC. G. (2012a). The application of the random regret minimization model to drivers’ choice of crash avoidance maneuvers. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 15, 699–709. doi:10.1016/j.trf.2012.06.005
86.
KaplanS.PratoC. G. (2012b). Associating crash avoidance maneuvers with driver attributes and accident characteristics: A mixed logit model approach. Traffic Injury Prevention, 13, 315–326. doi:10.1080/15389588.2011.654015
87.
KerschbaumP.LorenzL.BenglerK. (2015). A transforming steering wheel for highly automated cars. In 2015 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV) (pp. 1287–1292). Seoul, Korea: IEEE.
88.
KoS. M.JiY. G. (2018). How we can measure the non-driving-task engagement in automated driving: Comparing flow experience and workload. Applied Ergonomics, 67, 237–245. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2017.10.009
89.
KörberM.BaselerE.BenglerK. J. (2018). Introduction matters: Manipulating trust in automation and reliance in automated driving. Applied Ergonomics, 66, 18–31. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2017.07.006
90.
KörberM.CingelA.ZimmermannM.BenglerK. (2015). Vigilance decrement and passive fatigue caused by monotony in automated driving. In Procedia Manufacturing 6th International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics (AHFE) and the Affiliated Conferences (Vol. 3, pp. 2403–2409). Las Vegas, NV: Elsevier.
91.
KörberM.GoldC.LechnerD.BenglerK. J.KoerberM. (2016). The influence of age on the takeover of vehicle control in highly automated driving. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 39, 19–32. doi:10.1016/j.trf.2016.03.002
92.
KörberM.WeißgerberT.BlaschkeC.FaridM.KalbL. (2015). Prediction of takeover time in highly automated driving by two psychometric tests. Dyna, 82(193), 195–201. doi:10.15446/dyna.v82n193.53496
KusanoK. D.GablerH.GormanT. I. (2014). Fleetwide safety benefits of production forward collision and lane departure warning systems. SAE International Journal of Passenger Cars - Mechanical Systems, 7, 514–527. doi:10.4271/2014-01-0166
95.
LeeD. N. (1976). A theory of visual control of braking based on information about time-to-collision. Perception, 5, 437–459. doi:10.1068/p050437
96.
LeeD. N.ReddishP. E. (1981). Plummeting gannets: A paradigm of ecological optics. Nature, 293(5830), 293–294. doi:10.1038/293293a0
97.
LeeJ. D. (2018). Perspectives on automotive automation and autonomy. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 12, 53–57. doi:10.1177/1555343417726476
98.
LeeJ. D.McGeheeD. V.BrownT. L.ReyesM. L. (2002). Collision warning timing, driver distraction, and driver response to imminent rear-end collisions in a high-fidelity driving simulator. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 44, 314–334. doi:10.1518/0018720024497844
99.
LeeJ. D.SeeK. A. (2004). Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 46, 50–80. doi:10.1518/hfes.46.1.50_30392
100.
LeeS. E.LlanerasE.KlauerS. G.SudweeksJ. (2007). Analysis of rear-end crashes and near-crashes in the 100-car naturalistic driving study to support rear-signaling countermeasure development (NHTSA DOT HS 810 846). Retrieved from https://www.nhtsa.gov
101.
LiS.BlytheP.GuoW.NamdeoA. (2018). Investigation of older driver’s takeover control performance in highly automated vehicles in adverse weather conditions. IET Intelligent Transport Systems, 12(9). doi:10.1049/iet-its.2018.0104
102.
LiY.ZhangL.ZhangB.ZhengT.FengH.LiY. (2016). Non-lane-discipline-based car-following model considering the effect of visual angle. Nonlinear Dynamics, 85, 1901–1912. doi:10.1007/s11071-016-2803-4
103.
LindorferM.MecklenbraukerC. F.OstermayerG. (2017). Modeling the imperfect driver: Incorporating human factors in a microscopic traffic model. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 19, 2856–2870. doi:10.1109/TITS.2017.2765694
104.
LorenzL.KerschbaumP.SchumannJ. (2014). Designing take over scenarios for automated driving: How does augmented reality support the driver to get back into the loop?Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 58th Annual Meeting (pp. 1681–1685). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
105.
LouwT.KountouriotisG.CarstenO.MeratN. (2015). Driver inattention during vehicle automation: How does driver engagement affect resumption of control? In 4th International Driver Distraction and Inattention Conference. Sydney: ARRB Group.
106.
