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

Volumn 108, Issue , 2018, Pages 278-285

  Banks, Victoria A ^a   Plant, Katherine L ^a   Stanton, Neville A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Driving automation; Human error; Mental models; Perceptual cycle model; Schema theory

Indexed keywords

COGNITIVE SYSTEMS; HIGHWAY ACCIDENTS;

ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION; CYCLE MODEL; HUMAN ERRORS; MENTAL MODEL; NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATIONS; NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARDS; SCHEMA THEORY; SYSTEM FUNCTIONALITY;

ERRORS;

ARTICLE; AUTOMATION; CAR DRIVER; CAR DRIVING; COGNITION; DRIVING ABILITY; FATALITY; HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RISK ASSESSMENT; TRAFFIC ACCIDENT; TRAFFIC SAFETY;

EID: 85038859286     PISSN: 09257535     EISSN: 18791042     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2017.12.023     Document Type: Article

References (78)

1. Annett, J., A note on the validity and reliability of ergonomics methods. Theoret. Issues Ergon. Sci. 3:2 (2002), 228–232.
2. Aurino, D.E.M., Human factors and aviation safety: what the industry has, what the industry needs. Ergonomics 43:7 (2000), 952–959.
3. Baber, C., Stanton, N.A., Atkinson, J., McMaster, R., Houghton, R.J., Using social network analysis and agent-based modelling to explore information flow using common operational pictures for maritime search and rescue operations. Ergonomics 56:6 (2013), 889–905.
4. Banks, V.A., Eriksson, A., O'Donoghue, J., Stanton, N.A., Is partially automated driving a bad idea? Observations from an on road study. Appl. Ergon. 68 (2018), 138–145.
5. Banks, V.A., Stanton, N.A., Discovering driver-vehicle coordination problems in future automated control systems: evidence from verbal commentaries. Procedia Manuf. 3 (2015), 2497–2504.
6. Banks, V.A., Stanton, N.A., Keep the driver in control: automating automobiles of the future. Appl. Ergon. 53:B (2016), 389–395.
7. Banks, V.A., Stanton, N.A., Analysis of driver roles: Modelling the changing role of the driver in automated driving systems using EAST. Theoret. Issues Ergon. Sci., 2018.
8. Banks, V.A., Stanton, N.A., Burnett, G., Hermawati, S., Distributed Cognition on the road: Using EAST to explore future road transportation systems. Appl. Ergon. 68 (2018), 258–266.
9. Banks, V.A., Stanton, N.A., Harvey, C., Sub-systems on the road to vehicle automation: Hands and feet free but not ‘mind’ free driving. Saf. Sci. 62 (2014), 505–514.
10. Bartlett, F.C., Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology. 1932, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
11. Brill, J.C., Bliss, J.P., Hancock, P.A., Manzey, D., Meyer, J., Vredenburgh, A., Matters of ethics, trust, and potential liability for autonomous systems. Hum. Factors 60:1 (2016), 308–312.
12. Casner, S.M., Schooler, J.W., Vigilance impossible: diligence, distraction, and daydreaming all lead to failures in a practical monitoring task. Conscious. Cogn. 35 (2015), 33–41.
13. Chapanis, A., The Chapanis chronicles: 50 years of Human Factors Research, Education, and Design. 1999, Aegean Pub.
14. Dekker, S.W., The Field Guide to Understanding Human Error. 2006, Ashgate, Aldershot.
15. Dekker, S.W., What is rational about killing a patient with an overdose? Enlightenment, continental philosophy and the role of the human subject in system failure. Ergonomics 54:8 (2011), 679–683.
16. Donmez, B., Boyle, L.N., Lee, J.D., Safety implications of providing real-time feedback to distracted drivers. Accid. Anal. Prev. 39:3 (2007), 581–590.
17. Embrey, D.E., 1986. SHERPA: a systematic human error reduction and prediction approach. In: Proceedings of the International Topical Meeting on Advances in Human Factors in Nuclear Power Systems, Knoxville, Tennessee.
18. Endsley, M.R., Autonomous driving systems: a preliminary naturalistic study of the Tesla Model S. J. Cognit. Eng. Decis. Mak., 2017, 10.1177/1555343417695197.
19. Eriksson, A., Stanton, N.A., Take-over time in highly automated vehicles: non-critical transitions to and from manual control. Hum. Factors 59:4 (2017), 689–705.
20. Fedota, J.R., Parasuraman, R., Neuroergonomics and human error. Theoret. Issues Ergon. Sci. 11:5 (2010), 402–421.
21. Fisher, D.L., Lohrenz, M., Moore, D., Nadler, E.D., Pollard, J.K., Humans and intelligent vehicles: The hope, the help, and the harm. IEEE Trans. Intell. Veh. 1:1 (2016), 56–67.
22. Groeger, J.A., Memory and Remembering: Everyday Memory in Context. 1997, Longman, London.
