Pleasure in using adaptive cruise control: A questionnaire study in The Netherlands

References

• Alkim TP, Bootsma G, Hoogendoorn SP. Field operational test “the assisted driver.” Paper presented at: 2007 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium; June 13–15, 2007; Istanbul, Turkey.
   Google Scholar
• AutoWeek. [Sales 2015]. Verkoopcijfers. 2015. Available at: http://www.autoweek.nl/verkoopcijfers/2015/. Accessed July 24, 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Bainbridge L. Ironies of automation. In: Rasmussen J, Duncan K, Leplat J, eds. New Technology and Human Error. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons; 1987:271–292.
   Google Scholar
• Banks VA, Stanton NA, Harvey C. Sub-systems on the road to vehicle automation: hands and feet free but not “mind” free driving. Saf Sci. 2014;62:505–514.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bato JA, Boyle LN. Adaptive cruise control user differences in urban and rural environments. Proc Hum Fact Ergon Soc Annu Meet. 2011;55:1943–1947.
   Google Scholar
• Beggiato M, Krems JF. The evolution of mental model, trust and acceptance of adaptive cruise control in relation to initial information. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav. 2013;18:47–57.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beggiato M, Pereira M, Petzoldt T, Krems J. Learning and development of trust, acceptance and the mental model of ACC. A longitudinal on-road study. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav. 2015;35:75–84.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bengler K, Dietmayer K, Farber B, Maurer M, Stiller C, Winner H. Three decades of driver assistance systems: review and future perspectives. IEEE Intell Transp Syst. 2014;6:6–22.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bianchi Piccinini GF, Rodrigues CM, Leitão M, Simões A. Driver's behavioral adaptation to adaptive cruise control (ACC): the case of speed and time headway. J Safety Res. 2014;49:77–84.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biondi F, Rossi R, Gastaldi M, Mulatti C. Beeping ADAS: reflexive effect on drivers' behavior. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav. 2014;25:27–33.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boer ER, Caro S, Cavallo V. A perceptually grounded driver model for car following in fog. Paper presented at: Driving Simulation Conference Europe; January 31–February 1, 2008; Monte Carlo, Monaco.
   Google Scholar
• Cicchino JB, McCartt AT. Experiences of model year 2011 Dodge and Jeep owners with collision avoidance and related technologies. Traffic Inj Prev. 2015;16:298–303.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conover WJ, Iman RL. Rank transformations as a bridge between parametric and nonparametric statistics. Am Stat. 1981;35:124–129.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Winter JCF, Dodou D. National correlates of self-reported traffic violations across 41 countries. Pers Individ Dif. 2016;98:145–152.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Winter JCF, Dodou D, Stanton NA. A quarter of a century of the DBQ: some supplementary notes on its validity with regard to accidents. Ergonomics. 2015;58:1745–1769.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Winter JCF, Happee R, Martens M, Stanton NA. Effects of adaptive cruise control and highly automated driving on workload and situation awareness: a review of the empirical evidence. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav. 2014;27:196–217.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dickie DA, Boyle LN. Drivers' understanding of adaptive cruise control limitations. Proc Hum Fact Ergon Soc Annu Meet. 2009;53:1806–1810.
   Google Scholar
• Dodou D, De Winter JCF. Social desirability is the same in offline, online, and paper surveys: a meta-analysis. Comput Human Behav. 2014;36:487–495.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eichelberger AH, McCartt AT. Volvo drivers' experiences with advanced crash avoidance and related technologies. Traffic Inj Prev. 2014;15:187–195.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eichelberger AH, McCartt AT. Toyota drivers' experiences with dynamic radar cruise control, pre-collision system, and lane-keeping assist. J Safety Res. 2016;56:67–73.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fancher P, Ervin R, Sayer J, et al. Intelligent Cruise Control Field Operational Test. Washington, DC: NHTSA; 1998. Final report No. DOT HS 808 849.
   Google Scholar
• Jenness JW, Lerner ND, Mazor S, Osberg JS, Tefft BC. Use of Advanced In-vehicle Technology by Young and Older Early Adopters: Survey Results on Adaptive Cruise Control Systems. Washington, DC: NHTSA; 2008. Report No. DOT HS 810 917.
