Take-over requests during highly automated driving: How should they be presented and under what conditions?

Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour

Volumn 66, Issue , 2019, Pages 214-225

  Brandenburg, Stefan ^a   Chuang, Lewis ^b  

^a TECHNISCHE UNIVERSITÄT BERLIN   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH   (Germany)

Author keywords

Conditional automation; Driver performance; Highly automated driving; HMI design; Road geometry; Take over requests

Indexed keywords

AUTOMATION; CONTROL SYSTEM SYNTHESIS; LONGITUDINAL CONTROL; ROADS AND STREETS; TRAFFIC CONTROL;

ABSTRACT INTERFACES; AUTOMATED DRIVING; DRIVER PERFORMANCE; DRIVING SIMULATOR STUDY; LATERAL CONTROL; RELIABLE COMMUNICATION; ROAD GEOMETRY; TAKE-OVER REQUESTS;

HIGHWAY PLANNING;

EID: 85072296021     PISSN: 13698478     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.trf.2019.08.023     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Albert, M., Lange, A., Schmidt, A., Wimmer, M., & Bengler, K. (2015). Automated driving - Assessment of interaction concepts under real driving conditions. Procedia Manufacturing, 3, 2832–2839. DOI: 10.1016/j.promfg.2015.07.767
2. Anderson, I. B., Bauer, K. M., Harwood, D. W., & Fitzpatrick, K. (1999). Relationship to safety of geometric design consistency measures for rural two-lane highways. Transportation Research Record, 1658.
3. Blitz, J.H. (2015). Skeumorphs, pottery, and technological change. American Anthropologist, 117(4), 665-678. DOI: 10.1111/aman.12349
4. Brandenburg, S. & Epple, S. (2019). Drivers’ Individual Design Preferences of Takeover Requests in Highly Automated Driving. iCOM(18)2. DOI: 10.1515/icom-2018-0028
5. Brandenburg, S., & Skottke, E. M. (2014). Switching from manual to automated driving and reverse: Are drivers behaving more risky after highly automated driving? In IEEE Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC), IEEE, 2978-2983, DOI: 10.1109/ITSC.2014.6958168
6. Borojeni S.S., Chuang L., Heuten W. and Boll S. (2016) Assisting Drivers with Ambient Take-Over Requests in Highly Automated Driving, In 8th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications (Automotive UI '16), ACM Press, 237-244.
7. Borojeni S.S., Boll, S., Heuten, W., Bülthoff, H.H., and Chuang, L., (2018). Feel the Movement: Real Motion Influences Responses to Take-over Requests in Highly Automated Vehicles, In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’18).
8. Bruyas, M.P., Brusque, C., Tattegrain, H., Auriault, A., Aillerie, I., & Duraz, M. (2008). Consistency and sensitivity of lane change test according to driving simulator characteristics. IET Intelligent Transportation Systems, 2(4), 306-314.
9. Campbell, M., Egerstedt, M., How, J. P., & Murray, R. M. (2010). Autonomous driving in urban environments: approaches, lessons and challenges. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 368(1928), 4649–4672. DOI: 10.1098/rsta.2010.0110
10. Casner, S.M., Hutchins, E.L., & Norman, D. (2016). The Challenges of Partially Automated Driving. Communications of the ACM, 5, 70–77. DOI:10.1145/2830565
11. Cheung, J. (2019). Horizontal Curve Safety. Technical report. U.S. Department of Transportation: Federal Highway Administration. Retrieved from https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/horicurves/cmhoricurves/.
12. Dietze, M., Ebersbach, D., Lippold, C., Mallschützke, K., & Gatti, G. (2005). Road Geometry, driving behaviour and road safety. Safety performance functions Internal Report I. RIPCORD ISEREST. EU FP 6, Contract No. 50 61 84. Retrieved from http://ripcord.bast.de/pdf/RITUDWP10R1Basics.pdf.
13. ECE/TRANS/WP.1/145 (2014). Report of the sixty-eight session of the Working Party on Road Traffic Safety, United Nations Economic and Social Council, 1–11. http://www.ertrac.org/uploads/documentsearch/id38/ERTRAC_Automated-Driving-2015.pdf
14. Epple, S., Roche, F., & Brandenburg, S. (2018). The Sooner the Better: Drivers’ Reactions to Two-Step Take-Over Requests in Highly Automated Driving. Proceedings of the Annual meeting of the Human Factors Ergonomics Society (HFES), 1883-1887. DOI: 10.1177/1541931218621428
