ACC design for safety and fuel efficiency: the acceptance of safety margins when adopting different driving styles

Pampel, Sanna; Jamson, Samantha; Hibberd, Daryl; Barnard, Yvonne

Abstract

For Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC) systems to be accepted and used safely, the transitions from cruise control mode to necessary driver intervention need to be obvious to the driver. Previous research shows that drivers have natural boundaries for acceptable values for time headway and time to collision to a car in front, which define at what point they are likely to step on the brake pedal. These boundaries can define an intuitive limit for ACC engagement. However, such boundaries may not be the same for all drivers, and not even for the same driver, whose goals may vary. The present research aimed to measure mental model boundaries in the context of different goals with a motorway cut-in scenario in a driving simulator. Participants drove in three conditions, after being asked to 'drive safely, 'drive fuel-efficiently' and after no specific instructions. The results show that both the safe and eco-driving instructions led drivers to brake at longer safety margins. These findings indicate that, as drivers follow different goals, e.g. as they are reminded to drive safely or eco-friendly, their preferences for operational limits of ACCs may change. This needs to be taken into account for design decisions, e.g. by using 'safe' and 'eco' modes when driving.

Citation

Pampel, S., Jamson, S., Hibberd, D., & Barnard, Y. (2020). ACC design for safety and fuel efficiency: the acceptance of safety margins when adopting different driving styles. Cognition, Technology and Work, 22, 335–342. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-019-00571-6

• Journal Article Type: Article
• Acceptance Date: May 15, 2019
• Online Publication Date: May 30, 2019
• Publication Date: 2020-05
• Deposit Date: May 20, 2019
• Publicly Available Date: Jun 4, 2019
• Journal: Cognition, Technology and Work
• Print ISSN: 1435-5558
• Electronic ISSN: 1435-5566
• Publisher: Springer Verlag
• Peer Reviewed: Peer Reviewed
• Volume: 22
• Pages: 335–342
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-019-00571-6
• Keywords: mental models; driving simulator; satisficing decision theory; driver behaviour; safety margins; acceptance
• Public URL: https://nottingham-repository.worktribe.com/output/2068908
• Publisher URL: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10111-019-00571-6
• Contract Date: May 20, 2019