Driving next to automated vehicle platoons: How do short time headways influence non-platoon drivers’ longitudinal control?

Advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) are taking over an increasing part of the driving task and are supporting the introduction of semi- and fully automated vehicles. As a consequence, a mixed traffic situation is developing where vehicles equipped with automated systems taking over the lateral and longitudinal control of the vehicle will interact with unequipped vehicles (UV) that are not fitted with such automated systems. Different forms of automation are emerging and it appears that regardless of which form is going to become popular on our roads, there is a consensus developing that it will be accompanied by a reduction in time headway (THW). The present simulator study examined whether a ‘contagion’ effect from the short THW held in platoons on the UV drivers would occur. Thirty participants were asked to follow a lead vehicle (LV) on a simulated motorway in three different traffic conditions: surrounding traffic including (1) platoons with short following distance (THW = 0.3 s), (2) large following distance (THW = 1.4 s) or (3) no platoons at all. Participants adapted their driving behaviour by displaying a significant shorter average and minimum THW while driving next to a platoon holding short THWs as when THW was large. They also spent more time keeping a THW below a safety threshold of 1 s. There was no carryover effect from one platoon condition to the other, which can be interpreted as an effect that is not lasting in time. The results of this study point out the importance of examining possibly negative behavioural effects of mixed traffic on UV drivers.     

“Don’t you know I own the road?” The link between narcissism and aggressive driving

Aggressive drivers can make driving dangerous. Over 50% of traffic fatalities are caused by aggressive driving. This research tests whether narcissists are more aggressive drivers than other individuals. Narcissists think they are special people who deserve special treatment. When they don’t get the special treatment they think they deserve, narcissists often lash out at others in an aggressive manner. Narcissists might think they “own the road” and can drive anyway they want, and that other drivers should get out of their way. In the article, we conduct three studies to test the link between narcissism and aggressive driving. In Studies 1 (N = 139) and 2 (N = 100), Luxembourgish motorists completed a measure of narcissism and a self-report measure of aggressive driving. In Study 3 (N = 60), American university students completed a measure of narcissism and then completed a driving simulation scenario that contained a number of frustrating elements. Several measures of aggressive driving and road rage were obtained. In all three studies, narcissism was positively related to aggressive driving. A meta-analysis found an average correlation of r = 0.35 across the three studies. This research replicates previous research linking narcissism to aggression, and extends it to a driving context.     

Other road users’ adaptations to increase safety in response to older drivers’ behaviour

Changes in physical and cognitive abilities not only challenge the driving ability of older adults, in some situations age-related changes in driving behaviour require other road users to adapt their behaviour to maintain a safe traffic situation. In this study, we aimed to map age-related differences in driving behaviour and assess the impact on other road users. A group younger and a group older adults drove four different routes containing challenging situations (e.g., merging into motorway traffic) in a driving simulator while measures of driving behaviour were collected. Other road users’ deceleration responses to the driver’s behaviour were also collected as a measure of behavioural adaptation. Our results showed similar driving performance between young and older drivers when task complexity was low, but reduced performance in older drivers when tasks requirements increased. Lower driving speed and longer waiting times that were observed in older drivers can be interpreted as compensatory behaviour aimed at creating more time to lower task requirements. Crucially, in a non-time critical situation this compensatory behaviour was found to be successful, however in a time-critical situation (merging onto a motorway) this strategy had negative side effects because other road users had to decelerate in order to keep a safe distance. Our results show the importance of anticipation and adaptation by other road users for the success of older driver’s strategies and traffic safety.     

Behavioural adaptation to driving with an adaptive cruise control (ACC)

The present paper describes a study that aims at assessment of driver behaviour in response to new technology, particularly Adaptive Cruise Control Systems (ACCs), as a function of driving style. In this study possible benefits and drawbacks of Adaptive Cruise Control Systems (ACCs) were assessed by having participants drive in a simulator. The four groups of participants taking part differed on reported driving styles concerning Speed (driving fast) and Focus (the ability to ignore distractions), and drove in ways which were consistent with these opinions. The results show behavioural adaptation with an ACC in terms of higher speed, smaller minimum time headway and larger brake force. Driving style group made little difference to these behavioural adaptations. Most drivers evaluated the ACC system very positively, but the undesirable behavioural adaptations observed should encourage caution about the potential safety of such systems.     

Behavioral changes to repeated takeovers in automated driving: The drivers’ ability to transfer knowledge and the effects of takeover request process