15. ERTRAC (2015). Automated Driving Roadmap. Technical report of the European Road Transportation Research Advisory Council. Brussels, Belgium.
16. ERSO (2015). Traffic Safety Basic Facts 2015 - Roads outside urban areas. Technical report, European Road Safety Observatory. Brussels, Belgium. http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/pdf/statistics/dacota/bfs2015_rou_areas.pdf
17. Flemisch, F., Schieben, A., Schoeming, N., Strauss, M., Luecke, S., & Heyden, A. (2011). Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction. Context Diversity, 6767 LNCS, 270–279.
18. Flemisch, F., Heesen, M., Hesse, T., Kelsch, J., Schieben, A., & Beller, J. (2012). Towards a dynamic balance between humans and automation: authority, ability, responsibility and control in shared and cooperative control situations. Cognition, Technology & Work, 14(1), 3-18.
19. Gold, C., Dambock, D., Lorenz, L., & Bengler, K. (2013). “Take over!” How long does it take to get the driver back into the loop? Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 57(1), 1938–1942. DOI: 10.1177/1541931213571433
20. Gold, C., Körber, M. Lechner, D. & Bengler, K. (2016) Taking Over Control from Highly Automated Vehicles in Complex Traffic Situations: The Role of Traffic Density, Human Factors, 58(4), 642–652, DOI: 10.1177/0018720816634226
21. Haynes, R., Lake, I. R., Kingham, S., Sabel, C. E., Pearce, J., & Barnett, R. (2008). The influence of road curvature on fatal crashes in New Zealand. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 40(3), 843–850.
22. ISO 26022:2010. Road vehicles — Ergonomic aspects of transport information and control systems — Simulated lane change test to assess in-vehicle secondary task demand.
23. Jamson, A. H., Merat, N., Carsten, O. M. J., & Lai, F. C. H. (2013). Behavioural changes in drivers experiencing highly-automated vehicle control in varying traffic conditions. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 30, 116–125. DOI: 10.1016/j.trc.2013.02.008
24. Karl, I., Berg, G., Ruger, F., & Farber, B. (2013). Driving behaviour and simulator sickness while driving the vehicle in the loop: Validation of longitudinal driving behaviour. IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Magazine, 5(1), 42-57.
25. Karlaftis, M. G., & Golias, I. (2002). Effects of road geometry and traffic volumes on rural roadway accident rates. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 34(3), 357–365.
26. Körber, M., Gold, C., Lechner, D., & Bengler, K. (2016). The influence of age on the take-over of vehicle control in highly automated driving. Transportation Research Part F, 39, 19–32, DOI: 10.1016/j.trf.2016.03.002
27. Louw, T.L., Kountouriotis, G., Carsten, O., & Merat (2015). Driver Inattention During Vehicle Automation: How Does Driver Engagement Affect Resumption of Control? In 4th International Driver Distraction and Inattention Conference, 9–11.
28. Mattes, S. (2003). The lane-change-task as a tool for driver distraction evaluation. In H. Strasser, K. Kluth, H. Rausch & H. Bubb (Hrsg.), Quality of work and products in enterprises of the future. Stuttgart: Ergonomia, 57–60.
29. Martens, M. H., Comte, S., & Kaptein, N. A. (1997). The effects of road design on speed behaviour: a literature review: Technical report. TNO Human Factors Research Institute. The Hague. Netherlands.
30. McMillin, B. and K.L. Sanford (1998). Automated highway systems. IEEE Potentials, 17(4), 7–11.
31. Merat, N., & Lee, J. D. (2012). Preface to the Special Section on Human Factors and Automation in Vehicles: Designing Highly Automated Vehicles with the Driver in Mind. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 54(5), 681–686. DOI: 10.1177/0018720812461374
32. Merat, N., Jamson, A.H., Lai, F.C.H., Daly, M., & Carsten, O.M.J. (2014). Transition to manual: Driver behaviour when resuming control from a highly automated vehicle. Transportation Research Part F, 27, 274–282. DOI: 10.1016/ j.trf.2014.09.005
