Exploring relationships between observed activation rates and functional attributes of lane departure prevention

References

• Adell E, Nilsson L, Varhelyi A. How is acceptance measured? Overview of measurement issues, methods and tools. In: Dorn L, Matthews G, Glendon I, eds. Driver Acceptance of New Technology: Theory, Measurement and Optimisation. Surrey, England: Ashgate; 2014:73–88.
   Google Scholar
• Cicchino JB. Effects of lane departure warning on police-reported crash rates. J Safety Res. 2018;66:61–70.
   PubMed 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
• Flannagan C, LeBlanc D, Bogard S, et al. Large-Scale Field Test of Forward Collision Alert and Lane Departure Warning Systems. Washington, DC: NHTSA, U.S. Department of Transportation; 2016. DOT HS 812 247.
   Google Scholar
• Ghazizadeh M, Lee JD, Boyle LN. Extending the technology acceptance model to assess automation. Cogn Technol Work. 2012;14:39–49.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hasenjäger M, Wersing H. Personalization in advanced driver assistance systems and autonomous vehicles: a review. Paper presented at: IEEE 20th International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems; 2017; Yokohama, Japan. doi: 10.1109/ITSC.2017.8317803
   Google Scholar
• Kidd DG, Reagan IJ. Attributes of crash prevention systems that encourage drivers to leave them turned on. In: Stanton N, ed. Proceedings of Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics 2018. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International; 2018a:523–533.
   Google Scholar
• Kidd DG, Reagan IJ. System Attributes That Influence Reported Improvement in Drivers’ Experiences with Adaptive Cruise Control and Active Lane Keeping after Daily Use in Five Production Vehicles. Arlington, VA: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety; 2018b.
   Google Scholar
• McDonald A, Carney C, McGehee DV. Vehicle Owners’ Experiences with and Reactions to Advanced Driver Assistance Systems. Washington, DC: AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety; 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Navarro J, Yousfi E, Deniel J, Jallais C, Bueno M, Fort A. The impact of false warnings on partial and full lane departure warnings effectiveness and acceptance in car driving. Ergonomics. 2016;59:1553–1564.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NHTSA. Lane Departure Warning System Confirmation Test and Lane Keeping Support Performance Documentation. Washington, DC: Author, U.S. Department of Transportation; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Reagan IJ, Cicchino JB, Kerfoot LB, Weast RA. Crash avoidance and driver assistance technologies—are they used? Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav. 2018;52:176–190.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reagan IJ, McCartt AT. Observed activation status of lane departure warning and forward collision warning of Honda vehicles at dealership service centers. Traffic Inj Prev. 2016;17:827–832.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stanley LM. Haptic and Auditory Interfaces as a Collision Avoidance Technique During Roadway Departures and Driver Perception of These Modalities [PhD dissertation proposal]. Bozeman, MT: Montana State University; 2006.
   Google Scholar
• Sternlund S, Strandroth J, Rizzi M, Lie A, Tingvall C. The effectiveness of lane departure warning systems—a reduction in real-world passenger car injury crashes. Traffic Inj Prev. 2017;18:225–229.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sullivan JM, Flannagan MJ, Pradhan AK, Bao S. Literature Review of Behavioral Adaptations to Advanced Driver Assistance Systems. Washington, DC: AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Venkatesh V, Davis FD. A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal studies. Manag Sci. 2000;46(2):186–204.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Virginia Department of Transportation. Road Design Manual, Appendix A. 2015. Available at: https://nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/VirginiaDOT_Road-Design-Manual.pdf Accessed October 15, 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Wiacek C, Fikentscher J, Forkenbrock G, Mynatt M, Smith P. Real world analysis of fatal run-out-of-lane crashed using the national motor vehicle crash causation survey to assess lane keeping technologies. In: Proceedings of the 25th International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation; 2017. Available at: https://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/esv/25th/.
   Google Scholar
• Wilson EB. Probable inference, the law of succession, and statistical inference. J Am Stat Assoc. 1927;22:209–212.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar