Driver takeover performance in conditionally automated driving: sudden system failure situation versus ODD exit situation
Conditionally automated driving is expected to become available to the public in near future. However, the driver is expected to take over control from the system when a sudden system failure occurs or when the driving automation system is approaching its operational design domain (ODD) exit. The ti...
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Taylor & Francis Group
2021-01-01
|
| Series: | SICE Journal of Control, Measurement, and System Integration |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/18824889.2021.1913861 |
| _version_ | 1797661152324354048 |
|---|---|
| author | Hua Yao Suyang An Huiping Zhou Makoto Itoh |
| author_facet | Hua Yao Suyang An Huiping Zhou Makoto Itoh |
| author_sort | Hua Yao |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Conditionally automated driving is expected to become available to the public in near future. However, the driver is expected to take over control from the system when a sudden system failure occurs or when the driving automation system is approaching its operational design domain (ODD) exit. The time budget for drivers to take over control is different: (1) in the sudden system failure situation, the system needs to be deactivated immediately with issuing a request to intervene (RTI); (2) in the ODD exit situation, the system could keep active for a while after the issue of RTI. In this paper, two hypotheses were put forward based on driver’s expected utility analysis: (1) the drivers respond faster to the RTI in the system failure situation; (2) the drivers perform smoother driving behaviour after takeover in the ODD exit situation. We recruited 32 participants to conduct a driving simulator experiment, in which the driver takeover performance in system failure situation was compared with that in the ODD exit condition. Results revealed that drivers responded significantly faster in the system failure situation. There was no significant difference of longitudinal takeover performance between the two types of limitations. However, the drivers generally performed smoother lateral takeover performance in the ODD exit situation, which supported our hypothesis. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-11T18:40:16Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-e72993d1730f450688ce2e70286ed7ca |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1884-9970 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-11T18:40:16Z |
| publishDate | 2021-01-01 |
| publisher | Taylor & Francis Group |
| record_format | Article |
| series | SICE Journal of Control, Measurement, and System Integration |
| spelling | doaj.art-e72993d1730f450688ce2e70286ed7ca2023-10-12T13:43:51ZengTaylor & Francis GroupSICE Journal of Control, Measurement, and System Integration1884-99702021-01-01141899610.1080/18824889.2021.19138611913861Driver takeover performance in conditionally automated driving: sudden system failure situation versus ODD exit situationHua Yao0Suyang An1Huiping Zhou2Makoto Itoh3Department of Risk Engineering, University of TsukubaDepartment of Risk Engineering, University of TsukubaFaculty of Engineering, Information and Systems, University of TsukubaFaculty of Engineering, Information and Systems, University of TsukubaConditionally automated driving is expected to become available to the public in near future. However, the driver is expected to take over control from the system when a sudden system failure occurs or when the driving automation system is approaching its operational design domain (ODD) exit. The time budget for drivers to take over control is different: (1) in the sudden system failure situation, the system needs to be deactivated immediately with issuing a request to intervene (RTI); (2) in the ODD exit situation, the system could keep active for a while after the issue of RTI. In this paper, two hypotheses were put forward based on driver’s expected utility analysis: (1) the drivers respond faster to the RTI in the system failure situation; (2) the drivers perform smoother driving behaviour after takeover in the ODD exit situation. We recruited 32 participants to conduct a driving simulator experiment, in which the driver takeover performance in system failure situation was compared with that in the ODD exit condition. Results revealed that drivers responded significantly faster in the system failure situation. There was no significant difference of longitudinal takeover performance between the two types of limitations. However, the drivers generally performed smoother lateral takeover performance in the ODD exit situation, which supported our hypothesis.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/18824889.2021.1913861automated drivingexpected utilitytakeover performancesystem failureodd |
| spellingShingle | Hua Yao Suyang An Huiping Zhou Makoto Itoh Driver takeover performance in conditionally automated driving: sudden system failure situation versus ODD exit situation SICE Journal of Control, Measurement, and System Integration automated driving expected utility takeover performance system failure odd |
| title | Driver takeover performance in conditionally automated driving: sudden system failure situation versus ODD exit situation |
| title_full | Driver takeover performance in conditionally automated driving: sudden system failure situation versus ODD exit situation |
| title_fullStr | Driver takeover performance in conditionally automated driving: sudden system failure situation versus ODD exit situation |
| title_full_unstemmed | Driver takeover performance in conditionally automated driving: sudden system failure situation versus ODD exit situation |
| title_short | Driver takeover performance in conditionally automated driving: sudden system failure situation versus ODD exit situation |
| title_sort | driver takeover performance in conditionally automated driving sudden system failure situation versus odd exit situation |
| topic | automated driving expected utility takeover performance system failure odd |
| url | http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/18824889.2021.1913861 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT huayao drivertakeoverperformanceinconditionallyautomateddrivingsuddensystemfailuresituationversusoddexitsituation AT suyangan drivertakeoverperformanceinconditionallyautomateddrivingsuddensystemfailuresituationversusoddexitsituation AT huipingzhou drivertakeoverperformanceinconditionallyautomateddrivingsuddensystemfailuresituationversusoddexitsituation AT makotoitoh drivertakeoverperformanceinconditionallyautomateddrivingsuddensystemfailuresituationversusoddexitsituation |