European Research on Human Factors of Automated Vehicles

Natasha MERAT

Professor

Institute for Transport Studies University of Leeds

n.merat@its.leeds.ac.uk

< Day 1>

< Human Factors >

European Projects with HF Element (VRA Wiki)

AdaptIVe (Automated Driving Applications & Technologies for Intelligent Vehicles)

• ADASANDME (Adaptive ADAS to Support Incapacitated Drivers Mitigate Effectively Risks Through Tailor Made HMI Under Automation)

• AutoMate (Automation as accepted and trustful teammate to enhance traffic safety and efficiency)

• CATS (City Alternative Transport System)

• CityMobil2 (Cities Demonstrating Automated Road Passenger Transport)

• D3COS (Designing Dynamic Distributed Cooperative Human-Machine Systems)

• HAVEit

• HFAuto (Human Factors of Automated Driving)

• interactIVe (Accident avoidance by active intervention for Intelligent Vehicles)

• ISI-PADAS (Integrated Human Modelling and Simulation to Support Human Error Risk Analysis of Partially Autonomous Driver Assistance Systems)

• PICAV (Personal Intelligent City Accessible Vehicle)

• PROSPECT (Proactive Safety for Pedestrians and Cyclists)

• SAVE (System for Effective Assessment of Driver State and Vehicle Control in Emergency Situations)

• SCOUT (Safe and Connected Automation in Road Transport)

• UP-Drive (Automated Urban Parking and Driving)

• V-Charge (Autonomous Valet Parking and Charging for eMobility)

• VRA (Vehicle and Road Automation)

HUMAN CANNNOT CONTROL VEHICLE

(SAE 4/5)

HUMAN CAN CONTROL VEHICLE (SAE2/3/4)

The Driver

*Some* of the main human factors challenges

NOT JUST ABOUT USER ACCEPTANCE

Designing with the user in mind (and preferably engaged in the process)

• Mode confusion

• Reduced situation awareness

• Long term effects - training and skills loss

• Age, ability and cultural differences

• Trust versus complacency, etc.

• Adequate time to resume control??

• Is it about Reaction Time/ Take over time? or QUALITY of the take over?

• 5 secs----------- 45 secs

• Does quick take over mean crash avoidance?

• How much warning do drivers need?

• Are there individual/environmental differences?

• Is take over the same as action?

Louw T; et al, (submitted).

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

110%

120%

1 sbefore

1 s 2 s 3 s 4 s 5 s 6 s

Perc

ent

Road C

ente

r

No Collision in Critical Event 1 Collision in Critical Event 1

*

Automation off BRAKE LIGHT ONSET

No Crash (N=54) 💥 Crash (N=19)

Louw T; et al, (2016).

“D3.3 - Final functional HF recommendations” https://www.adaptive-ip.eu/index.php/deliverables_papers.html

The Driver

Questionnaires (N=664)

• Most important: has it detected me?

• Least important: speed of travel

Focus Group

• Direction of travel not obvious

• Not sure who had priority

• Would prefer demarcations

• Not sure if the vehicle can identify hazards?

• Suggested use of horns and lights for detection and communication

• Better for tourists than commuters

• Sound: Lack of engine noise a problem for its localisation, especially for the visually impaired

Main Research Needs

• For Level 2/3 in particular: How do we ensure driver knows their responsibility and is prepared and able to resume control? Is driver monitoring a useful option?

• How will the AV/its user and other road users communicate with each other in mixed traffic?

• We need lots of demonstrations and hands-on experience

• How do we as researchers keep up with the technology?

ICTTP 2016, Brisbane, Australia 12

Ohn-Bar & Trivedi, 2016