“Take over!” How long does it take to get the driver back into the loop?

Gold, Christian; Damböck, Daniel; Lorenz, Lutz; Bengler, Klaus

doi:10.1177/1541931213571433

Cited by 554 publications

(496 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

428

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Current methods for estimating the safety benefits of such systems assume BRT-type driver responses to the warning (Van Auken et al, 2011;Kusano and Gabler, 2012;Erbsmehl and Schebdat, 2015;van Noort et al, 2015), whereas, as mentioned above, evidence from simulator studies (Lee et al, 2002;Ljung Aust et al, 2013) suggest that driver responses remain kinematics-dependent also in the presence of warnings 5 . The results presented here also seem relevant to current research on self-driving vehicles, where much effort is being spent on understanding the driver's response process when suddenly brought back into the control loop, for example because of a collision risk (Gold et al, 2013;Louw et al, 2015;Zeeb et al, 2015). What has been presented here points to a possible deeper understanding of how drivers make use of their perceptual input in critical situations, in terms of various perceptual mechanisms acting on visual looming information.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 87%

A farewell to brake reaction times? Kinematics-dependent brake response in naturalistic rear-end emergencies

Markkula

Engström

Lodin

et al. 2016

Accident Analysis & Prevention

124

106

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ReuseUnless indicated otherwise, fulltext items are protected by copyright with all rights reserved. The copyright exception in section 29 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 allows the making of a single copy solely for the purpose of non-commercial research or private study within the limits of fair dealing. The publisher or other rights-holder may allow further reproduction and re-use of this version -refer to the White Rose Research Online record for this item. Where records identify the publisher as the copyright holder, users can verify any specific terms of use on the publisher's website. TakedownIf you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing eprints@whiterose.ac.uk including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request.Note: This is a freely distributable postprint, which does not reflect final copyediting and typesetting of the published article, to be cited as: Markkula, G., Engström, J., Lodin, J., Bärgman, J., Victor, T., 2016. A farewell to brake reaction times? Kinematics-dependent brake response in naturalistic rear-end emergencies. Accident Analysis & Prevention, xx(x), xxxx-xxxx. Abstract: Driver braking behavior was analyzed using time-series recordings from naturalistic rear-end conflicts (116 crashes and 241 near-crashes), including events with and without visual distraction among drivers of cars, heavy trucks, and buses. A simple piecewise linear model could be successfully fitted, per event, to the observed driver decelerations, allowing a detailed elucidation of when drivers initiated braking and how they controlled it. Most notably, it was found that, across vehicle types, driver braking behavior was strongly dependent on the urgency of the given rear-end scenario's kinematics, quantified in terms of visual looming of the lead vehicle on the driver's retina. In contrast with previous suggestions of brake reaction times (BRTs) of 1.5 s or more after onset of an unexpected hazard (e.g., brake light onset), it was found here that braking could be described as typically starting less than a second after the kinematic urgency reached certain threshold levels, with even faster reactions at higher urgencies. The rate at which drivers then increased their deceleration (towards a maximum) was also highly dependent on urgency. Probability distributions are provided that quantitatively capture these various patterns of kinematics-dependent behavioral response. Possible underlying mechanisms are suggested, including looming response thresholds and neural evidence accumulation. These accounts argue that a naturalistic braking response should not be thought of as a slow reaction to some single, researcher-defined "hazard onset", but instead as a relatively fast response to the visual looming cues that build up later on in the evolving traffic scenario.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 87%

A farewell to brake reaction times? Kinematics-dependent brake response in naturalistic rear-end emergencies

Markkula

Engström

Lodin

et al. 2016

Accident Analysis & Prevention

124

106

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…According to previous publications (e.g. Gold, Damböck, Lorenz, & Bengler, 2013), take-over time was defined as the time between the TOR and the first conscious reaction by the driver, i.e. a change of 10 % of the maximum brake pedal position or more than 2 degrees in steering wheel angle.…”

Section: Study Design and Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

The influence of age on the take-over of vehicle control in highly automated driving

Körber

Gold

Lechner

et al. 2016

Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviou

Self Cite

190

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The growing proportion of older drivers in the population plays an increasingly relevant role in road traffic that is currently awaiting the introduction of automated vehicles. In this study, it was investigated how older drivers (≥ 60 years) compared to younger drivers (≤ 28 years) perform in a critical traffic event when driving highly automated. Conditions of the take-over situation were manipulated by adding a verbal non-driving task (20 questions task) and by variation of traffic density. Two age groups consisting of 36 younger and 36 older drivers drove either with or without a non-driving task on a six-lane highway. They encountered three situations with either no, medium or high traffic density where they had to regain vehicle control and evade an obstacle on the road. Older drivers reacted as fast as younger drivers, however, they differed in their modus operandi as they braked more often and more strongly and maintained a higher time-to-collision (TTC). Deterioration of take-over time and quality caused by increased traffic density and engagement in a non-driving task was on the same level for both age groups. Independent of the traffic density, there was a learning effect for both younger and older drivers in a way that the take-over time decreased, minimum TTC increased and maximum lateral acceleration decreased between the first and the last situation of the experiment. Results highlight that older drivers are able to solve critical traffic events as well as younger drivers, yet their modus operandi differs. Nevertheless, both age groups adapt to the experience of take-over situations in the same way.

show abstract

“…Although not as explicitly defined, the presented practice uses 2% as an overt steering movement (Gold, Damböck, Lutz, & Bengler, 2013). One of the lessons from the development of J2944 is that for many driving performance measurements, there is no single best definition, because the definition depends upon application of the measurement and the devices available to collect the data.…”

Section: Measurement Suggestionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Therefore, the overall handover ends with the full handover ("receipt & recovery" as described in SAE J3114), when the driver has gained full situation awareness and driving fitness. Methods to determine the end of a full handover could be the investigation of scanning patterns including side-and rearview mirrors (Gold, Damböck, Lutz, & Bengler, 2013) and/or observing small changes in lateral/longitudinal control to evaluate the stability of vehicle control.…”

Section: Handover To the Drivermentioning

confidence: 99%

Am I Driving or Are You or Are We Both? A Taxonomy for Handover and Handback in Automated Driving

Wintersberger

Green

Riener³

2017

Proceedings of the 9th International Driving Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training, and Vehicle Design: Dri

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary:In this paper, a taxonomy of handover and handback (i.e., from manual to automatic control and vice versa) is proposed to be used by practitioners and researchers to help assure the duration of those periods are clearly defined, and accordingly, studies examining them are comparable and have repeatable results. Furthermore, use of this framework will help assure that those implementing automation will do so in a comprehensive manner. The taxonomy is more detailed than that in SAE Standard J3114.Handover includes the phases preparation, perception (of the handover signal), suspension (of in-vehicle tasks) and the actual process of taking over, which can be subdivided into sufficient (to steer and control speed) and full (where situation awareness is complete) control. Furthermore, handover can be imminent, scheduled, or user-initiated. For handback, the phases are initialization, the actual handback, and re-engagement (of the driver). Handback may be optional or mandatory and user-or system initiated. For both handover and handback processes, the duration and change of the control transfer (as a function of time) needs to be precisely described/specified.

show abstract

“Take over!” How long does it take to get the driver back into the loop?

Cited by 554 publications

References 9 publications

A farewell to brake reaction times? Kinematics-dependent brake response in naturalistic rear-end emergencies

A farewell to brake reaction times? Kinematics-dependent brake response in naturalistic rear-end emergencies

The influence of age on the take-over of vehicle control in highly automated driving

Am I Driving or Are You or Are We Both? A Taxonomy for Handover and Handback in Automated Driving

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About