2016 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV) 2016
DOI: 10.1109/ivs.2016.7535392
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Driver perception and reaction in collision avoidance: Implications for ADAS development and testing

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
10
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
4
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 7 publications
0
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…They also conclude that a large-scale deployment of collision warnings system will not occur until the nuisance and false warnings generated by the application are minimized, thereby increasing driver acceptance. A 1.1 s TTC at an average speed of 50 km/h was used in [ 72 ]. In studies that do not monitor the driver’s attention, a higher TTC is generally used to compensate for the potential inattention of the driver.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…They also conclude that a large-scale deployment of collision warnings system will not occur until the nuisance and false warnings generated by the application are minimized, thereby increasing driver acceptance. A 1.1 s TTC at an average speed of 50 km/h was used in [ 72 ]. In studies that do not monitor the driver’s attention, a higher TTC is generally used to compensate for the potential inattention of the driver.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A set of minimum performance criteria (MPC) was established for the primary forward-facing sensor, as shown in Table 1. The criteria for minimum range requirements (and corresponding sensor update rates) were determined based on direct feedback and published articles from mine-site personnel involved with developing a response to the Moura No 2 mine disaster [2], complemented by published research into human reaction times for collision avoidance [7]. A minimum effective range of at least 20 m was specified by the ACARP industry project monitors as sufficient for vehicle navigation in an emergency due to the low speeds expected to be employed by operators under these circumstances.…”
Section: Sensor Selectionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The test experiment of 101 volunteers confirm that nondriving tasks will increase the response time of the corresponding take-over request, and the initial response time of tactile and auditory take-over requests is lower than that of visual. In a traffic accident scenario, the drivers' reaction is related to the speed of obstacles before the accident [29], and the drivers' reaction time is linearly related to the collision time [30]. Xue et al [31] analyze the simulation data of 47 volunteers in simulated carfollowing scenarios and found that in the case of high traffic flow density, the response time of drivers is usually shorter than that of low to medium traffic density [32,33], while the response time of male and nonprofessional drivers tends to be slightly longer [34].…”
Section: Drivers' Reaction Timementioning
confidence: 99%