The influence of distraction and driving context on driver response to imperfect collision warning systems

Lees, Monica N.; Lee, John D.

doi:10.1080/00140130701318749

Cited by 162 publications

(100 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Participants trusted Infiniti's side-view assist least and reported disliking certain situations where it was used, mainly because of false alerts. This is similar to findings from studies of prototype forward collision warning and lane departure warning, where driver trust was diminished by false alerts from less reliable systems (e.g., Lees and Lee 2007; Rudin-Brown and Noy 2002). Infiniti's side-view assist differed from the other vehicles' systems in that it provided an auditory alarm when a vehicle in the blind spot was detected and the turn signal was activated.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 75%

“…Published with license by Taylor & Francis This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/./), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way. have found that features such as intervention timing and warning reliability can affect drivers' trust in the systems (e.g., Abe and Richardson 2006;Lees and Lee 2007;Rajaonah et al 2006), but the performance of production systems in real traffic can differ substantially from that of a prototype in a simulator. Data from a European field operational test have provided some preliminary evidence of how trust in different collision avoidance systems used in real-world conditions differs, by system type (Sanchez et al 2012), but there is a dearth of evidence on how real-world vehicle performance affects trust and how trust varies among different implementations of the same types of systems.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Driver trust in five driver assistance technologies following real-world use in four production vehicles

Kidd

Cicchino

Reagan

et al. 2017

Traffic Injury Prevention

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: Information about drivers' experiences with driver assistance technologies in real driving conditions is sparse. This study characterized driver interactions with forward collision warning, adaptive cruise control, active lane keeping, side-view assist, and lane departure warning systems following real-world use. Methods: Fifty-four Insurance Institute for Highway Safety employees participated and drove a 2016 Toyota Prius, 2016 Honda Civic, 2017 Audi Q7, or 2016 Infiniti QX60 for up to several weeks. Participants reported mileage and warnings from the technologies in an online daily-use survey. Participants reported their level of agreement with five statements regarding trust in an online post-use survey. Responses were averaged to create a composite measure of trust ranging from −2 (strongly disagree) to +2 (strongly agree) for each technology. Mixed-effect regression models were constructed to compare trust among technologies and separately among the study vehicles. Participants' free-response answers about what they liked least about each system were coded and examined. Results: Participants reported driving 33,584 miles during 4 months of data collection. At least one forward collision warning was reported in 26% of the 354 daily reports. The proportion of daily reports indicating a forward collision warning was much larger for the Honda (70%) than for the Audi (18%), Infiniti (15%), and Toyota (10%).Trust was highest for side-view assist (0.98) and lowest for active lane keeping (0.20). Trust in side-view assist was significantly higher than trust in active lane keeping and lane departure warning (0.53). Trust in active lane keeping was significantly lower than trust in adaptive cruise control (0.67) and forward collision warning (0.71). Trust in adaptive cruise control was higher for the Audi (0.72) and Toyota (0.75) compared with the Honda (0.30), and significantly higher for the Infiniti (0.93). Trust in Infiniti's side-view assist (0.58) was significantly lower than trust in Audi (1.17) and Honda (1.23) systems. Coding of answers to free-response questions showed that more than 80% of complaints about Honda's adaptive cruise control were about the way it functioned and/or performed. Infiniti's side-view assist was the only one with complaints mentioning circumstances where it was used. Trust in forward collision warning, lane departure warning, and active lane keeping was not significantly different among vehicles. Conclusions: Driver trust varied among driver assistance technologies, and trust in adaptive cruise control and side-view assist differed among vehicles. Trust may affect real-world use of driver assistance technologies and limit the opportunity for the systems to provide their intended benefits.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 75%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Driver trust in five driver assistance technologies following real-world use in four production vehicles

