Advertisement

Acceptance and Effectiveness of Collision Avoidance System in Public Transportation

  • Xiaonan YangEmail author
  • Jung Hyup Kim
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10920)

Abstract

This study investigated the acceptance and effectiveness of a lane departure warning and forward collision warning in public transportation. Five professional drivers from the Older Adult Transportation Service (OATS) participated in this study. During the experiment, the total number of alarms for each day was collected from the testing vehicles, and survey responses were also gathered from the drivers. Questionnaires were designed to determine whether the collision avoidance system performed as expected and any potential crashes avoided due to the use of the devices. Our results indicated that 75% of drivers showed significant differences in driving behavior after they used the collision avoidance system. 60% of drivers reported positive feedback for the lane departure warning and 40% of drivers felt confident in the forward collision warning.

Keywords

Collision avoidance Lane departure warning Forward collision warning Public transportation system 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Missouri Employers Mutual supported this research.

References

  1. 1.
    Mukhtar, A., Xia, L., Tang, T.B.: Vehicle detection techniques for collision avoidance systems: a review. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. 16(5), 2318–2338 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Schwall, M.L., et al.: Testing and analysis of autonomous emergency braking systems using the Euro NCAP vehicle target. In: ASME 2014 International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition. American Society of Mechanical Engineers (2014)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Thompson, J., et al.: The transport for new south Wales FleetCAT (fleet collision avoidance technology) trial: drivers attitudes to the technology. In: Australasian Road Safety Conference, 2016. ACT, Canberra (2016)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Yang, X., Kim, J.H.: The effect of visual stimulus on advanced driver assistance systems in a real driving. In: IIE Annual Conference, Proceedings of Institute of Industrial and Systems Engineers (IISE) (2017)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ellison, A., Greaves, S., Bliemer, M.: Examining heterogeneity of driver behavior with temporal and spatial factors. Transp. Res. Rec.: J. Transpo. Res. Board 2386, 158–167 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mesken, J., et al.: Frequency, determinants, and consequences of different drivers’ emotions: an on-the-road study using self-reports, (observed) behaviour, and physiology. Transp. Res. Part F: Traffic Psychol. Behav. 10(6), 458–475 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Haque, M.M., et al.: Decisions and actions of distracted drivers at the onset of yellow lights. Acc. Anal. Prev. 96, 290–299 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Palat, B., Delhomme, P.: A simulator study of factors influencing drivers’ behavior at traffic lights. Transp. Res. Part F: Traffic Psychol. Behav. 37, 107–118 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Horowitz, A.D., Dingus, T.A.: Warning signal design: a key human factors issue in an in-vehicle front-to-rear-end collision warning system. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting. SAGE Publications Sage CA, Los Angeles (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Maltz, M., Shinar, D.: Imperfect in-vehicle collision avoidance warning systems can aid drivers. Hum. Fact.: J. Hum. Fact. Ergon. Soc. 46(2), 357–366 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Eichelberger, A.H., McCartt, A.T.: Toyota Drivers’ Experiences with Dynamic Radar Cruise Control, the Pre-Collision System, and Lane-Keeping Assist (2014)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P., Warshaw, P.R.: User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Manag. Sci. 35(8), 982–1003 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Son, J., Park, M., Park, B.B.: The effect of age, gender and roadway environment on the acceptance and effectiveness of Advanced Driver assistance systems. Transp. Res. part F: Traffic Psychol. Behav. 31, 12–24 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gaspar, J., et al.: Driver behavior in forward collision and lane departure scenarios. SAE Technical paper (2016)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Systems EngineeringUniversity of MissouriColumbiaUSA

Personalised recommendations