   Google Scholar
• Kessler C, Etemad A, Alessandretti G, et al. European Large-Scale Field Operational Tests on In-vehicle Systems. Final Report. Aachen, Germany: Ford Forschungszentrum Aachen GmbH; 2012. EUROFOT Deliverable D11.3. Available at: http://www.eurofot-ip.eu/download/library/deliverables/eurofotsp120121212v11dld113_final_report.pdf. Accessed July 24, 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Kyriakidis M, Van de Weijer C, Van Arem B, Happee R. The deployment of advanced driver assistance systems in Europe. Paper presented at: 22nd ITS World Congress; October 5–9, 2015; Bordeaux, France. Available at: https://proceedings.itsworldcongress.com/files/papers/565. Accessed July 24, 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Lajunen T, Summala H. Can we trust self-reports of driving? Effects of impression management on driver behaviour questionnaire responses. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav. 2003;6:97–107.
   Google Scholar
• Larsson AF. Driver usage and understanding of adaptive cruise control. Appl Ergon. 2012;43:501–506.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee WS, Sung DH, Lee JY, Kim YS, Cho JH. Driving simulation for evaluation of driver assistance systems and driving management systems. Paper presented at: Driving Simulation Conference; September 12–14, 2007; Iowa City, IA.
   Google Scholar
• Llaneras RE. Exploratory Study of Early Adopters, Safety-Related Driving with Advanced Technologies. Washington, DC: NHTSA; 2006. Report No. DOT HS 809 972.
   Google Scholar
• Ma R. The Effects of In-vehicle Automation and Reliability on Driver Situation Awareness and Trust [Doctoral dissertation]. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University; 2006. Available at: http://repository.lib.ncsu.edu/ir/bitstream/1840.16/4155/1/etd.pdf. Accessed July 24, 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Martinussen LM, Møller M, Prato CG. Assessing the relationship between the Driver Behavior Questionnaire and the Driver Skill Inventory: revealing sub-groups of drivers. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav. 2014;26:82–91.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McDonald AB, McGehee DV, Chrysler ST, Askelson NM, Angell LS, Seppelt BD. National survey identifying gaps in consumer knowledge of advanced vehicle safety systems. Transp Res Rec. 2016;2559:1–6.
   Google Scholar
• Milanés V, Shladover SE, Spring J, Nowakowski C, Kawazoe H, Nakamura M. Cooperative adaptive cruise control in real traffic situations. IEEE Trans Intell Transp Syst. 2014;15:296–305.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NHTSA. Auto Industry Commitment to IIHS and NHTSA on Automatic Emergency Braking. 2016. Available at: http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nvs/pdf/AEB_FactSheet_031616.pdf. Accessed July 24, 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Nowakowski C, O'Connell J, Shladover SE, Cody D. Cooperative adaptive cruise control: driver acceptance of following gap settings less than one second. Proc Hum Fact Ergon Soc Annu Meet. 2010;54:2033–2037.
