human factors evaluation of automation karel brookhuis

Experimental & Work Psychology Transport Policy & Logistics 1

Human Factors evaluation of Automation

Karel Brookhuis

University of Groningen Delft University of Technology


Ward & Brookhuis(Driving Assessment, 2001)

Crash Feature

59%26%

12%3%

Driver Error Driver Impairment

Environment Vehicle

Crashes: 85% directly attributable to the driver

Costs: 7-10 Billion €

in the Netherlands


Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (Intelligent Transport Systems)

Could ADAS applications, help then ??

Yes, benefits are to be expected (Van Arem, 2003)10 – 15 % crash reduction saving 1 Billion €

But, there is a potential problemThe human factor, i.e. the driver

behaviour, needs & acceptance


ADAS benefitsADAS benefits

“Better drivers”, leading to: Considerable accident reduction (10-15%) Optimising road capacity Reduction in fuel usage and pollution (..%?)

Decrease in societal (financial, human, environmental) cost


Potential ADAS problem driver Potential ADAS problem driver

Change in task (supervising i.s.o. driving) Shifting the driver out-of-the-loop Distraction Behavioural adaptation / change Attitudes & acceptance Complacency

Individual differences Liability issues


Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (Intelligent Transport Systems)

Systems: operation modes - functionalities: advisory - information provision

Route Guidance, RDS-TMC, ISA

semi-automatic - active support, taking over part of the control

ACC, ICC, ISA

automatic - taking over control completely Path, Phileas


active support: semi-automaticexample: ACC

active support: semi-automaticexample: ACC

Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC)

Field studies and modelling Simulator studies


Benefits ACCBenefits ACC

Decrease human error, probably accidents Increasing efficiency (decreasing headway) Reduction in fuel use of 10% (Van Arem,

2003)


Problems ACCProblems ACC

Liability in case of accident Complacency Behavioural change


Simulator study (Hoedemaeker, 1999) 40 drivers, different “types”:

high & low speed preference high & low focus (ability)


Driving Simulator


ACC: Minimum Time Headway

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

highspeed/

highfocus

lowspeed/

highfocus

highspeed/

lowfocus

lowspeed/

lowfocus

Min

imal

Tim

e H

ead

way

(s) without ACC

with ACC


Results

Reduction in minimum time headway Specifically for low speed drivers

High speed drivers show (behavioural change) More left lane driving More overtaking More weaving


Opinion about ACC system

Before After positive: It increases traffic safety 65% 55%

positive: It enhances traffic flow 30% 50%

negative: No control of driving 40% 55% negative: Sudden braking 60% 55%


Path vehicles automated vehicles (San Diego + N11) simulator experiment in Groningen

Demonstrations in the Netherlands driving over magnetic nails (Path vehicles) Phileas Automatic Public Transport System

So, make driving automatic ? Vehicle taking over control


BenefitsBenefits

No (active) driver involved No human error (Saving costs)


ProblemsProblems

Acceptance Loss of skills

Liability in case of serious accident


Report “AVG onderweg” Bart van Arem


Study: emergency situation on an automated highway


Driving Simulator


Emergency situation on automated highway


Reactions of subjects to emergency situation

Reacties Tijd Proportie bestuurdersGeen reactie - 50 %Remde Laat > 14 s 15 %Remde Niet zo snel 9-14 s 30 %Remde Vroeg < 9 s 5 %


PerceptionDecision and

response selection

Response

execution

workingmemory

long-termmemory

Memory

Short-term storeStimuli Responses

Feedback

Attentionresources

Expectations


Automatic Public Transport ?

Phileas

(automated PT, in Eindhoven)

Handing over control to a vehicle


Phileas by Advanced Public Transport Systems (APTS bv)


Phileas (automated PT) Automated bus metro Twice as fast as normal bus transport Cheaper than metro 120 - 180 passengers Reduction in fuel use by 20% Pollution reduction by 90% !!!

So, make transport automatic ? Vehicle taking over control


Pictures of the Phileas(look at www.phileas.nl)


Relevant aspects of

Automatic Bus Driving

Different task, supervising i.s.o. driving

Need of trust, believe, acceptance

mistrust leads to misuse or non-use

too much trust leads to complacency


Simulator study 25 drivers:

12 drivers from Hermes, 3 trips13 drivers from Arriva, 8 trips

So, make transport automatic ? Vehicle taking over control


Route


Acceptance Questionnaire

factors “useful” and “satisfactory”

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

Pre test Post test

2x

Acc

epta

nce

scor

e

Arriva usef

Hermes usef

Arriva satisf

Hermes satisf


Incident 1: car blocking the road

braking ample in time

returning to half-automatic

Incident 2: cyclist running red light

1st time: 72% okay, but 28 % not !

2nd time: 100% okay !


Conclusions experiment

System well accepted by the ordinary bus drivers

Effects with respect to unexpected events:

Supervising meant in principle patiently awaiting in the beginning, “complacency”

Training on unexpected events seems feasible

Training is necessary, preferably in simulator

Special driving license

Periodic training and licensing (cf. pilots in airplanes)


General problems with technology HMI

rate, timing, mode (behaviour) acceptance (compliance)

Adaptation acceptance (self judgement vs technology) reliance operator complacency

Misuse technology as management tool (owner) acceptance (tampering)


Automation Traffic & Transport:Concern acceptance & behaviour

Who would like a “master” in the car some would elderly for certain some should multi-convicted

Dangerous goods haulage high risk high responsibilty


SummaryAutomation in Traffic

Change in task (supervising i.s.o. driving) Problem: shifting the driver out-of-the-loop

Results so far Driver is inclined to “sit back” Active involvement can be trained Adapt configuration to keep the driver active Licensing should be adapted, specific, and not

ever-lasting


Final conclusions

Efforts are multi-method, multi-disciplinary, multi-institutional and multi-national.

Key is the development of practical methods with valid ‘tolerance levels’.

Problem is (still) finding criteria for (un)safety. Definitely: integration of systems !!!

GIDS (Michon, 1993) AIDA (Van Arem, 2003)

human factors evaluation of automation karel brookhuis

Documents