Resuming Manual Control or Not?: Modeling Choices of Control Transitions in Full-Range Adaptive Cruise Control

Abstract

Automated vehicles and driving assistance systems such as adaptive cruise control (ACC) are expected to reduce traffic congestion, accidents, and levels of emissions. Field operational tests have found that drivers may prefer to deactivate ACC in dense traffic flow conditions and before changing lanes. Despite the potential effects of these control transitions on traffic flow efficiency and safety, most mathematical models evaluating the impact of ACC do not adequately represent that process. This research aimed to identify the main factors influencing drivers’ choice to resume manual control. A mixed logit model that predicted the choice to deactivate the system or overrule it by pressing the gas pedal was estimated. The data set was collected in an on-road experiment in which 23 participants drove a research vehicle equipped with full-range ACC on a 35.5-km freeway in Munich, Germany, during peak hours. The results reveal that drivers were more likely to deactivate the ACC and resume manual control when approaching a slower leader, when expecting vehicles cutting in, when driving above the ACC target speed, and before exiting the freeway. Drivers were more likely to overrule the ACC system by pressing the gas pedal a few seconds after the system had been activated and when the vehicle decelerated. Everything else being equal, some drivers had higher probabilities to resume manual control. This study concludes that a novel conceptual framework linking ACC system settings, driver behavior characteristics, driver characteristics, and environmental factors is needed to model driver behavior in control transitions between ACC and manual driving.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Hoogendoorn

, van Arem

, and Hoogendoorn

. Automated Driving, Traffic Flow Efficiency, and Human Factors: Literature Review. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2422, 2014, pp. 113–120. https://doi.org/10.3141/2422-13.

Alkim

T. P.

, Bootsma

, and Hoogendoorn

S. P.

. Field Operational Test “The Assisted Driver.” In Proceedings of the IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Piscataway, N.J., 2007, pp. 1198–1203. https://doi.org/10.1109/IVS.2007.4290281.

Gorter

Adaptive Cruise Control in Practice: A Field Study and Questionnaire into Its Influence on Driver, Traffic Flows, and Safety. MSc thesis. Delft University of Technology, Netherlands, 2015.

Ervin

R. D.

Automotive Collision Avoidance System Field Operational Test Report: Methodology and Results. U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA, 2005.

Malta

, Ljung Aust

, Faber

, Met

, Saint Pierre

, Benmimoun

, and Schafer

. EuroFOT Final Results: Impacts on Traffic Safety. Ford Research and Advanced Engineering Europe, Aachen, Germany, 2012.

, and de Winter

J. C. F.

. A Review and Framework of Control Authority Transitions in Highly Automated Driving. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics, Elsevier, New York, 2015.

Varotto

S. F.

, Hoogendoorn

R. G.

, van Arem

, and Hoogendoorn

S. P.

. Empirical Longitudinal Driving Behavior in Authority Transitions Between Adaptive Cruise Control and Manual Driving. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2489, 2015, pp. 105–114. https://doi.org/10.3141/2489-12.

Vlakveld

, Vissers

, Hulleman

, and Van Nes

. An Empirical Exploration of the Impact of Control Transitions on Situation Awareness for Potential Hazards. SWOV Institute for Road Safety Research, The Hague, Netherlands, 2015.

Varotto

S. F.

, Hoogendoorn

R. G.

, van Arem

, and Hoogendoorn

S. P.

. Human Factors of Automated Driving: Predicting the Effects of Authority Transitions on Traffic Flow Efficiency. Presented at 2nd TRAIL Internal Congress, Delft, Netherlands, 2014.

10.

Viti

, Hoogendoorn

S. P.

, Alkim

T. P.

, and Bootsma

. Driving Behavior Interaction with ACC: Results from a Field Operational Test in the Netherlands. In Proceedings of the IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Piscataway, N.J., 2008, pp. 745–750. https://doi.org/10.1109/IVS.2008.4621199.

11.

van Driel

, and van Arem

. The Impact of a Congestion Assistant on Traffic Flow Efficiency and Safety in Congested Traffic Caused by a Lane Drop. Journal of Intelligent Transport Systems, Vol. 14, No. 4, 2010, pp. 197–208. https://doi.org/10.1080/15472450.2010.516226.

12.

van Arem

, de Vos

A. P.

, and Vanderschuren

M. J. W. A.

. The Microscopic Traffic Simulation Model MIXIC 1.3. TNO Inro, Delft, Netherlands, 1997.

13.

Klunder

, Li

, and Minderhoud

. Traffic Flow Impacts of Adaptive Cruise Control Deactivation and (Re)Activation with Cooperative Driver Behavior. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2129, 2009, pp. 145–151. https://doi.org/10.3141/2129-17.

14.

Carsten

, Kircher

, and Jamson

. Vehicle-Based Studies of Driving in the Real World: The Hard Truth? Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 58, 2013, pp. 162–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2013.06.006.

15.

Xiong

, and Boyle

L. N.

. Drivers’ Adaptation to Adaptive Cruise Control: Examination of Automatic and Manual Braking. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, Vol. 13, No. 3, 2012, pp. 1468–1473. https://doi.org/10.1109/TITS.2012.2192730.

16.

Pauwelussen

, and Feenstra

P. J.

. Driver Behavior Analysis During ACC Activation and Deactivation in a Real Traffic Environment. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, Vol. 11, No. 2, 2010, pp. 329–338. https://doi.org/10.1109/TITS.2010.2043099.

17.

Pauwelussen

, and Minderhoud

. The Effects of Deactivation and (Re)Activation of ACC on Driver Behaviour Analyzed in Real Traffic. In Proceedings of the IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Piscataway, N.J., 2008, pp. 257–262. https://doi.org/10.1109/IVS.2008.4621309.

18.

Zheng

, and McDonald

. Manual Vs. Adaptive Cruise Control—Can Driver’s Expectation Be Matched? Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, Vol. 13, No. 5–6, 2005, pp. 421–431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2005.05.001.

19.

Pereira

, Beggiato

, and Petzoldt

. Use of Adaptive Cruise Control Functions on Motorways and Urban Roads: Changes over Time in an On-Road Study. Applied Ergonomics, Vol. 50, 2015, pp. 105–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2015.03.002.

20.

Google Maps. Test Route on A99 in Munich (48.1567429 N, 11.6926232 E). Accessed July 24, 2016.

21.

FGSV. Richtlinien für die Anlage von Autobahnen. FGSV Publishing House, Cologne, Germany, 2008.

22.

Toledo

Integrated Driving Behavior Modeling. PhD thesis. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, 2003.

23.

Bierlaire

PythonBiogeme: A Short Introduction. Report TRANSPOR 160706, Series on Biogeme. Transport and Mobility Laboratory, School of Architecture, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland, 2016.