A field operational test assessed visual-manual disengagement when driving with adaptive cruise control (ACC) relative to manual driving. Ten volunteers drove instrumented vehicles on public roads for 4 weeks, using the vehicles as they would their own. To study change over time, the 4-week trial was divided evenly into two periods. Analyses were based on video of drives on limited-access highways when speed was above 25 mph. Visual-manual disengagement from driving was defined as periods when drivers had both hands off the steering wheel or performed visual-manual secondary activity with electronics. Odds of visual-manual disengagement increased from period 1 (weeks 1 and 2) to period 2 (weeks 3 and 4) more during ACC use than during manual driving. Conversely, odds of cellphone manipulation and hands-offwheel behavior increased in period 2 during manual driving only, suggesting a nuanced connection between behavioral adaptation to ACC use after a month of exposure.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BärgmanJ.VictorT. (2019). Holistic assessment of driver assistance systems: How can systems be assessed with respect to how they impact glance behaviour and collision avoidance?IET Intelligent Transport Systems, 14. https://doi.org/:10.1049/iet-its.2018.5550
2.
CarstenO.LaiF. C. H.BarnardY.JamsonA. H.MeratN. (2012). Control task substitution in semiautomated driving: Does it matter what aspects are automated?Human Factors, 54(5), 747–761. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720812460246
3.
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2014.06.016
4.
DragutinovicN.BrookhuisK.HagenziekerM.MarchauV. (2005). Behavioural effects of advanced cruise control use—A meta-analytic approach. European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research (EJTIR), 5(4),5.
5.
FridmanL.BrownD.GlazerM.AngellW.DoddS.JenikB.…ReimerB. (2017). MIT autonomous vehicle technology study: Large-scale deep learning based analysis of driver behavior and interaction with automation. arXiv.
6.
GroveK.SoccolichS. A.HanowskiR. J. (2019). Driver visual behavior while using adaptive cruise control on commercial motor vehicles (Report 19-UT-070). Virginia Tech Transportation Institute (VTTI)
7.
GuoF.KlauerS. G.FangY.HankeyJ. M.AntinJ. F.PerezM. A.…DingusT. A. (2017). The effects of age on crash risk associated with driver distraction. International Journal of Epidemiology, 46(1), 258–265. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyw234
8.
Highway Loss Data Institute. (2019). BMW collision avoidance features. Bulletin, 36(37).
9.
KesslerC.EtemadA.AlessandrettiG.HeinigK.SelpiC.BrouwerR.…BenmimounM. (2012). European large-scale field operational tests on in-vehicle systems (Deliverable D11.3 Final Report).
MonfortS.S.ReaganI.J.CicchinoJ.B.HuW.GershonP.MehlerB.ReimerB. (2022). Speeding behavior while using adaptive cruise control and lane centering. Traffic Injury Prevention. https://doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2021.2013476.
13.
MulderM.AbbinkD. A.BoerE. R. (2012). Sharing control with haptics: Seamless driver support from manual to automatic control. Human Factors, 54(5), 786–798. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720812443984
14.
NHTSA. (1998). Intelligent cruise control field operational test (DOT HS 808 849). U.S. Department of Transportation.
15.
NobleA. M.MilesM.PerezM. A.GuoF.KlauerS. G. (2021). Evaluating driver eye glance behavior and secondary task engagement while using driving automation systems. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 151, 105959. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2020.105959
16.
NTSB. (2017). Collision between a car operating with automated vehicle control systems and a tractor-semitrailer truck near Williston, Florida, May 7, 2016 (Highway Accident Report NTSB/HAR-17/02)..
17.
NTSB. (2020). Collision between a sport utility vehicle operating with partial driving automation and a crash attenuator, Mountain View, California, March 23, 2018 (Highway Accident Report NTSB/HAR-20/01).
ReaganI. J.HuW.SeppeltB.CicchinoJ. B.FridmanL.GlazerM. (2019). Measuring adult drivers’ use of level 1 and 2 driving automation by roadway functional class. Paper presented at: 63rd International Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
20.
ReaganI. J.TeohE. R.CicchinoJ. B.GershonP.ReimerB.MehlerB.SeppeltB. (2021). Disengagement from driving when using automation during a 4-week field trial. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 82, 400–411. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2021.09.010
21.
Rudin-BrownC. M.ParkerH. A. (2004). Behavioural adaptation to adaptive cruise control (ACC): Implications for preventive strategies. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 7(2), 59–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2004.02.001
22.
SAE International. (2018). Taxonomy and definitions for terms related to driving automation systems for on-road motor vehicles (SAE Standard J3016, Report No. J3016-201806).
TivestenE.VictorT.MorandoA. (2015). The timecourse of visual attention in naturalistic driving with adaptive cruise control and forward collision warning. Fourth International Driver Distraction and Inattention Conference. Sydney, New South Wales.