Only a couple of studies evaluated whether drivers of automated vehicles change their takeover behavior when they experience takeover requests repeatedly. Even less evidence was accumulated regarding the question whether drivers are able to transfer learned behavior to takeover situations with varying visibility characteristics and whether drivers’ takeover behavior depends on the takeover process in these situations. This paper therefore examines three research questions. First, it assesses how drivers change their behavior with the repeated experience of a takeover situation with the same visibility (fog or no fog). Second, it tests whether drivers can transfer their learned takeover behavior from a takeover situation with high or low visibility to the same takeover situation with different visibility conditions. Third, it assesses whether drivers’ takeover behavior and their experience of the situation differ between a one-step and a two-step takeover request process. Forty participants experienced a takeover situation three times. Experimental trials varied between-subjects concerning the permanent presence or absence of fog in the adaptation condition, the change of visibility conditions from fog to no fog or vice versa in the transfer condition, and the design of the takeover process with one-step or two-steps. Dependent variables included participants’ takeover time, minimum time-to-collision (TTC_min) with the construction site, deceleration and maximum steering behavior, and their ratings of criticality of the driving situation and perceived effort. Results show that participants adapted their deceleration behavior when repeatedly experiencing a takeover situation with the same visibility characteristics (adaptation condition). Changing these characteristics (transfer condition) lead to increased minimum TTCs, criticality and perceived effort ratings. In general, participants were able to maintain their takeover behavior in takeover situations with varying visibility characteristics indicating that they can transfer their takeover behavior across situations. Finally, the two-step takeover request process was associated with longer takeover times. However, minimum TTCs were larger and maximum steering movements and criticality ratings were lower compared to the one-step process. We conclude that drivers transfer their behavior across takeover situations. However, this performance comes at higher costs in terms of perceived effort and criticality. In addition, two-step takeover request processes should be favored over one-step processes when designing takeover requests. Future studies should examine the validity of the results in various takeover situations and on-the-road studies.     

Manual drivers’ experience and driving behavior in repeated interactions with automated Level 3 vehicles in mixed traffic on the highway

In the near future, conditionally automated vehicles (CAVs; SAE Level 3) will travel alongside manual drivers (≤ SAE level 2) in mixed traffic on the highway. It is yet unclear how manual drivers will react to these vehicles beyond first contact when they interact repeatedly with multiple CAVs on longer highway sections or even during entire highway trips. In a driving simulator study, we investigated the subjective experience and behavioral reactions of N = 51 manual drivers aged 22 to 74 years (M = 41.5 years, SD = 18.1, 22 female) to driving in mixed traffic in repeated interactions with first-generation Level 3 vehicles on four highway sections (each 35 km long), each of which included three typical speed limits (80 km/h, 100 km/h, 130 km/h) on German highways. Moreover, the highway sections differed regarding the penetration rate of CAVs in mixed traffic (within-subjects factor; 0%, 25%, 50%, 75%). The drivers were assigned to one of three experimental groups, in which the CAVs differed regarding their external marking, (1) status eHMI, (2) no eHMI, and (3) a control group without information about the mixed traffic. After each highway section, drivers rated perceived safety, comfort, and perceived efficiency. Drivers were also asked to estimate the penetration rate of CAVs on the previous highway section. In addition, we analyzed drivers’ average speed and their minimum time headways to lead vehicles for each speed zone (80 km/h, 100 km/h, 130 km/h) as well as the percentage of safety critical interactions with lead vehicles (< 1 s time headway). Results showed that manual drivers experienced driving in mixed traffic, on average, as more uncomfortable, less safe and less efficient than driving in manual traffic, but not as dangerous. A status eHMI helps manual drivers identify CAVs in mixed traffic, but the eHMI had no effect on manual drivers’ subjective ratings or driving behavior. Starting at a level of 25% Level 3 vehicles in mixed traffic, participants' average speed decreased significantly. At the same time, the percentage of safety critical interactions with lead vehicles increased with an increasing penetration rate of CAVs. Accordingly, additional measures may be necessary in order to at least keep the existing safety level of driving on the highway.     

How do the recognizability and driving styles of automated vehicles affect human drivers’ gap acceptance at T- Intersections?

Future traffic will be composed of both human-driven vehicles (HDVs) and automated vehicles (AVs). To accurately predict the performance of mixed traffic, an important aspect is describing HDV behavior when interacting with AVs. A few exploratory studies show that HDVs change their behavior when interacting with AVs, being influenced by factors such as recognizability and driving style of AVs. Unsignalized priority intersections can significantly affect traffic flow efficiency and safety of the road network. To understand HDV behavior in mixed traffic at unsignalized priority T-intersections, a driving simulator experiment was set up in which 95 drivers took part in it. The route in the driving simulator included three T-intersections where the drivers had to give priority to traffic on the major road. The participants drove different scenarios which varied in whether the AVs were recognizable or not, and in their driving style (Aggressive or Defensive). The results showed that in mixed traffic having recognizable aggressive AVs, drivers accepted significantly larger gaps (and had larger critical gaps) when merging in front of AVs as compared to mixed traffic having either recognizable defensive AVs or recognizable mixed AVs (composed of both aggressive and defensive). This was not the case when merging in front of an HDV in the same scenarios. Drivers had significantly smaller critical gaps when driving in traffic having non-recognizable aggressive AVs compared to non-recognizable defensive AVs. The findings suggest that human drivers change their gap acceptance behavior in mixed traffic depending on the combined effect of recognizability and driving style of AVs, including accepting shorter gaps in front of non-recognizable aggressive AVs and changing their original driving behavior. This could have implications for traffic efficiency and safety at such priority intersections. Decision makers must carefully consider such behavioral adaptations before implementing any policy changes related to AVs and the infrastructure.