23. Hancock, P.A., In search of vigilance. Am. Psychol. 68:2 (2013), 97–109.
24. Head, H., Studies in Neurology, vol. I, 1920, Oxford University Press, London.
25. Heikoop, D.D., De Winter, J.C.F., Van Arem, B., Stanton, N.A., Psychological constructs in driving automation: a consensus model and critical comment on construct proliferation. Theoret. Issues Ergon. Sci. 17 (2016), 284–303.
26. Hoc, J.M., Young, M.S., Blosseville, J.M., Cooperation between drivers and automation: implications for safety. Theoret. Issues Ergon. Sci. 10:2 (2009), 135–160.
27. Hollnagel, E., Woods, D.D., Joint Cognitive Systems Foundations of Cognitive Systems Engineering. 2005, CRC Press.
28. Jenkins, D., Salmon, P.M., Stanton, N.A., Walker, G.H., Rafferty, L., What could they have been thinking? How sociotechnical system design influences cognition: a case study of the Stockwell shooting. Ergonomics 54:2 (2011), 103–119.
29. Kircher, K., Larsson, A., Hultgren, J.A., Tactical driving behavior with different levels of automation. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. 15:1 (2014), 158–167.
30. Klien, G.A., Calderwood, R., Macgregor, D., Critical decision method for eliciting knowledge. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. 19:3 (1989), 462–472.
31. Kyriakidis, M., de Winter, J.C.F., Stanton, N.A., Bellet, T., van Arem, B., Brookhuis, K., Martens, M.H., Bengler, K., Andersson, J., Merat, N., Reed, N., Flament, M., Hagenzieker, Happee, R., A human factors perspective on automation driving. Theoret. Issues Ergon. Sci., 2017, 10.1080/1463922X.2017.1293187.
32. Lee, J.D., See, K.A., Trust in automation: designing for appropriate reliance. Hum. Fact. 46:1 (2004), 50–80.
33. Mandler, J.M., Stories Scripts and Scenes: Aspects of Schema Theory. 1984, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
34. Molloy, R., Parasuraman, R., Monitoring an automated system for a single failure: vigilance and task complexity effects. Hum. Factors 38 (1996), 311–322.
35. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2017. ODI resume. Available at < https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/inv/2016/INCLA-PE16007-7876.PDF>.
36. National Transportation Safety Board, 2017a. Driver assistance systems specialists factual report. Available at: < https://dms.ntsb.gov/pubdms/> (accessed 9 Aug 2017).
37. National Transportation Safety Board, 2017b. Collision between a car operating with automated vehicle control systems and a tractor-semitrailer truck near Williston, Florida, May 7, 2016. Available at: < https://dms.ntsb.gov/pubdms/> (accessed 9 Aug 2017).
38. Neisser, U., Cognition and Reality. 1976, W.H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco.
39. Norman, D.A., The human side of automation. Road Vehicle Automation, 2, 2015, Springer International Publishing, 73–79.
40. Norman, D.A., Categorization of action slips. Psychol. Rev. 88 (1981), 1–15.
41. Parasuraman, R., Molloy, R., Singh, I.L., Performance consequences of automation-induced ‘complacency’. Int. J. Aviat. Psychol. 3 (1993), 1–23.
42. Parasuraman, R., Riley, V., Humans and automation: use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Hum. Factors 39:2 (1997), 230–253.
43. Piaget, J., The Child's Conception of the World. 1926, Harcourt, Brace, New York.
44. Plant, K.L., Stanton, N.A., Why did the pilots shut down the wrong engine? Explaining errors in context using Schema Theory and the Perceptual Cycle Model. Saf. Sci. 50:2 (2012), 300–315.
45. Plant, K.L., Stanton, N.A., The explanatory power of schema theory: Theoretical foundations and future applications in ergonomics. Ergonomics 51:6 (2013), 1–15.
46. Plant, K.L., Stanton, N.A., What is on your mind? Using the perceptual cycle model and critical decision method to understand the decision-making process in the cockpit. Ergonomics 56:8 (2013), 1232–1250.
47. Plant, K.L., Stanton, N.A., All for one and one for all: Representing teams as a collection of individuals and an individual collective using a network perceptual cycle approach. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 44:5 (2014), 777–792.
48. Plant, K.L., Stanton, N.A., The process of processing: Exploring the validity of Neisser's perceptual cycle model with accounts from critical decision-making in the cockpit. Ergonomics 58:6 (2015), 909–923.
49. Rasmussen, J., Nixon, P., Warner, F., Human error and the problem of causality in analysis of accidents. Series, B., (eds.) Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 1990, Biological Sciences, 449–462.
50. Reason, J., Human Error. 1990, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
