Driver Perception–Brake Response in Stopping Sight Distance Situations

Abstract

One of the most important requirements in highway design is the provision of adequate stopping sight distance at every point along the roadway. At a minimum, this sight distance should be long enough to enable a vehicle traveling at or near the design speed to stop before reaching a stationary object in its path. Stopping sight distance is the sum of two components–brake reaction distance and braking distance. Brake reaction distance is based on the vehicle’s speed and the driver’s perception–brake reaction time (PBRT). Four separate, but coordinated, driver braking performance studies measured driver perception–brake response to several different stopping sight distance situations. The results from the driver braking performance studies suggest that the mean perception–brake response time to an unexpected object scenario under controlled and open road conditions is about 1.1 s. The 95th percentile perception–brake response times for these same conditions was 2.0 s. The findings from these studies are consistent with those in the literature: that is, most drivers are capable of responding to an unexpected hazard in the roadway in 2.0 s or less. Thus, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials’ perception–brake response time of 2.5 s encompasses most of the driving population and is an appropriate value for highway design.

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

“…The RT usually represents the time duration from the appearance of a potential hazard, such as a lead vehicle's brake lights activating, until the driver under study initiates some form of evasive response (Society of Automotive Engineers, 2015). Especially for braking responses, there is a considerable literature measuring brake reaction times (BRTs) and how they are influenced by factors such as driver age, gender, cognitive load, situation urgency, number of stimuli for the driver to consider, warnings, and so on (see for example the studies by Barrett et al, 1968;Olson and Sivak, 1986;Fambro et al, 1998;McGehee et al, 1999;Lee et al, 2002;Stanczyk, 2009, 2014;Fitch et al, 2010;Ljung Aust et al, 2013; and the reviews by Olson, 1989;Green, 2000;Muttart, 2003Muttart, , 2005). …”

Crash Probability and Error Rates for Head-On Collisions Based on Stochastic Analyses

“…It is known that the driver requires about 1 s to react to collision warnings [20]. In addition, an evasive action should be taken about 0.7 s ahead of an imminent collision to completely evade the collision based on the simulation results depicted in Fig. 14.…”

Poster: Development of ICA algorithm for V2X communications by using PreScan

“…2, the HV detects the intersection's traffic sign and intersection point (IP) from SPaT message, the OV's location and velocity from BSM, and then, calculates the OV's safety stopping distance (SSD) [5]. Note that SSD of OV can be defined as where V OV (= 1 ∼ 60Km/h), t r (= 2.5s), g(= 9.8m/sec 2 ), f (=0.44) and G(=0%) are the velocity of OV, the driver's reaction time, the surface slope, the acceleration of gravity, and the tire-road friction, respectively.…”