33. Naujoks, F., Mai, C., & Neukum, A. (2014). The effect of urgency of take-over requests during highly automated driving under distraction conditions. In T. Ahram, W. Karowowski & T. Marek, Proc. of the 5th International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics AHFE, Krakow, Poland.
34. Naujoks, F., Purucker, C., & Neukum, A. (2016). Secondary task engagement and vehicle automation - Comparing the effects of different automation levels in an on-road experiment. Transportation Research Part F, 38, 67–82. DOI: 10.1016/ j.trf.2016.01.011
35. Page, T., 2014. Skeuomorphism or ??at design: Future directions in mobile device user interface (UI) design education. International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation, 8(2), 130–142.
36. Petermann-Stock, I., Hackenberg, L., Muhr, T., & Mergl, C. (2013). Wie lange braucht der Fahrer? Eine Analyse zu Übernahmezeiten aus verschiedenen Nebentätigkeiten während einer hochautomatisierten Staufahrt. 6. Tagung Fahrerassistenzsysteme. Der Weg zum automatischen Fahren, 1–26.
37. Petzold, T., Bär, N., Ihle, C., & Krems, J.F. (2011). Learning effects in the lane change task (LCT) – Evidence from two experimental studies. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 14, 1-12.
38. Radlmayr, J., Gold, C., Lorenz, L., Farid, M., & Bengler, K. (2014). How Traffic Situations and Non-Driving Related Tasks Affect the Take-Over Quality in Highly Automated Driving. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 58(1), 2063–2067. DOI: 10.1177/1541931214581434
39. Roche, F. & Brandenburg, S. (2018). Should the urgency of auditory-tactile takeover requests match the criticality of takeover situations? Proceedings of the IEEE-ITSC – The 21st IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems, DOI: 10.1109/ITSC.2018.8569650
40. Roche, F., Somieski, A., & Brandenburg, S. (2018). Behavioral changes to repeated takeovers in highly automated driving: effects of the takeover-request design and the non-driving-related task modality. Human Factors. DOI: 10.1177/0018720818814963
41. Seppelt, B. D. & Lee, J. D. (2007). Making adaptive cruise control (ACC) limits visible. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 65, 192–205. DOI: DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2006.10.001
42. Siebert, F.W., Oehl, M., & Pfister, H.-R. (2014). The influence of time headway on subjective driver states in adaptive cruise control. Transportation Research Part F, 25, 65–73. DOI: DOI: 10.1016/j.trf.2014.05.005
43. Strand, N., Nilsson, J., Karlsson, I.C.M, & Nilsson, L. (2014). Semi-automated versus highly-automated driving in critical situations caused by automation failures. Transportation Research Part F, 27, 218-228. DOI: 10.1016/j.trf.2014.04.005
44. Tsugawa, S., Kato, S. & Aoki, K. (2011). An automated truck platoon for energy saving. In 2011 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 4109–4114. IEEE. DOI: 10.1109/IROS.2011.6094549
45. UK Department of Transportation. (2015). The Pathway to Driverless Cars - Summary report and action plan. DfT Publications: London, UK.
46. Van der Laan, J. D., Heino, A., & deWard, D. (1997). A simple procedure for the assessment of acceptance of advanced transportation telematics. Transportation Research Part C, 5(1), 1–10.
47. Vogel, K. (2002). A comparison of headway and time to collision as safety indicators. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 35, 427-433. DOI: 10.1016/S0001-4575(02)00022-2
48. Walker, G. H., Stanton, N. A., and Young, M. S. (2001). Where is computing driving cars? International Journal of Human Computer Interaction, 13(2), 203–229.
49. Wu, L., Lei, T., Li, J., & Li, B. (2015). Skeuomorphism and Flat Design: Evaluating Users’ Emotion Experience in Car Navigation Interface Design. In A. Marcus (Ed.): DUXU 2015, Part I, LNCS 9186 (pp. 567–575). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-20886-2_53.
50. Zeeb, K., Buchner, A., & Schrauf, M. (2015). What determines the take-over time? An integrated model approach of driver take-over after automated driving. Accident Analysis and Prevention 78, 212-221. DOI: 10.1016/j.aap.2015.02.023