Drivers' Judgments of Safe Distances in Vehicle Following

Colbourn, Christopher J.; Brown, I. D.; Copeman, A. K.

doi:10.1177/001872087802000101

Cited by 35 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In contrast to our study and those of Chen (1996) and Van Winsum and Heino (1996), older studies by Colbourn, Brown, and Copeman (1978) and by Rockwell (1972) reported preferred-time headways averaging approximately 2 s. Yet they too reported that drivers were very consistent in their choice of headways at all speeds. A possible explanation for the difference might be the increase in traffic density today from what it was 20 years ago (Shinar, 1999).…”

Section: Actual Headwayscontrasting

confidence: 99%

Minimum and Comfortable Driving Headways: Reality versus Perception

2001

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A field study was conducted to evaluate drivers' actual headways in car-following situations, their relationship to the drivers' brake reaction times, and their relationship to the drivers' ability to estimate those headways using different metrics. Drivers were asked to maintain "minimum safe distance" and "comfortable, normal distance with no intention to pass" behind the car ahead. The lead car speeds varied from 50 to 100 km/hr. The results showed that under both sets of instructions, drivers adjusted their distance headways in relation to speed, maintaining constant time headways. A significant portion of the drivers maintained time headways that are considered unsafe in relation to drivers' reaction times. There was no significant relationship between the minimal headways maintained by the drivers and their brake reaction times under conditions of maximum attention and preparedness to apply brakes. Accuracy of spoken estimates of headways varied widely among the three measures used to report perceived headway; meters and car lengths yielded much lower estimates (and ones closer to the actual headways) than did seconds. The results have implications for headway perception, driving safety, driver education, and smart cruise-control design.

show abstract

Section: Actual Headwayscontrasting

confidence: 99%

Minimum and Comfortable Driving Headways: Reality versus Perception

2001

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Moreover, results have often been mixed. For example, while some studies indicated shorter headways for young novice drivers relative to older, more experienced drivers (e.g., Evans & Wasielewski, 1983;Saad, 1996;Taieb-Maimon & Shinar, 2001), no difference between groups has also been observed (e.g., Colbourn, Brown & Copeman, 1978;McLaughlin & Serafin, 2000).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Examining Young Novice Driver Headway Choice in a Simulated Car Following Task

Mitsopoulos-Rubens

Triggs

Regan

2007

Proceedings of the 4th International Driving Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training, and Vehicle

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Thus when driving speed continues to increase while the headway still keeps the same distance, it may be difficult for drivers to make a timely response to avoid a rear-end collision with the lead vehicle. Another interesting result is that, with the same initial following speed, 18 m/s, for example, the number of collisions reduced from 3717 to zero when headway distance increased from 15 m to 20 m. According to the previous studies [51,52], the mean time headway to keep safe was about 1-2 s. Thus a safety distance may be reached between 15 m and 20 m, and once the initial headway distance in this simulation surpassed the safety distance, the collisions reduced significantly.…”

Section: Development Of the Rear-end Collision Avoidancementioning

confidence: 74%

Uncertainty Analysis of Rear-End Collision Risk Based on Car-Following Driving Simulation Experiments

Xue

Yan

et al. 2018

Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rear-end collisions are one of the most common types of accidents, and the importance of examining rear-end collisions has been demonstrated by numerous accidents analysis researches. Over the past decades, lots of models have been built to describe driving behaviour during car following to better understand the cause of collisions. However, it is necessary to consider individual difference in car-following modelling while it seems to be ignored in most of previous models. In this study, a rear-end collision avoidance behaviour model considering drivers' individual differences was developed based on a common deceleration pattern extracted from driving behaviour data, which were collected in a car-following driving simulation experiment. Parameters of variables in the model were calibrated by liner regression and Monte Carlo method was adopted in model simulation for uncertainty analysis. Simulation results confirmed the effectiveness of this model by comparing them to the experiment data and the influence of driving speed and headway distance on the rear-end collision risk was indicated as well. The thresholds for driving speed and headway distance were 18 m/s and 15 m, respectively. An obvious increase of collision risk was observed according to the simulation results.Hindawi

show abstract

Drivers' Judgments of Safe Distances in Vehicle Following

Cited by 35 publications

References 8 publications

Minimum and Comfortable Driving Headways: Reality versus Perception

Minimum and Comfortable Driving Headways: Reality versus Perception

Examining Young Novice Driver Headway Choice in a Simulated Car Following Task

Uncertainty Analysis of Rear-End Collision Risk Based on Car-Following Driving Simulation Experiments

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About