LouwT.MadiganR.CarstenO.MeratN. (2017). Were they in the loop during automated driving? Links between visual attention and crash potential. Injury Prevention, 23, 281–286. doi:10.1136/injuryprev-2016-042155
107.
LouwT.MarkkulaG.BoerE.MadiganR.CarstenO.MeratN. (2017). Coming back into the loop: Drivers’ perceptual-motor performance in critical events after automated driving. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 108, 9–18. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2017.08.011
108.
LouwT.MeratN. (2017). Are you in the loop? Using gaze dispersion to understand driver visual attention during vehicle automation. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 76, 35–50. doi:10.1016/j.trc.2017.01.001
109.
LouwT.MeratN.JamsonA. H. (2015). 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 (pp. 190–196). Salt Lake City, UT: Iowa Research Online.
110.
LuX.-Y.ShladoverS. (2017). Integrated ACC and CACC development for heavy-duty truck partial automation. In 2017 American Control Conference (ACC) (pp. 4938–4945). New York, NY: IEEE.
111.
LuZ.de WinterJ. C. F. (2015). A review and framework of control authority transitions in automated driving. In Procedia Manufacturing 6th International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics (AHFE 2015) and the Affiliated Conferences (Vol. 3, pp. 2510–2517). London: Elsevier.
112.
LuZ.HappeeR.CabrallC. D. D.KyriakidisM.de WinterJ. C. F. (2016). Human factors of transitions in automated driving: A general framework and literature survey. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 43, 183–198. doi:10.1016/j.trf.2016.10.007
MadiganR.LouwT.MeratN. (2018). The effect of varying levels of vehicle automation on drivers’ lane changing behaviour. PLOS ONE, 13(2), 1–17. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0192190
115.
MarkkulaG. (2014). Modeling driver control behavior in both routine and near-accident driving. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 58th Annual Meeting (pp. 879–883). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
MarkkulaG.BenderiusO.WahdeM. (2014). Comparing and validating models of driver steering behaviour in collision avoidance and vehicle stabilisation. Vehicle System Dynamics, 52, 1658–1680. doi:10.1080/00423114.2014.954589
118.
MarkkulaG.BenderiusO.WolffK.WahdeM. (2012). a review of near-collision driver behavior models. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 54, 1117–1143. doi:10.1177/0018720812448474
119.
MarkkulaG.BoerE.RomanoR.MeratN. (2018). Sustained sensorimotor control as intermittent decisions about prediction errors: computational framework and application to ground vehicle steering. Biological Cybernetics, 112, 181–207. doi:10.1007/s00422-017-0743-9
120.
MarkkulaG.EngströmJ.LodinJ.BärgmanJ.VictorT. (2016). A farewell to brake reaction times? Kinematics-dependent brake response in naturalistic rear-end emergencies. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 95, 209–226. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2016.07.007
121.
MarkkulaG.LodinJ.WellsP.TheanderM.SandinJ. (2016). The many factors affecting near-collision driver response A simulator study and a computational model Computational modelling. In International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics. Retrieved from https://www.hfes-europe.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Markkula2016poster.pdf
122.
MarkkulaG.RomanoR.MadiganR.FoxC. W.GilesO. T.MeratN. (2018). Models of human decision-making as tools for estimating and optimizing impacts of vehicle automation. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0361198118792131
123.
MarsF.ChevrelP. (2017). Modelling human control of steering for the design of advanced driver assistance systems. Annual Reviews in Control, 44, 292–302. doi:10.1016/j.arcontrol.2017.09.011
124.
MarsF.SalehL.ChevrelP.ClaveauF.LafayJ.-F. (2011). Modeling the visual and motor control of steering with an eye to shared-control automation. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 55th Annual Meeting (pp. 1422–1426). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
125.
Martínez-GarcíaM.ZhangY.GordonT. (2016). Modeling lane keeping by a hybrid open-closed-loop pulse control scheme. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, 12, 2256–2265. doi:10.1109/TII.2016.2619064
126.
MayJ. F.BaldwinC. L. (2009). Driver fatigue: The importance of identifying causal factors of fatigue when considering detection and countermeasure technologies. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 12, 218–224. doi:10.1016/j.trf.2008.11.005
127.
McRuerD. T.AllenR. W.WeirD. H.KleinR. H. (1977). New results in driver steering control models. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 19, 381–397. doi:10.1177/001872087701900406
MeratN.JamsonA. H. (2009). How do drivers behave in a highly automated car? In Proceedings of the Fifth International Driving Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training and Vehicle Design (pp. 514–521). Big Sky, MT: Iowa Research Online.