Kidd

Cicchino

Reagan

et al. 2017

Traffic Injury Prevention

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Participants in the current study were instructed beforehand about possible automation failures. Additionally, TORs in the current study were exclusively accurate warnings, which presumably foster trust within the framework of Lees and Lee (2007). Spain, Bustamante, and Bliss (2008) suggested that when using the system trust scale, trust should be considered as a two-dimensional construct.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…On the other hand, drivers might perceive TORs as warnings. This makes an important difference: Lees and Lee (2007) proposed a differentiation of warning types along purpose, process and performance dimensions. In a study of automotive collision warning systems, they showed that intended, comprehensible and useful warnings fostered trust.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Take-Over Requests and Cultural Background on Automation Trust in Highly Automated Driving

Hergeth

Lorenz

Krems

et al. 2015

Proceedings of the 8th International Driving Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training, and Vehicle Design: Dri

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary:Appropriate automation trust is a prerequisite for safe, comfortable and efficient use of highly automated driving systems (HADS). Earlier research indicates that a drivers' nationality and Take-Over Requests (TOR) due to imperfect system reliability might affect trust, but this has never been investigated in the context of highly automated driving. A driving simulator study (N = 80) showed that TORs only temporarily lowered trust in HADSs, and revealed similarities in trust formation between German and Chinese drivers. Trust was significantly higher after experiencing the system than before, both for German and Chinese participants. However, Chinese drivers reported significantly higher automation mistrust than German drivers. Self-report measures of automation trust were not connected to behavioral measures. The results support a distinction between automation trust and mistrust as separate constructs, short-and long-term effects of TORs on automation trust, and cultural differences in automation trust.

show abstract

“…However, as is evident from research by Lee and See (2004), it is important for designers to consider many aspects when implementing signaling systems in the automobile cockpit. If such implementation is done improperly, drivers may demonstrate overreliance on the technology, particularly in times of distraction (Lees & Lee, 2007). Bliss and Acton (2003) found that historical reliability of alerting systems has a clear effect on drivers when they react to collision avoidance signals.…”

Section: Driver Trust Of the Isa Systemmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effects of External Motivation and Real-Time Automated Feedback on Speeding Behavior in a Naturalistic Setting

Reagan

Bliss

Houten³

et al. 2012

Hum Factors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: In this field experiment, the authors tested an alerting system and a monetary incentive system with the objective of reducing speeding more than 5 mph faster than the posted speed limit.Background: Speeding is a factor in a significant number of traffic fatalities. The systems tested in this project have been evaluated outside but not within the United States. These studies indicated that similar systems led to reductions in speeding.Method: For this study, eight vehicles were instrumented such that vehicle speed and speed limits were linked in real time. A total of 50 participants drove assigned vehicles for 4 weeks. Week 1 was a baseline period; during Week 2 or Week 3, 40 participants experienced the alerting system that issued auditory and visual advisory signals when drivers exceeded the limit by 5 mph or more. Of these 40 individuals, 20 experienced the monetary incentive system during Weeks 2 and 3; Week 4 was a return-to-baseline period. A control group of 10 drivers experienced neither system during the study.Results: Results indicated that the incentive system resulted in significant reductions in driving faster than the posted limit, and the feedback system led to modest changes in speeding. In the condition in which drivers experienced the feedback and incentive, reductions in speeding were similar to those found during the incentiveonly condition.Conclusion: The technology tested in this study has potential to benefit traffic safety by reducing the incidence of driving faster than the posted limit, which should lead to a reduction in speed-related crashes.Application: Insurers provide incentive-based discounts on premiums. Combining this technology with such a discount program may improve traffic safety significantly.

show abstract

The influence of distraction and driving context on driver response to imperfect collision warning systems

Cited by 162 publications

References 45 publications

Driver trust in five driver assistance technologies following real-world use in four production vehicles

Driver trust in five driver assistance technologies following real-world use in four production vehicles

Effects of Take-Over Requests and Cultural Background on Automation Trust in Highly Automated Driving

The Effects of External Motivation and Real-Time Automated Feedback on Speeding Behavior in a Naturalistic Setting

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About