How Will the Driver Sit in an Automated Vehicle? – The Qualitative and Quantitative Descriptions of Non-Driving Postures (NDPs) When Non-Driving-Related-Tasks (NDRTs) Are Conducted

  • Yucheng YangEmail author
  • Jan Niklas Klinkner
  • Klaus Bengler
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 823)


Highly-automated driving (HAD) is currently one of the most discussed innovative topics and likely to become a series product within the next few decades [1]. From the level-3 automation (SAE) on, the driver does not have to constantly monitor the vehicle while driving [2], this enables the driver to carry out different activities and be out of the control loop. By conducting the non-driving related tasks (NDRT) like eating, texting, talking, relaxing and so on [3], the driver may take other sitting positions – defined as ‘non-driving postures (NDPs)’ – rather than the driving position. In this work, an online survey (n = 122) and an experiment (n = 16) were conducted, which found out that there are 13 activities which would be conducted by significantly (α = 0.05) more drivers in HAD, compared with the manual driving. Four basic NDPs are mapped (many-to-many) to the NDRTs. In the experiment, 10 NDPs of each participant are measured, where the descriptive statistics of torso, thigh and knee angles offer a quantitative description of NDPs. Based on the results, 30 new requirements for the interior of automated vehicles are derived.


Non-driving related task Non-driving posture Interior requirement Automated vehicle 


  1. 1.
    Gold C (2016) Modeling of take-over situations in highly automated vehicle guidanceGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    SAE J3016 (2016) SAE J3016 Taxonomy and definitions for terms related to driving automation systems for on-road motor vehicles RATIONALEGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pfleging B, Rang M, Broy N (2016) Investigating user needs for non-driving-related activities during automated driving. In: 15th international conference on mob ubiquitous multimedia (MUM 2016), pp 91–99Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Huemer AK, Vollrath M (2012) Ablenkung durch fahrfremde Tätigkeiten – MachbarkeitsstudieGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Winner H, Wachenfeld W (2015) Auswirkungen des autonomen Fahrens auf das Fahrzeugkonzept. Autonomes Fahren. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 265–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bubb H, Grünen RE, Remlinger W (2015) Anthropometrische Fahrzeuggestaltung. In: Automobilergonomie. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden, pp 345–470Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (2003) Statement of principles, criteria and verification procedures on driver interactions with advanced in-vehicle information and communication systems, p 23Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    SAE International (2009) SAE J1100: motor vehicle dimensionsGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Campbell I (2007) Chi-squared and Fisher-Irwin tests of two-by-two tables with small sample recommendations. Stat Med 26:3661–3675MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lorenz S (2011) Assistenzsystem zur Optimierung des Sitzkomforts im Fahrzeug. (Dissertation). Lehrstuhl für Ergonomie, TUMGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    McCarney R, Warner J, Iliffe S et al (2007) The Hawthorne effect: a randomised, controlled trial. BMC Med Res Methodol 7:30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Marberger C, Mielenz H, Naujoks F et al (2017) Understanding and applying the concept of “Driver Availability” in automated driving. Springer, Cham, pp 595–605Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yang Y, Götze M, Laqua A, et al (2017) A method to improve driver’s situation awareness in automated driving. In: Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society Europe chapter 2017 annual conference, pp 29–47Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yucheng Yang
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jan Niklas Klinkner
    • 1
  • Klaus Bengler
    • 1
  1. 1.Chair of ErgonomicsTechnical University of MunichGarchingGermany

Personalised recommendations