Vehicle crashes are one of the main causes of injuries and deaths for law enforcement officers (LEOs) in the line of duty. These crashes occur due to factors such as driving at high speed in emergency situations, fatigue, or use of in- vehicle technologies while driving. Advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) have the potential to reduce crashes and improve LEO safety in police operations; however, there has been no prior research on acceptance of these technologies among LEOs. A survey study with 73 LEOs was conducted to understand factors that affect their acceptance and intention to use ADAS technologies. Results suggested that trust and training of ADAS features can significantly increase LEOs’ intention to use the technologies. The findings can provide guidelines to enhance LEOs’ attitude and acceptance towards ADAS.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndersonJ. C.GerbingD. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological bulletin, 103(3), 411.
2.
BiassoniF.RuscioD.CiceriR. (2016). Limitations and automation. The role of information about device-specific features in ADAS acceptability. Safety science, 85, 179-186.
3.
BLS. (2016). Fatal occupational injuries resulting from transportation incidents and homicides by occupation, all United States, 2015. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics,. Available from: https://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cftb0300.xlsx.
4.
ChuH.-C. (2016). Risk factors for the severity of injury incurred in crashes involving on-duty police cars. Traffic injury prevention, 17(5), 495-501.
5.
CicchinoJ. B. (2017). Effectiveness of forward collision warning and autonomous emergency braking systems in reducing front-to-rear crash rates. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 99, 142-152.
6.
CicchinoJ. B. (2018). Effects of blind spot monitoring systems on police-reported lane-change crashes. Traffic injury prevention, 19(6), 615-622.
7.
CoughlinJ.D’AmbrosioL. (2012). Aging America and transportation: Personal choices and public policy.
8.
DaiJ.LiR.LiuZ. (2020). Does initial experience affect consumers’ intention to use autonomous vehicles? Evidence from a field experiment in Beijing. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 149, 105778.
9.
DavisF. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS quarterly, 319-340.
10.
FornellC.LarckerD. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of marketing research, 18(1), 39-50.
11.
GhazizadehM.LeeJ. D.BoyleL. N. (2012). Extending the Technology Acceptance Model to assess automation. Cognition, Technology & Work, 14(1), 39-49.
12.
GietelinkO.PloegJ.De SchutterB.VerhaegenM. (2006). Development of advanced driver assistance systems with vehicle hardware-in-the-loop simulations. Vehicle System Dynamics, 44(7), 569-590.
13.
HairJ. F.SarstedtM.RingleC. M.MenaJ. A. (2012). An assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 40(3), 414-433.
14.
HuL.-t.BentlerP. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological methods, 3(4), 424.
15.
KiddD. G.CicchinoJ. B.ReaganI. J.KerfootL. B. (2017). Driver trust in five driver assistance technologies following real-world use in four production vehicles. Traffic injury prevention, 18(sup1), S44-S50.
16.
LeeC.SeppeltB.ReimerB.MehlerB.CoughlinJ. F. (2019). Acceptance of Vehicle Automation: Effects of Demographic Traits, Technology Experience and Media Exposure. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting.
17.
LeeJ. D.SeeK. A. (2004). Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human factors, 46(1), 50-80.
18.
MaguireB. J.HuntingK. L.SmithG. S.LevickN. R. (2002). Occupational fatalities in emergency medical services: a hidden crisis. Annals of emergency medicine, 40(6), 625-632.
19.
MarangunićN.GranićA. (2015). Technology acceptance model: a literature review from 1986 to 2013. Universal access in the information society, 14(1), 81-95.
20.
NasrV.WozniakD.ShahiniF.ZahabiM. (2021). Application of advanced driver-assistance systems in police vehicles. Transportation Research Record, 2675(10), 1453-1468.
ParasuramanR.RileyV. (1997). Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Human factors, 39(2), 230-253.
23.
PortouliV.BekiarisE.BoetsS.HenrikssonP. (2008). Comparative evaluation of training methods in improving drivers’ understanding about the functionalities and potential limitations of ADAS. Paper presented at the Proceedings of European Conference on Human Centred Design for Intelligent Transport Systems.
24.
RahmanM. M.LeschM. F.HorreyW. J.StrawdermanL. (2017). Assessing the utility of TAM, TPB, and UTAUT for advanced driver assistance systems. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 108, 361-373.
25.
ReimerB.MehlerB.CoughlinJ. F. (2010). An evaluation of driver reactions to new vehicle parking assist technologies developed to reduce driver stress. Cambridge: New England University Transportation Center, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
26.
RingleC. M.WendeS.BeckerJ.-M. (2015). SmartPLS 3. SmartPLS GmbH, Boenningstedt. Journal of Service Science and Management, 10(3), 32-49.
27.
SAE. (2021). SAE Levels of Driving Automation™ Refined for Clarity and International Audience. Available from:. Retrieved from https://www.sae.org/blog/sae-j3016-update
28.
SavolainenP. T.DeyK. C.GhoshI.KarraT. L.LambA. (2009). Investigation of emergency vehicle crashes in the state of Michigan. Retrieved from
29.
SchepersJ.WetzelsM. (2007). A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model: Investigating subjective norm and moderation effects. Information & Management, 44(1), 90-103.
30.
ShahiniF.ZahabiM.PatranellaB.Mohammed Abdul RazakA. (2020). Police Officer Interactions with In-vehicle Technologies: An On-Road Investigation. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 64(1), 1976-1980.
31.
ShaoutA.ColellaD.AwadS. (2011). Advanced driver assistance systems-past, present and future. Paper presented at the 2011 Seventh International Computer Engineering Conference (ICENCO’2011).
32.
SullivanG. M.FeinnR. (2012). Using effect size—or why the P value is not enough. Journal of graduate medical education, 4(3), 279-282.
33.
WongK. K.-K. (2013). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) techniques using SmartPLS. Marketing Bulletin, 24(1), 1-32.
34.
WozniakD.ShahiniF.NasrV.ZahabiM. (2021). Analysis of advanced driver assistance systems in police vehicles: A survey study. Transportation research part F: traffic psychology and behaviour, 83, 1-11.
35.
ZahabiM.ShahiniF.YinW.ZhangX. (2021). Physical and cognitive demands associated with police in-vehicle technology use: an on-road case study. Ergonomics, 1-14.