130.
MeratN.JamsonA. H.LaiF. C. H.CarstenO. (2012). Highly automated driving, secondary task performance, and driver state. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 54, 762–771. doi:10.1177/0018720812442087
131.
MeratN.JamsonA. H.LaiF. C. H.DalyM.CarstenO. M. J. (2014). Transition to manual: Driver behaviour when resuming control from a highly automated vehicle. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 27, 274–282. doi:10.1016/j.trf.2014.09.005
132.
MeratN.LeeJ. D. (2012). Preface to the special section on human factors and automation in vehicles: Designing highly automated vehicles with the driver in mind. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 54, 681–686. doi:10.1177/0018720812461374
133.
MichonJ. A. (1985). A critical view of driver behavior models: What do we know, what should we do? In ShinarD. (Ed.), Human behavior and traffic safety (pp. 485–520). Boston, MA: Springer.
134.
MillerD.SunA.JohnsM.IveH. P.SirkinD.AichS.JuW. (2015). Distraction becomes engagement in automated driving. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 59th Annual Meeting (pp. 1676–1680). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
135.
MillerD.SunA.JuW. (2014). Situation awareness with different levels of automation. In 2014 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC) (pp. 688–693). San Diego, CA: IEEE.
136.
MokB. K.-J.JohnsM.LeeK. J.IveH. P.MillerD.JuW. (2015). Timing of unstructured transitions of control in automated driving. In 2015 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV) (pp. 1167–1172). Seoul, Korea: IEEE.
137.
MokB. K.-J.JohnsM.LeeK. J.MillerD.SirkinD.IveP.JuW. (2015). Emergency, automation off: Unstructured transition timing for distracted drivers of automated vehicles. In 2015 IEEE Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC) (pp. 2458–2464). New York, NY: IEEE.
138.
NagelK.WolfD. E.WagnerP.SimonP. (1998). Two-lane traffic rules for cellular automata: A systematic approach. Physical Review E—Statistical Physics, Plasmas, Fluids, and Related Interdisciplinary Topics, 58, 1425–1437. doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.58.1425
139.
NashC. J.ColeD. J. (2016). Development of a novel model of driver-vehicle steering control incorporating sensory dynamics. In RosenbergerM.PlöchlM.SixK.EdelmannJ. (Eds.), The dynamics of vehicles on roads and tracks (pp. 57–66). Washington, DC: CRC Press.
140.
NashC. J.ColeD. J. (2018). Modelling the influence of sensory dynamics on linear and nonlinear driver steering control. Vehicle System Dynamics, 56, 689–718. doi:10.1080/00423114.2017.1326615
141.
NashC. J.ColeD. J.BiglerR. S. (2016). A review of human sensory dynamics for application to models of driver steering and speed control. Biological Cybernetics, 110, 91–116. doi:10.1007/s00422-016-0682-x
142.
National Center for Statistics and Analysis. (2017). 2016 fatal motor vehicle crashes: Overview (traffic safety facts research note, NHTSA DOT HS 812 456). Washington, DC: Author.
143.
NaujoksF.BefeleinD.WiedemannK.NeukumA. (2016). A review of non-driving-related tasks used in studies on automated driving. International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics (AHFE) Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, 597, 525–537. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-60441-1_52
NaujoksF.PuruckerC.WiedemannK.NeukumA.WolterS.SteigerR. (2017). Driving performance at lateral system limits during partially automated driving. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 108, 147–162. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2017.08.027
146.
NeubauerC.MatthewsG.LangheimL.SaxbyD. (2012). Fatigue and voluntary utilization of automation in simulated driving. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 54, 734–746. doi:10.1177/0018720811423261
147.
NeubauerC.MatthewsG.SaxbyD. (2014). Fatigue in the automated vehicle: Do games and conversation distract or energize the driver?Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 58th Annual Meeting (pp. 2053–2057). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
148.
PageY.FahrenkrogF.FiorentinoA.GwehenbergerJ.HelmerT.LindmanM.. . . WimmerP. (2015). A comprehensive and harmonized method for assessing the effectiveness of advanced driver assistance systems by virtual simulation: The P.E.A.R.S. initiative. In The 24th International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles (ESV). Göteborg, Sweden: National Highway Traffic Saftey Administration. Retrieved from http://www-esv.nhtsa.dot.gov/Proceedings/24/isv7/main.htm
149.
PayreW.CestacJ.DelhommeP. (2016). Fully automated driving: Impact of trust and practice on manual control recovery. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 58, 229–241. doi:10.1177/0018720815612319
150.
PerelM. (1982). The development of a computer simulation model of driver performance to predict accident probability. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 26th Annual Meeting (pp. 239–243). Santa Monica, CA: Human Facgtors and Ergonomics Society.
151.
PetermeijerS. M.BazilinskyyP.BenglerK. J.de WinterJ. C. F. (2017). Takeover again: Investigating multimodal and directional TORs to get the driver back into the loop. Applied Ergonomics, 62, 204–215. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2017.02.023
152.
PetermeijerS. M.CielerS.de WinterJ. C. F. (2017). Comparing spatially static and dynamic vibrotactile takeover requests in the driver seat. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 99, 218–227. doi:doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2016.12.001
153.
PetermeijerS. M.DoubekF.de WinterJ. C. F. (2017). Driver response times to auditory, visual, and tactile takeover requests: A simulator study with 101 participants. In 2017 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC) (pp. 1505–1510). Banff, Canada: IEEE.
154.
PlöchlM.EdelmannJ. (2007). Driver models in automobile dynamics application. Vehicle System Dynamics, 45, 699–741. doi:10.1080/00423110701432482
155.
PolitisI.BrewsterS.PollickF. (2015, September). Language-based multimodal displays for the handover of control in autonomous cars. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications (pp. 3–10). New York, NY: ACM.
156.
PolitisI.BrewsterS.PollickF. (2017). Using multimodal displays to signify critical handovers of control to distracted autonomous car drivers. International Journal of Mobile Human Computer Interaction, 9(3), 1–16.
157.
PritchettA. (2013). Simulation to assess safety in complex work environments. In LeeJ. D.KirlikA. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive engineering (pp. 352–366). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
158.
RadlmayrJ.GoldC.LorenzL.FaridM.BenglerK. J. (2014). How traffic situations and non-driving related tasks affect the takeover quality in highly automated driving. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 58th Annual Meeting (pp. 2063–2067). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
159.
RadlmayrJ.WeinbeerV.LöberC.FaridM.BenglerK. (2018). How automation level and system reliability influence driver performance in a cut-in situation. In StantonN. A. (Ed.), Advances in intelligent systems and computing (Vol. 597, pp. 684–694). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
160.
RoJ. W.RoopP. S.MalikA.RanjitkarP. (2018). A formal approach for modeling and simulation of human car-following behavior. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 19, 639–648. doi:10.1109/TITS.2017.2759273
161.
RoesenerC.HillerJ.WeberH.EcksteinL. (2017). How safe is automated driving? Human driver models for safety performance assessment. In 2017 IEEE 20th International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC) (pp. 1–7). Yokohama, JAPAN: IEEE.
162.
RussellH. E. B.HarbottL. K.NiskyI.PanS.OkamuraA. M.GerdesJ. C. (2016). Motor learning affects car-to-driver handover in automated vehicles. Science Robotics, 1(1). doi:10.1126/scirobotics.aah5682
163.
SAE International. (2016). Surface vehicle information report: Human factors definitions for automated driving and related research topics (Technical report No. J3114). Retrieved from https://saemobilus.sae.org/content/j3114_201612
164.
SAE International. (2018). Taxonomy and definitions for terms related to driving automation systems for on-road motor vehicles (Technical report No. J3016). Retrieved from https://saemobilus.sae.org/content/j3016_201401
165.
SaifuzzamanM.ZhengZ. (2014). Incorporating human-factors in car-following models: A review of recent developments and research needs. Transportation Research Part C J, 48, 379–403. doi:10.1016/j.trc.2014.09.008
166.
SaifuzzamanM.ZhengZ.Mazharul HaqueM.WashingtonS. (2015). Revisiting the task-capability interface model for incorporating human factors into car-following models. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 82, 1–19. doi:10.1016/j.trb.2015.09.011
167.
SalehL.ChevrelP.MarsF.LafayJ.-F.ClaveauF. (2011). Human-like cybernetic driver model for lane keeping. In Proceedings of the 18th World Congress The International Federation of Automatic Control (IFAC) (Vol. 44, pp. 4368–4373). Milano, Italy: IFAC.
168.
SalvucciD. D.GrayR. (2004). A two-point visual control model of steering. Perception, 33, 1233–1248. doi:10.1068/p5343
169.
