The criticality of a rear end event depends on the brake reaction time (BRT) of the driver. Therefore, distracted driving poses greater threat in such events. Evidence accumulation model (EAM) that uses looming of the lead vehicle as main stimuli has shown significant success in estimating drivers’ BR Ts. It is often argued that drivers collect evidence for braking through peripheral vision, especially during off-road glances, and transition to forward. In this work, we have modeled evidence accumulation as a function of gaze eccentricity for off-road glances while approaching safety critical events. The model is tested with real world crash and near crash event data from SHRP2 naturalistic study. Our model shows that linear relation between gaze eccentricity and evidence accumulation rate during off road glances helps to improve EAM estimation in predicting BRT. We have also shown that brake-light onset does not influence EAM in presence of active looming.
BargmanJ.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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2017.03.003
3.
BlancoM.AtwoodJ.RussellS.TrimbleT.McclaffertyJ.PerezM. (2016). Automated vehicle crash rate comparison using naturalistic data. In Virginia Tech Transportation Institute. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.2336.1048
EngstromJ.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. Fifth International Conference on Driver Distraction and Inattention, 1–13.
6.
EngstromJ.WernekeJ.BargmanJ.NguyenN.CookB. (2013). Analysis of the role of inattention in road crashes based on naturalistic on-board safety monitoring data. 3rd International Conference on Driver Distraction and Innatention, 92, 1–17.
7.
ErikssonA.BanksV. A.StantonN. A. (2017). Transition to manual: Comparing simulator with on-road control transitions. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 102, 227–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2017.03.0l1
8.
FagnantD. J.KockelmanK. (2015). Preparing a nation for autonomous vehicles : Opportunities, barriers and policy recommendations. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 77, 167–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2015.04.003
9.
FildesB.KeallM.BosN.LieA.PageY.PastorC.PennisiL.RizziM.ThomasP.TingvallC. (2015). Effectiveness of low speed autonomous emergency braking in realworld rear-end crashes. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 81, 24–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2015.03.029
10.
LeeD. N. (1976). A Theory of Visual Control of Braking Based on Information about Time-to-Collision. Perception, 5(4), 437–459. https://doi.org/10.1068/p050437
11.
LeeJ. D. (2018). Perspectives on Automotive Automation and Autonomy. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 12(1), 53–57. https://doi.org/10.ll77/1555343417726476
12.
LuZ.de WinterJ.C. F. (2015). A Review and Framework of Control Authority Transitions in Automated Driving. Procedia Manufacturing, J(Ahfe), 2510–2517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2015.07.513
13.
MarkkulaG. (2014). Modeling driver control behavior in both routine and near-accident driving. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 2014-Janua, 879–883. https://doi.org/10.ll77/1541931214581185
14.
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(6), 1117–1143. https://doi.org/10.ll77/0018720812448474
15.
MarkkulaG.EngstromJ.LodinJ.BargmanJ.VictorT. W. (2016). A farewell to brake reaction times? Kinematicsdependent brake response in naturalistic rear-end emergencies. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 95, 209–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2016.07.007
16.
McDonaldA. D.AlambeigiH.EngstromJ.MarkkulaG.VogelpohlT.DunneJ.YumaN. (2019). Toward Computational Simulations of Behavior During Automated Driving Takeovers: A Review of the Empirical and Modeling Literatures. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 61(4), 642–688. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720819829572
PiccininiG. B.LehtonenE.EngstromJ.DeikeA.MarkkulaG.LodinJ.SandinJ.Bianchi PiccininiG.LehtonenE.ForcolinF.EngstromJ.AlbersD.MarkkulaG.LodinJ.SandinJ. (2019). How do drivers respond to silent automation failures ? Driving simulator study and comparison of computational driver braking models. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (Under Review), 001872081987534. https://doi.org/10.ll77/0018720819875347
19.
RoesenerC.HillerJ.WeberH.EcksteinL. (2017). How safe is automated driving? Human driver models for safety performance assessment. 2017 IEEE 20th International Conference on intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC), October, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.l109/ITSC.2017.8317706
20.
SarkarA.HickmanJ. S.McDonaldA. D.HuangW.VogelpohlT.MarkkulaG. (2021). Steering or braking avoidance response in SHRP2 rear-end crashes and near-crashes: A decision tree approach. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 154, 106055. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2021.106055
21.
SvardM.BargmanJ.VictorT. (2021). Detection and response to critical lead vehicle deceleration events with peripheral vision: Glance response times are independent of visual eccentricity. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 150. https://doi.org/10.10l6/j.aap.2020.105853
22.
SvardM.MarkkulaG.BargmanJ.VictorT. (2020). Computational modeling of driver pre-crash brake response, with and without off-road glances: Parameterization using real-world crashes and near-crashes. https://doi.org/10.3l234/osf.io/6nkgv
23.
VictorT.BargmanJ.BodaC.-N.DozzaM.EngstromJ.FlannaganC.LeeJ.MarkkulaG. (2015). Analysis of Naturalistic Driving Study Data: Safer Glances, Driver Inattention, and Crash Risk (SHRP 2 Report SOSA). In Transportation Research Board. Transportation Research Board. https://www.nap.edu/catalog/22297
24.
World Health Organization. (2015). Global status report on road safety.
