OBJECTIVE: This special section brings together diverse research regarding driver interaction with advanced automotive technology to guide design of increasingly automated vehicles. BACKGROUND: Rapidly evolving vehicle automation will likely change cars and trucks more in the next 5 years than the preceding 50, radically redefining what it means to drive. METHOD: This special section includes 10 articles from European and North American researchers reporting simulator and naturalistic driving studies. RESULTS: Little research has considered the consequences of fully automated driving, with most focusing on lane-keeping and speed control systems individually. The studies reveal two underlying design philosophies: automate driving versus support driving. Results of several studies, consistent with previous research in other domains, suggest that the automate philosophy can delay driver responses to incidents in which the driver has to intervene and take control from the automation. Understanding how to orchestrate the transfer or sharing of control between the system and the driver, particularly in critical incidents, emerges as a central challenge. CONCLUSION: Designers should not assume that automation can substitute seamlessly for a human driver, nor can they assume that the driver can safely accommodate the limitations of automation. Designers, policy makers, and researchers must give careful consideration to what role the person should have in highly automated vehicles and how to support the driver if the driver is to be responsible for vehicle control. As in other domains, driving safety increasingly depends on the combined performance of the human and automation, and successful designs will depend on recognizing and supporting the new roles of the driver.
OBJECTIVE: This special section brings together diverse research regarding driver interaction with advanced automotive technology to guide design of increasingly automated vehicles. BACKGROUND: Rapidly evolving vehicle automation will likely change cars and trucks more in the next 5 years than the preceding 50, radically redefining what it means to drive. METHOD: This special section includes 10 articles from European and North American researchers reporting simulator and naturalistic driving studies. RESULTS: Little research has considered the consequences of fully automated driving, with most focusing on lane-keeping and speed control systems individually. The studies reveal two underlying design philosophies: automate driving versus support driving. Results of several studies, consistent with previous research in other domains, suggest that the automate philosophy can delay driver responses to incidents in which the driver has to intervene and take control from the automation. Understanding how to orchestrate the transfer or sharing of control between the system and the driver, particularly in critical incidents, emerges as a central challenge. CONCLUSION: Designers should not assume that automation can substitute seamlessly for a human driver, nor can they assume that the driver can safely accommodate the limitations of automation. Designers, policy makers, and researchers must give careful consideration to what role the person should have in highly automated vehicles and how to support the driver if the driver is to be responsible for vehicle control. As in other domains, driving safety increasingly depends on the combined performance of the human and automation, and successful designs will depend on recognizing and supporting the new roles of the driver.
Authors: Yanli Ma; Shouming Qi; Yaping Zhang; Guan Lian; Weixin Lu; Ching-Yao Chan Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-07-25 Impact factor: 3.390