Forward collision warning based on a driver model to increase drivers’ acceptance

References

• Abe G, Richardson J. Alarm timing, trust and driver expectation for forward collision warning systems. Appl Ergon. 2006;37:577–586.
   Google Scholar
• AUDI AG. Audi AI and driver assistance systems. 2018. Available at: https://www.audi-mediacenter.com/en/the-fourth-generation-of-the-audia8-heading-into-a-new-era-9403/audi-ai-and-driver-assistance-systems-9413. Accessed December 15, 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Aust ML, Engstrom J, Vistrom M. Effects of forward collision warning and repeated event exposure on emergency braking. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav. 2013;18:34–46.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bargman J, Boda CN, Dozza M. Counterfactual simulations applied to SHRP2 crashes: the effect of driver behavior models on safety benefit estimations of intelligent safety systems. Accid Anal Prev. 2017;102:165–180.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Behr M, Poumarat G, Serre T, Arnoux PJ, Thollon L, Brunet C. Posture and muscular behaviour in emergency braking: an experimental approach. Accid Anal Prev. 2010;42:797–801.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boda CN, Dozza M, Bohman K, Thalya P, Larsson A, Lubbe N. Modelling how drivers respond to a bicyclist crossing their path at an intersection: how do test track and driving simulator compare? Accid Anal Prev. 2018;111:238–250.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bruyas MP, Estraillier C, Large D, et al. Report on Methodology for Balancing User Acceptance, Robustness and Performance (PROSPECT Project). Brussels, Belgium: European Commission; 2018. Deliverable D7.2.
   Google Scholar
• Cicchino JB. Effectiveness of forward collision warning and autonomous emergency braking systems in reducing front-to-rear crash rates. Accid Anal Prev. 2017;99:142–152.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Commission. Road Safety in the European Union: Trends, Statistics and Main Challenges. Brussels, Belgium: Author; 2015.
   Google Scholar
• European New Car Assessment Programme. Test Protocol—AEB VRU Systems. Ver. 2.0.2. Brussels, Belgium: Author; 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Fitch GM, Rakha HA, Arafeh M, et al. Safety Benefit Evaluation of a Forward Collision Warning System. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transport; 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Hitz JS, Koziol JS, Lam AH, Inman V. Safety evaluation results from the field operational test of an intelligent cruise control (ICC) system. Paper presented at: SAE World Congress; March 6–9, 2000; Detroit, MI.
   Google Scholar
• International Organization for Standardization. Intelligent Transport Systems—Forward Vehicle Collision Warning Systems—Performance Requirements and Test Procedures. Geneva, Switzerland: Author; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Jaguar Land Rover. Electric car safety: Jaguar I-Pace. 2018. Available at: https://www.jaguar.co.uk/jaguar-range/i-pace/features/safety.html. Accessed December 15, 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Jammes Y, Behr M, Llari M, Bonicel S, Weber JP, Berdah S. Emergency braking is affected by the use of cruise control. Traffic Inj Prev. 2017;18:636–641.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jamson AH, Lai FCH, Carsten OMJ. Potential benefits of an adaptive forward collision warning system. Transp Res Part C Emerg Technol. 2008;16:471–484.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Large DR, Kim H, Merenda C, et al. Investigating the effect of urgency and modality of pedestrian alert warnings on driver acceptance and performance. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav. 2018;60:11–24.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McGehee DV, Brown TL, Leed JD, Wilson TB. Effect of warning timing on collision avoidance behavior in a stationary lead vehicle scenario. Transp Res Rec. 2002;1803(1):1–6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Merat N, Madigan R, Nordhoff S. Human factors, user requirements, and user acceptance of ride-sharing in automated vehicles. Paper presented at: International Transport Forum; December 6–7, 2016; Paris, France.
   Google Scholar
• Moeckli J, Brown T, Dow B, Boyle LN, Schwarz C, Xiong H. Evaluation of Adaptive Cruise Control Interface Requirements on the National Advanced Driving Simulator. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation; 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Op den Camp O, van Montfort S, Uittenbogaard J, Welten J. CATS Final Project Summary Report. Helmond, The Netherlands: Nederlandse Organisatie voor Toegepast Natuurwetenschappelijk Onderzoek; 2016. Deliverable D6.1.
   Google Scholar
• Rodarius C, Kwakkernaat M, Edwards M, de Hair S. Benefit Estimate Based on Previous Studies for Pre-crash Cyclist Systems and Recommendations for Necessary Changes to Pedestrian Test and Assessment Protocol (ASPECSS Project). Brussels, Belgium: European Commission; 2014. Deliverable D1.5.
   Google Scholar
• SAE International. Human Factors in Forward Collision Warning Systems: Operating Characteristics and User Interface Requirements. Michigan: Author; 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Schade J, Schlag B. Acceptability of urban transport pricing strategies. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav. 2003;6:45–61.
   Google Scholar
• Toyota Motor Corporation. Toyota to roll out 2nd generation Toyota Safety Sense active safety packages from 2018 [press release]. 2017. Available at https://newsroom.toyota.co.jp/en/corporate/19842201.html. Accessed November 1, 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Winkler S, Werneke J, Vollrath M. Timing of early warning stages in a multi stage collision warning system: drivers’ evaluation depending on situational influences. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav. 2016;36:57–68.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wisch M, Lerner M, Schneider A, et al. Accident Analysis, Naturalistic Observations and Project Implications—Part A: Accident Data Analyses. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission; 2016. Deliverable D2.1.
   Google Scholar