Robert E Llaneras

Design and Evaluation of a Prototype Rear Obstacle Detection and Driver Warning System

This study, concerned with the development of driver interface criteria for a rear obstacle detection system, assessed the appropriateness of alternative warning timing algorithms and evaluated various interface approaches for presenting warning information to drivers. Interface testing used a minivan and a passenger sedan equipped with a prototype rear obstacle detection system. Two different warning timing algorithms and four different interface conditions were examined. The appropriateness of the warning timing algorithms was tested using an alerted backing procedure wherein drivers backed to known obstacles and braked in response to the warning. A surprise event scenario was also included in order to examine driver reaction to the warning under unexpected conditions. Alerted backing results suggest that although both timing algorithms led to few target strikes, one algorithm led to more acceptable ratings, fewer target strikes and close calls, and less urgent braking. None of the interface warning conditions reliably induced avoidance braking under the surprise event condition. Actual or potential applications of this work include the appropriate design of effective backing warning systems.

Driver Hazard Detection and Avoidance Performance as a Function of Eyes-Off-Road Interval Under Partially Automated Driving

There has been concern that automation may impair a person’s ability to detect and appropriately respond to environmental hazards. This study sought to examine a driver’s ability to not only detect hazards, but also to implement appropriate responses following extended Eyes-Off-Road (EOR) intervals. Thirty-six drivers were exposed to a series of filmed roadway vignettes with discernible hazards embedded within a range of traffic situations. Driver’s visual gaze was directed “off-road” for 2, 7 or 20 seconds, and then re-oriented to the roadway. Drivers were tasked to respond appropriately as quickly as possible once their gaze returned to the forward road scene by steering and/or braking in response to the hazards. Results found no significant differences among the EOR intervals in terms of the driver’s ability to detect and appropriately respond to the hazard when it emerged after the driver’s eyes were directed forward.