Advertisement

Situation Awareness in Future Autonomous Vehicles: Beware of the Unexpected

  • Mica R. Endsley
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 824)

Abstract

Vehicle autonomy is being heavily promoted as a means of improving transportation safety on the roadways. This goal, however, is highly dependent on the ability of human drivers to maintain situation awareness and intervene in circumstances that the automation cannot handle. While autonomy software is improving, it remains far less capable than human drivers. The automation conundrum shows that even as it improves, system autonomy is increasingly likely to reduce the ability of drivers to provide needed oversight. The Human-Automation System Oversight (HASO) model provides guidance on the design of vehicle autonomy to facilitate effective human-autonomy design for semi-autonomous vehicles.

Keywords

Autonomous vehicles Situation awareness Driver safety 

References

  1. 1.
    National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (2013) Preliminary statement of policy concerning automated vehicles. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fagnant DJ, Kockelman K (2015) Preparing a nation for autonomous vehicles: opportunities, barriers and policy recommendations. Transp Res Part Policy Pract 77:167–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (2018) Automated vehicles for safety. https://www.nhtsa.gov/technology-innovation/automated-vehicles-safety
  4. 4.
    Waymo (2018) On the road. http://www.waymo.com
  5. 5.
    National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (2016) 2015 Motor vehicle crashes: overview. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lv C et al (2018) Analysis of autopilot disengagements occurring during autonomous vehicle testing. IEEE/CAA J Automatica Sinica 5(1):58–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tesla (2018) An update on last week’s accident. https://www.tesla.com/blog/update-last-week’s-accident
  8. 8.
    National Transportation Safety Board (2017) Collision between a car operating with automated vehicle control systems and a tractor-semitrailor truck near Williston, Florida, 7 May 2016. National Transportation Safety Board, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Garcia UJ, Randazzo R (2018) Video shows Uber operator moments before self-driving car crash that killed pedestrian. USA Today, 21 March 2018. https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/nation-now/2018/03/21/fatal-uber-crash/447770002/
  10. 10.
    Endsley MR (2017) From here to autonomy: lessons learned from human-automation research. Hum Factors 59(1):5–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Endsley MR (2017) Autonomous driving systems: a preliminary naturalistic study of the Tesla Model S. J Cogn Eng Decis Making 11(3):225–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Onnasch L et al (2014) Human performance consequences of stages and levels of automation: an integrated meta-analysis. Hum Factors 56(3):476–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Petermeijer SM, Abbink DA, de Winter JC (2015) Should drivers by operating with an automation-free bandwidth? Evaluating haptic steering support systems with different levels of authority. Hum Factors 57(1):5–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Endsley MR, Kiris EO (1995) The out-of-the-loop performance problem and level of control in automation. Hum Factors 37(2):381–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kaber DB, Endsley MR (2004) The effects of level of automation and adaptive automation on human performance, situation awareness and workload in a dynamic control task. Theor Issues Ergon Sci 5(2):113–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ma R, Sheik-Nainar MA, Kaber DB (2005) Situation awareness in driving while using adaptive cruise control and a cell phone. In: Human factors and ergonomics society 49th annual meeting. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Santa MonicaGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Merat N et al (2012) Highly automated driving, secondary task performance, and driver state. Hum Factors 54:762–771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wickens CD, Dixon SR (2007) The benefits of imperfect diagnostic automation: a synthesis of the literature. Theor Issues Ergon Sci 8:201–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Carsten O et al (2012) Control task substitution in semiautomated driving: does it matter what aspects are automated? Hum Factors 54(5):747–761CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    de Winter JC et al (2014) Effects of adaptive cruise control and highly automated driving on workload and situation awareness: a review of empirical evidence. Trans Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav 27:196–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ma R, Kaber D (2005) Situation awareness and workload in driving while using adaptive cruise control and a cell phone. Int J Ind Ergon 35:939–953CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lin R, Ma L, Zhang W (2018) An interview study exploring Tesla driver’s behavioural adaptation. Appl Ergon 72:37–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    U. S. Air Force (2015) Autonomous Horizons, Washington, DC: United States Air Force Office of the Chief ScientistGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pearl J, Mackenzie D (2018) The book of why: the new science of cause and effect. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Endsley MR, Selcon SJ (1997) Designing to aid decisions through situation awareness enhancement. In: 2nd Symposium on situation awareness in tactical aircraft. Naval Air Warfare Center, Patuxent RiverGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Endsley MR, Jones DG (2012) Designing for situation awareness: an approach to human-centered design, 2nd edn. Taylor & Francis, LondonGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Selkowitz AR, Lakhmani SG, Chen JYC (2017) Using agent transparency to support situation awareness of the autonomous squad member. Cogn Syst Res 46:13–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.SA TechnologiesMesaUSA

Personalised recommendations