Search Results

Level 2 (L2) partial driving automation systems are rapidly emerging in the marketplace. L2 systems provide sustained automatic longitudinal and lateral vehicle motion control, reducing the need for drivers to continuously brake, accelerate and steer. Drivers, however, remain critically responsible for safely detecting and responding to objects and events. This paper summarizes variations of L2 systems (hands-on and/or hands-free) and considers human drivers’ roles when using L2 systems and for designing Human-Machine Interfaces (HMIs), including Driver Monitoring Systems (DMSs). In addition, approaches for examining potential unintended consequences of L2 usage and evaluating L2 HMIs, including field safety effect examination, are reviewed. The aim of this paper is to guide L2 system HMI development and L2 system evaluations, especially in the field, to support safe L2 deployment, promote L2 system improvements, and ensure well-informed L2 policy decision-making.

This study assessed a driver’s ability to safely manage Super Cruise lane changes, both driver commanded (Lane Change on Demand, LCoD) and system triggered Automatic Lane Changes (ALC). Data was gathered under naturalistic conditions on public roads in the Washington, D.C. area with 12 drivers each of whom were provided with a Super Cruise equipped study vehicle over a 10-day exposure period. Drivers were shown how to operate Super Cruise (e.g., system displays, how to activate and disengage, etc.) and provided opportunities to initiate and experience commanded lane changes (LCoD), including how to override the system. Overall, drivers experienced 698 attempted Super Cruise lane changes, 510 Automatic and 188 commanded LCoD lane changes with drivers experiencing an average of 43 Automatic lane changes and 16 LCoD lane changes.

Partially automated driving involves the relinquishment of longitudinal and/or latitudinal control to the vehicle. Partially automated systems, however, are fallible and require driver oversight to avoid all road hazards. Researchers have expressed concern that automation promotes extended eyes-off-road (EOR) behavior that may lead to a loss of situational awareness (SA), degrading a driver’s ability to detect hazards and make necessary overrides. A potential countermeasure to visual inattention is the orientation of the driver’s glances towards potential hazards via cuing. This method is based on the assumption that drivers are able to rapidly identify hazards once their attention is drawn to the area of interest regardless of preceding EOR duration. This work examined this assumption in a simulated automated driving context by projecting hazardous and nonhazardous road scenes to a participant while sitting in a stationary vehicle.