SarterN. B.WoodsD. D. (2000). Team play with a powerful and independent agent: A full-mission simulation study. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 42, 390–402. doi:10.1518/001872000779698178
170.
SchmidtJ.DreißigM.StolzmannW.RöttingM. (2017). The influence of prolonged conditionally automated driving on the takeover ability of the driver. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 61st Annual Meeting (pp. 1974–1978). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
171.
SchömigN.HarguttV.NeukumA.Petermann-StockI.OthersenI. (2015). The interaction between highly automated driving and the development of drowsiness. In Procedia Manufacturing 6th International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics (AHFE 2015) and the Affiliated Conferences (Vol. 3, pp. 6652–6659). London: Elsevier.
172.
SentouhC.ChevrelP.MarsF.ClaveauF. (2009). A sensorimotor driver model for steering control. In Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (pp. 2462–2467). San Antonio, TX: IEEE.
173.
SeppeltB. D. (2009). Supporting operator reliance on automation through continuous feedback. Iowa City, IA: University of Iowa.
174.
SeppeltB. D.LeeJ. D. (2015). Modeling driver response to imperfect vehicle control automation. In Procedia Manufacturing 6th International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics (AHFE 2015) and the Affiliated Conferences (Vol. 3, pp. 2621–2628). London: Elsevier.
175.
SeppeltB. D.VictorT. (2016). Potential solutions to human factors challenges in road vehicle automation. Road Vehicle Automation3, 131–148. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-40503-2
176.
ShenS.NeyensD. M. (2014). Assessing drivers’ performance when automated driver support systems fail with different levels of automation. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 58th Annual Meeting (pp. 2068–2072). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
177.
SivakM.OlsonP. L.FarmerK. M. (1982). Radar-measured reaction times of unalerted drivers to brake signals. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 55, 594–594. doi:10.2466/pms.1982.55.2.594
StrandN.NilssonJ.KarlssonI. C. M. A.NilssonL. (2014). Semi-automated versus highly automated driving in critical situations caused by automation failures. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 27, 218–228. doi:10.1016/j.trf.2014.04.005
180.
SummalaH. (2007). Towards understanding motivational and emotional factors in driver behaviour: Comfort through satisficing. In CacciabueP. C. (Ed.), Modelling driver behaviour in automotive environments (pp. 189–207). London: Springer.
181.
SvärdM.MarkkulaG.EngströmJ.GranumF.BärgmanJ. (2017). A quantitative driver model of pre-crash brake onset and control. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 61st Annual Meeting (pp. 339–343). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
182.
TalebpourA.MahmassaniH. S.HamdarS. H. (2011). Multiregime sequential risk-taking model of car-following behavior. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2260(205), 60–66. doi:10.3141/2260-07
TreiberM.KestingA.HelbingD. (2006). Delays, inaccuracies and anticipation in microscopic traffic models. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications, 360, 71–88. doi:10.1016/j.physa.2005.05.001
185.
Van AukenR.ZellnerJ.ChiangD.KellyJ.SilberlingJ.DaiR. (2011). Advanced crash avoidance technologies (ACAT) program—Final report of the Honda-DRI team, volume I: Executive summary and technical Report (DOT HS 811 454). Washington DC: Department of Transportation.
186.
van den BeukelA. P.van der VoortM. C. (2013). The influence of time-criticality on situation awareness when retrieving human control after automated driving. In Proceedings of the 16th International IEEE Annual Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC) (pp. 2000–2005). The Hague, Netherlands: IEEE.
187.
van WinsumW. (1999). The human element in car following models. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 2, 207–211. doi:10.1016/S1369-8478(00)00008-5
188.
VenkatramanV.LeeJ. D.SchwarzC. W. (2016). Steer or brake? Modeling drivers’ collision avoidance behavior using perceptual cues. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2602, 97–103. doi:10.3141/2602-12
189.
VictorT. W.TivestenE.GustavssonP.JohanssonJ.SangbergF.Ljung AustM. (2018). Automation expectation mismatch: Incorrect prediction despite eyes on threat and hands on wheel. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 60, 1095–1116. doi:10.1177/0018720818788164
190.
VogelpohlT.KühnM.HummelT.GehlertT.VollrathM. (2018). Transitioning to manual driving requires additional time after automation deactivation. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 55, 464–482. doi:10.1016/j.trf.2018.03.019
191.
VogelpohlT.KühnM.HummelT.VollrathM. (2018). Asleep at the automated wheel—Sleepiness and fatigue during highly automated driving. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Advance online publication. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2018.03.013
192.
