Collision Warning Timing,Driver Distraction,and Driver Response to Imminent Rear-End Collisions in a High-Fidelity Driving Simulator

Abstract

Rear-end collisions account for almost 30% of automotive crashes. Rear-end collision avoidance systems (RECASs) may offer a promising approach to help drivers avoid these crashes. Two experiments performed using a high-fidelity motion-based driving simulator examined driver responses to evaluate the efficacy of a RECAS. The first experiment showed that early warnings helped distracted drivers react more quickly---and thereby avoid more collisions---than did late warnings or no warnings. Compared with the no-warning condition, an early RECAS warning reduced the number of collisions by 80.7%. Assuming collision severity is proportional to kinetic energy, the early warning reduced collision severity by 96.5%. In contrast, the late warning reduced collisions by 50.0 % and the corresponding severity by 87.5%. The second experiment showed that RECAS benefits even undistracted drivers. Analysis of the braking process showed that warnings provide a potential safety benefit by reducing the time required for drivers to release the accelerator. Warnings do not, however, speed application of the brake, increase maximum deceleration, or affect mean deceleration. These results provide the basis for a computational model of driver performance that was used to extrapolate the findings and identify the most promising parameter settings. Potential applications of these results include methods for evaluating collision warning systems, algorithm design guidance, and driver performance model input.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

An, P. E. , & Harris, C. J. (1996). An intelligent driver warning system for vehicle collision avoidance. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics---Part A: Systems and Humans, 26(2), 254–258.

Brown, T. L. , Lee, J. D. , & McGehee, D. V. (2000). An attention-based model of driver performance in rear-end collision situations. Transportation Research Record, 1724, 14–20.

Brown, T. L. , Lee, J. D. , & McGehee, D. V. (2001). Human performance models and rear-end collision avoidance algorithms. Human Factors, 43, 462–482.

Burgett, A. L. , Carter, A. , Miller, R. J. , Najm, W. G. , & Smith, D. L. (1998). A collision warning algorithm for rear-end collisions (98-S2-P-31). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Dingus, T. A. , McGehee, D. V. , & Hankey, J. M. (1997). Human factors field evaluation of automotive headway maintenance/collision warning devices. Human Factors, 39, 216–229.

Gibson, J. J. , & Crooks, L. E. (1938). A theoretical field-analysis of automobile driving. American Journal of Psychology, 51, 453–471.

Hirst, S. , & Graham, R. (1997). The format and presentation of collision warnings. In I. Noy (Ed.), Ergonomics and safety of intelligent driver interfaces (pp. 203-219). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hoffmann, E. R. , & Mortimer, R. G. (1996). Scaling of relative velocity between vehicles. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 28, 415–421.

Kiefer, R. , LeBlanc, D. , Palmer, M. , Salinger, J. , Deering, R. , & Shulman, M. (1999). Development and validation of functional definitions and evaluation procedures for collision warning/avoidance systems (DTNH22-95-H-07301). Washington DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

10.

Knipling, R. R. , Mironer, M. , Hendricks, D. L. , Tijerina, L. , Everson, J. , Allen, J. C. , & Wilson, C. (1993). Assessment of IVHS countermeasures for collision avoidance: Rear-end crashes (DOT HS 807 995). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

11.

Lamble, D. , Laakso, M. , & Summala, H. (1999). Detection thresholds in car following situations and peripheral vision: Implications for positioning of visually demanding in-car displays. Ergonomics, 42, 807–815.

12.

Lee, J. D. , Caven, B. , Haake, S. , & Brown, T. L. (2001). Speech-based interaction with in-vehicle computers: The effect of speech-based e-mail on drivers' attention to the roadway. Human Factors, 43, 631–640.

13.

Lee, J. D. , Gore, B. F. , & Campbell, J. L. (1999). Display alternatives for in-vehicle warning and sign information: Message style, location, and modality. Transportation Human Factors Journal, 1(4), 347–377.

14.

Lee, J. D. , & Moray, N. (1992). Trust, control strategies and allocation of function in human-machine systems. Ergonomics, 35, 1243–1270.

15.

Lee, J. D. , & Moray, N. (1994). Trust, self-confidence, and operators' adaptation to automation. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 40, 153–184.

16.

Lerner, N. (1991). Multiple attribute evaluation of auditory warning signals for in-vehicle crash warning systems (DTNH22-91-C-07004). Washington, DC: National Highway Transportation Safety Administration.

17.

McGehee, D. V. , & Brown, T. L. (1998). Examination of drivers' collision avoidance behavior in a lead vehicle stopped scenario using a front-to-rear-end collision warning system (DTNH22-93-C-07326). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

18.

Mollenhauer, M. A. , Hulse, M. C. , Dingus, T. A. , Jahns, S. K. , & Carney, C. (1997). Design decision aids and human factors guidelines for ATIS displays. In Y. I. Noy (Ed.), Ergonomics and safety of intelligent driver interfaces (pp. 23-61). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

19.

National Safety Council. (1996). Accident facts. Itasca, IL: Author.

20.

Parasuraman, R. , Sheridan, T. B. , & Wickens, C. D. (2000). A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics---Part A: Systems and Humans, 30(3), 286–297.

21.

Parkes, A. M. (1993). Voice communications in vehicles. In A. M. Parkes , & S. Franzen (Eds.), Driving future vehicles (pp. 219-228). Philadelphia: Taylor & Francis.

22.

Summala, H. , Nieminen, T. , & Punto, M. (1996). Maintaining lane position with peripheral vision during in-vehicle tasks. Human Factors, 38, 442–451.

23.

Tijerina, L. (1998). Haptic display research for collision avoidance systems: Rear-end collision avoidance. East Liberty, OH: Transportation Research Center.