51. Richardson, M., Ball, L.J., Internal representations, external representations and ergonomics: towards a theoretical integration. Theoret. Issues Ergon. Sci. 10:4 (2009), 335–376.
52. Society of Automotive Engineers, 2016. Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for On-Road Motor Vehicles, J3016_201609. SAE International.
53. Salmon, P.M., Read, G.J., Stanton, N.A., Lenné, M.G., The crash at Kerang: investigating systemic and psychological factors leading to unintentional non-compliance at rail level crossings. Accid. Anal. Prev. 50 (2013), 1278–1288.
54. Salmon, P.M., Stanton, N.A., Walker, G.H., Baber, C., Jenkins, D.P., McMaster, R., Young, M.S., What really is going on? Review of situation awareness models for individuals and teams. Theoret. Issues Ergon. Sci. 9:4 (2008), 297–323.
55. Sarter, N.B., Woods, D.D., How in the world did we ever get into that mode? Mode error and awareness in supervisory control. Hum. Factors 37 (1995), 5–19.
56. Schaefer, K.E., Chen, J.Y.C., Szalma, J.L., Hancock, P.A., A meta-analysis of factors influencing the development of trust in automation: implications for understanding autonomy in future systems. Hum. Factors 58:3 (2016), 377–400.
57. Shladover, S.E., The truth about “self-driving” cars. Sci. Am. 314:6 (2016), 52–57.
58. Sherdian, T.B., Big brother as driver: New demands and problems for the man at the wheel. Hum. Factors 12 (1970), 95–101.
59. Stanton, N.A., Responses to autonomous vehicles. Ingenia, 62, 2015, 9.
60. Stanton, N.A., Distributed situation awareness. Theoret. Issues Ergon. Sci. 17:1 (2016), 1–7.
61. Stanton, N.A., Dunoyer, A., Leatherland, A., Detection of new in-path targets by drivers using Stop & Go Adaptive Cruise Control. Appl. Ergon. 42:4 (2011), 592–601.
62. Stanton, N.A., Marsden, P.P., From fly-by-wire to drive-by-wire: safety implications of automation in vehicles. Saf. Sci. 24:1 (1996), 35–49.
63. Stanton, N.A., Salmon, P.M., Human error taxonomies applied to driving: a generic driver error taxonomy and its implications for intelligent transport systems. Saf. Sci. 47:2 (2009), 227–237.
64. Stanton, N.A., Salmon, P., Harris, D., Marshall, A., Demagalski, J., Young, M.S., Waldmann, T., Dekker, S., Predicting pilot error: testing a new methodology and a multi-methods and analysts approach. Appl. Ergon. 40:3 (2009), 464–471.
65. Stanton, N.A., Salmon, P.M., Walker, G.H., Jenkins, D., Genotype and phenotype schemata and their role in distributed situation awareness in collaborative systems. Theoret. Issues Ergon. Sci. 10:1 (2009), 43–68.
66. Stanton, N.A., Salmon, P.M., Walker, G.H., Salas, E., Hancock, P.A., State-of-science: situation awareness in individuals, teams and systems. Ergonomics 60:4 (2017), 449–466.
67. Stanton, N.A., Stewart, R., Harris, D., Houghton, R.J., Baber, C., McMaster, R., Salmon, P., Distributed situation awareness in dynamic systems: Theoretical development and application of an ergonomics methodology. Ergonomics 49:12–13 (2006), 1288–1311.
68. Stanton, N.A., Walker, G.H., Exploring the psychological factors involved in the Ladbroke Grove rail accident. Acc. Anal. Prevent. 43 (2011), 1117–1127.
69. Stanton, N.A., Young, M.S., What price ergonomics?. Nature 399 (1999), 197–198.
70. Stanton, N.A., Young, M.S., A proposed psychological model of driving automation. Theoret. Issues Ergon. Sci. 1:4 (2000), 315–331.
71. Stanton, N., Young, M., McCaulder, B., Drive-by-wire: the case of mental workload and the ability of the driver to reclaim control. Saf. Sci. 27:2–3 (1997), 149–159.
72. Stanton, N.A., Young, M.S., Walker, G.H., The psychology of driving automation: a discussion with Professor Don Norman. Int. J. Veh. Design 45:3 (2007), 289–306.
73. Stilgoe, J., 2017. Tesla crash report blames human error – this is a missed opportunity. The Guardian. Retrieved from < https://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2017/jan/21/tesla-crash-report-blames-human-error-this-is-a-missed-opportunity> (accessed 14 Aug 2017).
74. Walker, G.H., Stanton, N.A., Salmon, P.M., Cognitive compatibility of motorcyclists and car drivers. Accid. Anal. Prev. 43 (2011), 878–888.
75. Walker, G.H., Stanton, N.A., Salmon, P., Trust in vehicle technology. Int. J. Veh. Des. 70:2 (2016), 157–182.
76. Woods, D.D., Behind Human Error. 2010, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.
77. Young, M.S., Stanton, N.A., Harris, D., Driving automation: learning from aviation about design philosophies. Int. J. Veh. Des. 45:3 (2007), 323–338.
78. YouTube, 2015. < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TjbqVartjM> (accessed 03.07.2017).