   Google Scholar
• Öörni R. iMobility Support: D3.1b Report on the Deployment Status of iMobility Priority Systems and Update of iMobility Effects Database. 2016. Available at: http://www.imobilitysupport.eu/library/imobility-support-activities/its-deployment-deliverables/monitoring-priority-systems/deliverables-3/2992-d3-1b-and-d3-2b-deployment-status-of-imobility-priority-systems-effects-database-all-appendices/file. Accessed July 24, 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Özkan T, Lajunen T, Chliaoutakis JE, Parker D, Summala H. Cross-cultural differences in driving behaviours: a comparison of six countries. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav. 2006;9:227–242.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parker D, Reason JT, Manstead ASR, Stradling SG. Driving errors, driving violations and accident involvement. Ergonomics. 1995;38:1036–1048.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pauwelussen J, Feenstra PJ. Driver behavior analysis during ACC activation and deactivation in a real traffic environment. IEEE Trans Intell Transp Syst. 2010;11:329–338.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pauwelussen J, Minderhoud M. The effects of deactivation and (re) activation of ACC on driver behaviour analyzed in real traffic. Paper presented at: 2008 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium; June 4–6, 2008; Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
   Google Scholar
• Peugeot. Peugeot 308 Online Handbook. 2014. Available at: https://carmanuals2.com/d/101621. Accessed July 24, 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee JY, Podsakoff NP. Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol. 2003;88:879–903.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rakha H, Hankey J, Patterson A, Van Aerde M. Field evaluation of safety impacts of adaptive cruise control. J Intell Trans Syst. 2001;6:225–259.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Royal Dutch Touring Club (ANWB). De resultaten van de ANWB auto enquête. Dit vindt Nederland als het om autorijden gaat [ The results of the ANWB car survey. This is what the Dutch people find important when it comes to car driving]. 2011. Available at: http://www.anwb.nl/auto/nieuws/2011/april/enquete-autorijden. Accessed July 24, 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Rudin-Brown CM, Parker HA. Behavioural adaptation to adaptive cruise control (ACC): implications for preventive strategies. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav. 2004;7:59–76.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saffarian M, Happee R, De Winter JCF. Why do drivers maintain short headways in fog? A driving-simulator study evaluating feeling of risk and lateral control during automated and manual car following. Ergonomics. 2012;55:971–985.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanchez D, Garcia E, Saez M, et al. European Large-Scale Field Operational Tests on In-vehicle Systems. Final Results: User Acceptance and User-Related Aspects. Aachen, Germany: Ford Forschungszentrum Aachen GmbH; 2012. EUROFOT Deliverable D6.3. Available at: http://www.eurofot-ip.eu/download/library/deliverables/eurofotsp620121119v11dld63_user_acceptance_and_userrelated_aspects.pdf. Accessed July 24, 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Schakel WJ, Van Arem B, Netten BD. Effects of cooperative adaptive cruise control on traffic flow stability. Paper presented at: 13th International IEEE Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC); September 19–22, 2010; Madeira Island, Portugal.
   Google Scholar
• Seppelt BD, Lee JD. Making adaptive cruise control (ACC) limits visible. Int J Hum Comput Stud. 2007;65:192–205.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stanton NA, Dunoyer A, Leatherland A. Detection of new in-path targets by drivers using stop & go adaptive cruise control. Appl Ergon. 2011;42:592–601.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stanton NA, Young M, McCaulder B. Drive-by-wire: the case of driver workload and reclaiming control with adaptive cruise control. Saf Sci. 1997;27:149–159.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strand N, Nilsson J, Karlsson ICM, Nilsson L. Exploring end-user experiences: self-perceived notions on use of adaptive cruise control systems. Intell Trans Syst. 2011;5:134–140.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Totzke I, Huth V, Krüger HP, Bengler K. Overriding the ACC by keys at the steering wheel: Positive effects on driving and drivers' acceptance in spite of a more complex ergonomic solution. In: De Waard D, Flemisch FO, Lorenz B, Oberheid H, Brookhuis KA, eds. Human Factors for Assistance and Automation. Maastricht, The Netherlands: Shaker Publishing; 2008:153–164.
   Google Scholar
• Van Twuijver M, Pol M. Car owners' experiences with in-car speed controlling systems in The Netherlands. Paper presented at: European Transport Conference; October 4–6, 2004; Strasbourg, France.
   Google Scholar
• Weinberger M, Winner H, Bubb H. Adaptive cruise control field operational test—the learning phase. JSAE Rev. 2001;22:487–494.
   Google Scholar
• Wilde GJS. Risk homeostasis theory: an overview. Inj Prev. 1988;4:89–91.
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. WHO Global Status Report on Road Safety 2015. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2015. Available at: http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/189242/1/9789241565066_eng.pdf?ua=1. Accessed July 24, 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Wu Y, Boyle LN. Drivers' engagement level in adaptive cruise control while distracted or impaired. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav. 2015;33:7–15.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xiong H, Boyle LN, Moeckli J, Dow BR, Brown TL. Use patterns among early adopters of adaptive cruise control. Hum Factors. 2012;54:722–733.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Young MS, Stanton NA. What's skill got to do with it? Vehicle automation and driver mental workload. Ergonomics. 2007;50:1324–1339.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar