Adaptive Cruise Control: A Behavioral Assessment of Following Traffic Participants Due to Energy Efficient Driving Strategies

  • Dirk Hülsebusch
  • Maike Salfeld
  • Yinchao Xia
  • Frank Gauterin
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering book series (LNEE, volume 200)


Improvement of vehicle safety and driving comfort have been the main objectives of driver assistance systems. Because of the general need to reduce the fuel consumption, the scope of driver assistance systems has been enlarged. Today, Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC) systems are developed which realize a more energy efficient driving style. However, energy optimal driving may lead to a trade-off between energy efficiency, vehicle safety and driving comfort. For example long coasting phases might irritate following drivers and provoke them to approach below the safety distance or overtake the ego-vehicle. This raises the question, how far energy optimized ACC affects following traffic and how the trade-off can be optimized to reach a higher acceptance. Within this work, a system to assess the driving behavior of following vehicles is developed and validated. The system is used to study the behavior of following traffic participants due to energy efficient ACC driving strategies. The results show that the median of the time gap between the following vehicle and ego-vehicle is significant lowered when driving with energy efficient ACC in comparison to driving manually. Whereas, the time to collision shows no significant difference between ACC and manually driven. At last, different concepts are presented which try to find an optimum between efficiency, safety and driving comfort.


Adaptive cruise control ACC Rear object selection Driving behavior Rear vehicle 


  1. 1.
    van der Voort M, Dougherty MS, van Maarseveen M (2001) A prototype fuel-efficiency support tool. Transp Res Part C Emerg Technol 9(4):279–296Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dornieden B, Junge L, Themann P, Zlocki A (2011) Energy efficient longitudinal vehicle control based on analysis of driving situations. In: 20th aachen colloquium automobile and engine technology 2011, pp 1491–1511Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Roth M, Frey M, Gauterin F, Lederer M, Radke T, Steinbrecher C (2011) Porsche innodrive—an innovative approach for the future of driving. In: 20th Aachen colloquium automobile and engine technology 2011, pp 1453–1467Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Henn M, Lösche-ter Horst T, Schulze F, Bartsch P, Gadanecz A, Dornieden B, Junge L (2012) Energy efficient vehicle operation by intelligent longitudinal control and route planning. In: 12th Stuttgart international symposium automotive and engine technology pp 225–240Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Reichart G, Friedmann S, Dorrer C, Rieker H, Drechsel E, Wermuth G (1998) Potentials of BMW driver assistance to improve fuel economy. FISITA World Automotive Congress, ParisGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    LRR3: 3rd generation long-range radar sensor (2009) Data sheet. Robert Bosch GmbHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Uhler W, Scherl M, Lichtenberg B (1990) Driving course prediction using distance sensor data. SAE technical paper 1999-01-1234Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Moo S, Kang H-J, Yi K (2010) Multi-vehicle target selection for adaptive cruise control. Vehicle Sys Dyn Int J Vehicle Mech Mobil 48(11):1325–1343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Xia Y (2012) Development and validation of a rear object selection for novel driver assistance systems. Diploma Thesis, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Institute of Vehicle Systems TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Becker G, Kiefner D (2011) Design and validation of CO2 reducing ACC control algorithm by the means of simulation and road test. EFA2014 internal final report, Robert Bosch GmbHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Adaptive Cruise Control: More comfortable driving, product information (2010) Robert Bosch GmbHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schubert M (2011) Green ACC fuel consumption measurements (2011) Internal report, Robert Bosch GmbHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Duller C (2008) Einführung in die nichtparametrische Statistik mit SAS und R. Physica Verlag HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schlittgen R (2005) Das Statistiklabor Einführung und Benutzerhandbuch. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Vogel K (2003) A comparison of headway and time to collision as safety indicators. Accid Anal Prevent 35(3):427–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Robinson T, Chan E, Coelingh E (2010) Operating platoons on public motorways: an introduction to the SARTRE platooning programme, 17th World congress on intelligent transport systems, Busan, Korea, Oct 25–29Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    CAR 2 CAR Communication Consortium Manifesto (2007)

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dirk Hülsebusch
    • 1
  • Maike Salfeld
    • 1
  • Yinchao Xia
    • 2
  • Frank Gauterin
    • 2
  1. 1.Robert Bosch GmbHMunichGermany
  2. 2.Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Institute of Vehicle System TechnologyKarlsruheGermany

Personalised recommendations