Several driver-performance factors contribute to rear-end collisions—driver inattention, perception-reaction time, and limitations of the human visual system. Although many evaluations have examined driver response to various rear-end collision avoidance systems (RECAS) display and algorithm alternatives, little research has been directed at creating a quantitative model of driver performance to evaluate these alternatives. Current considerations of driver behavior in developing warning algorithms tend to ignore the fundamental problem of driver inattention and assume a fixed driver reaction time with no further adjustment after the initial response. A more refined model of driver response to rear-end crash scenarios can identify more appropriate and timely information to be displayed to the driver. An attention-based rear-end collision avoidance model (ARCAM) is introduced that describes the driver’s attention distribution, information extraction and judgment process, and the reaction process. ARCAM predicts the closed-loop nature of collision response performance and explains how the driver might use RECAS warnings.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Accident Facts. The National Safety Council, Itasca, Ill., 1996.
2.
KniplingR. R., MironerM., HendricksD. L., TijernaL., EversonJ., AllenJ. C., and WilsonC.. Assessment of IVHS Countermeasures for Collision Avoidance: Rear-End Crashes. NHTSA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1993.
3.
BurgettA. L., CarterA., MillerR. J., NajmW. G., and SmithD. L.. A Collision Warning Algorithm for Rear-End Collisions. NHTSA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1998.
4.
McGeheeD. V., DingusT. A., and HorowitzA. D.. The Potential Value of a Front-to-Rear-End Collision Warning System Based on Factors of Driver Behavior, Visual Perception and Brake Reaction Time. Proc., 36th Annual Meeting, Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Atlanta, Ga., 1992, pp. 1003–1005.
5.
BrownT. L., LeeJ. D., and McGeheeD. V.. Analysis of Rear-End Crash Avoidance Algorithms: Demonstrating the Value of Simple Human Performance Models. Submitted toHuman Factors.
6.
RanneyT. A.Models of Driving Behavior: A Review of Their Evolution. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 26, No. 6, 1994, pp. 733–750.
7.
RockwellT.Skills, Judgment and Information Acquisition in Driving. In Human Factors in Highway Traffic Safety Research (ForbesT. W., ed.), Wiley Interscience, New York, 1972.
8.
SendersJ. W., ElkindJ. I., GrignettiM. C., and SmallwoodR.. An Investigation of the Visual Sampling Behavior of Human Observers. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, D.C., undated.
9.
SendersJ. W., KristoffersonA. B., LevisonW. H., DiettrichC. W., and WardJ. L.. The Attentional Demand of Automobile Driving. In Highway Research Record 195, HRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1967, pp. 15–33.
10.
MorayN.The Role of Attention in the Detection of Errors and the Diagnosis of Failures in Man-Machine Systems, 1981. In Human Detection and Diagnosis of System Failures (RasmussenJ. and RouseW. B., eds.), Plenum Press, New York, 1981.
11.
CourageC.An Investigation of Attentional Demand in a Simulated Driving Environment. In Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 2000, p. 83.
12.
PashlerH.The Psychology of Attention. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1998.
13.
GibsonJ. J., and CrooksL. E.. A Theoretical Field-Analysis of Automobile-Driving. American Journal of Psychology, Vol. 51, 1938, pp. 453–471.
14.
KieferR., LeBlancD., PalmerM., SalingerJ., DeeringR., and ShulmanM.. Development and Validation of Functional Definitions and Evalnation Procedures for Collision Warning/Avoidance Systems. Crash Avoidance Metrics Partnership, Washington, D.C., 1999.
15.
GibsonJ. J.A Theoretical Field-Analysis of Automobile-Driving. In Reasons for Realism (ReedE. and JonesR., eds.), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, Hillsdale, N.J., 1982, pp. 119–136.
16.
SussmanE. D., BishopH., MadnickB., and WalterR.. Driver Inattention and Highway Safety. In Transportation Research Record 1047, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1985, pp. 40–48.
17.
AbergL., and RimmoP. A.. Dimensions of Aberrant Driver Behaviour. Ergonomics, Vol. 41, No. 1, 1998, pp. 39–56.
18.
LaurentG., and GabbianiF.. Collision-Avoidance: Nature’s Many Solutions. Nature Neuroscience, Vol. 1, No. 4, 1998, pp. 261–263.
19.
HoffmannE. R.Estimation of Time to Vehicle Arrival—Effects of Age on Use of Available Visual Information. Perception, Vol. 23, 1994, pp. 947–955.
20.
StanardT., and SmithM. R. H.. Testing the Tau Hypothesis Against Alternative Information Sources Used for Collision Avoidance. Proc., 42nd Annual Meeting Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Chicago, 1998, pp. 1535–1539.
21.
SidwayB., FairweatherM., SekiyaH., and McNitt-GrayJ.. Time-to-Collision Estimation in a Simulated Driving Task. Human Factors, Vol. 38, No. 1, 1996, pp. 101–113.
22.
WickensC. D.Engineering Psychology and Human Performance, 2nd ed.HarperCollins Publishers Inc., New York, 1992.
23.
LeeD. N.A Theory of Visual Control of Braking Based on Information About Time to Collision. Perception, Vol. 5, 1976, pp. 437–459.
24.
LiebermannD. G., SchweitzerN., Ben-DavidG., ApterY., and ParushA.. A Field Study on Braking Responses During Driving: I. Triggering and Modulation. Ergonomics, Vol. 38, No. 9, 1995, pp. 1894–1902.
25.
SchweitzerN., ApterY., Ben-DavidG., LiebermannD. G., and ParushA.. A Field Study on Braking Responses During Driving: II. Minimum Driver Braking Times. Ergonomics, Vol. 38, No. 9, 1995, pp. 1903–1910.
26.
SpurrR. T.Subjective Aspects of Braking. Automobile Engineer, Feb.1969, pp. 58–61.
27.
ReidL. D.A Survey of Recent Driver Steering Behavior Models Suited to Accident Studies. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 15, No. 1, 1983, pp. 23–40.
28.
JohanssonG., and RumarK.. Drivers’ Brake Reaction Times. Human Factors, Vol. 13, No. 1, 1971, pp. 23–27.
29.
McGeheeD. V., BrownT. L., WilsonT. B., and BurnsM.. Examination of Driver’s Collision Avoidance Behavior in a Lead Vehicle Stopped Scenario Using a Front-to-Rear-End Collision Warning System. The University of Iowa, Iowa City, 1998.