WalchM.LangeK.BaumannM.WeberM. (2015). Autonomous driving: Investigating the feasibility of car-driver handover assistance. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications (pp. 11–18). Nottingham, UK: AutomotiveUI.
193.
WanJ.WuC. (2018). The effects of lead time of takeover request and non-driving tasks on taking-over control of automated vehicles. IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems, 48, 582–591.
194.
WandtnerB.SchömigN.SchmidtG. (2018a). Effects of non-driving related task modalities on takeover performance in highly automated driving. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 60, 870–881. doi:10.1177/0018720818768199
195.
WandtnerB.SchömigN.SchmidtG. (2018b). Secondary task engagement and disengagement in the context of highly automated driving. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 58, 253–263. doi:10.1016/j.trf.2018.06.001
196.
WeinbeerV.BaurC.RadlmayrJ.BillJ.MuhrT.BenglerK.AgA. (2017). Highly automated driving: How to get the driver drowsy and how does drowsiness influence various takeover aspects?Paper presented at 8: Tagung Fahrerassistenz, München, Germany.
197.
WiedemannK.NaujoksF.WörleJ.Kenntner-MabialaR.KaussnerY.NeukumA. (2018). Effect of different alcohol levels on takeover performance in conditionally automated driving. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 115, 89–97. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2018.03.001
198.
WiedemannR.ReiterU. (1992). Microscopic traffic simulation: the simulation system MISSION, background and actual state. CEC Project ICARUS (V1052), Final Report (Vol. 2). Brussels, Belgium: CEC.
199.
WintersbergerP.GreenP.RienerA. (2017). Am I driving or are you or are we both? A taxonomy for handover and handback in automated driving. In Proceedings of the 9th International Driving Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training, and Vehicle Design: Driving Assessment (pp. 333–339). Iowa City, IA: Iowa Research Online.
200.
World Health Organization. (2015). Global status report on road safety. Geneva: Author.
201.
WrightT. J.AgrawalR.SamuelS.WangY.ZilbersteinS.FisherD. L. (2017a). Effective cues for accelerating young drivers’ time to transfer control following a period of conditional automation. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 116, 14–20. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2017.10.005
202.
WrightT. J.AgrawalR.SamuelS.WangY.ZilbersteinS.FisherD. L. (2017b). Effects of alert cue specificity on situation awareness in transfer of control in level 3 automation. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2663, 27–33 doi:10.3141/2663-04
203.
WrightT. J.SamuelS.BorowskyA.ZilbersteinS.FisherD. L. (2016). Experienced drivers are quicker to achieve situation awareness than inexperienced drivers in situations of transfer of control within a level 3 autonomous environment. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 60th Annual Meeting (pp. 270–273). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
204.
WuX.BoyleL. N.MarshallD. (2017). Drivers’ avoidance strategies when using a forward collision warning (FCW) system. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 61st Annual Meeting (pp. 1939–1943). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
205.
XueQ.MarkkulaG.YanX.MeratN. (2018). Using perceptual cues for brake response to a lead vehicle: Comparing threshold and accumulator models of visual looming. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 118, 114–124. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2018.06.006
206.
YangH. H.PengH. (2010). Development of an errorable car-following driver model. Vehicle System Dynamics, 48, 751–773. doi:10.1080/00423110903128524
207.
ZeebK.BuchnerA.SchraufM. (2015). What determines the takeover time? An integrated model approach of driver takeover after automated driving. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 78, 212–221. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2015.02.023
208.
ZeebK.BuchnerA.SchraufM. (2016). Is takeover time all that matters? The impact of visual-cognitive load on driver takeover quality after conditionally automated driving. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 92, 230–239. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2016.04.002
209.
ZeebK.HärtelM.BuchnerA.SchraufM. (2017). Why is steering not the same as braking? The impact of non-driving related tasks on lateral and longitudinal driver interventions during conditionally automated driving. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 50, 65–79. doi:10.1016/j.trf.2017.07.008
210.
ZhangB.de WinterJ. C. F.VarottoS. F.HappeeR. (2018). Determinants of takeover time from automated driving: A meta-analysis of 128 studies. Manuscript in preparation.
211.
ZhangB.WilschutE.WillemsenD.MartensM. H. (2017). Driver response times when resuming manual control from highly automated driving in truck platooning scenarios. Paper presented at the Road Safety and Simulation International Conference, The Hauge.
