Ruth Madigan

Application of Human Factors Analysis and Classification System (HFACS) to UK rail safety of the line incidents

Minor safety incidents on the railway cause disruption, and may be indicators of more serious safety risks. The following paper aimed to gain an understanding of the relationship between active and latent factors, and particular causal paths for these types of incidents by using the Human Factors Analysis and Classification System (HFACS) to examine rail industry incident reports investigating such events. 78 reports across 5 types of incident were reviewed by two authors and cross-referenced for interrater reliability using the index of concordance. The results indicate that the reports were strongly focused on active failures, particularly those associated with work-related distraction and environmental factors. Few latent factors were presented in the reports. Different causal pathways emerged for memory failures for events such a failure to call at stations, and attentional failures which were more often associated with signals passed at danger. The study highlights a need for the rail industry to look more closely at latent factors at the supervisory and organisational levels when investigating minor safety of the line incidents. The results also strongly suggest the importance of a new factor - operational environment - that captures unexpected and non-routine operating conditions which have a risk of distracting the driver. Finally, the study provides further demonstration of the utility of HFACS to the rail industry, and of the usefulness of the index of concordance measure of interrater reliability.

Were they in the loop during automated driving? Links between visual attention and crash potential

Background A proposed advantage of vehicle automation is that it relieves drivers from the moment-to-moment demands of driving, to engage in other, non-driving related, tasks. However, it is important to gain an understanding of drivers’ capacity to resume manual control, should such a need arise. As automation removes vehicle control-based measures as a performance indicator, other metrics must be explored. Methods This driving simulator study, conducted under the European Commission (EC) funded AdaptIVe project, assessed drivers’ gaze fixations during partially-automated (SAE Level 2) driving, on approach to critical and non-critical events. Using a between-participant design, 75 drivers experienced automation with one of five out-of-the-loop (OOTL) manipulations, which used different levels of screen visibility and secondary tasks to induce varying levels of engagement with the driving task: 1) no manipulation, 2) manipulation by light fog, 3) manipulation by heavy fog, 4) manipulation by heavy fog plus a visual task, 5) no manipulation plus an n-back task. Results The OOTL manipulations influenced drivers’ first point of gaze fixation after they were asked to attend to an evolving event. Differences resolved within one second and visual attention allocation adapted with repeated events, yet crash outcome was not different between OOTL manipulation groups. Drivers who crashed in the first critical event showed an erratic pattern of eye fixations towards the road centre on approach to the event, while those who did not demonstrated a more stable pattern. Conclusions Automated driving systems should be able to direct drivers’ attention to hazards no less than 6 seconds in advance of an adverse outcome.

Models of Human Decision-Making as Tools for Estimating and Optimizing Impacts of Vehicle Automation

With the development of increasingly automated vehicles (AVs) comes the increasingly difficult challenge of comprehensively validating these for acceptable, and ideally beneficial, impacts on the transport system. There is a growing consensus that virtual testing, where simulated AVs are deployed in simulated traffic, will be key for cost-effective testing and optimization. The least mature model components in such simulations are those generating the behavior of human agents in or around the AVs. In this paper, human models and virtual testing applications are presented for two example scenarios: (i) a human pedestrian deciding whether to cross a street in front of an approaching automated vehicle, with or without external human–machine interface elements, and (ii) an AV handing over control to a human driver in a critical rear-end situation. These scenarios have received much recent research attention, yet simulation-ready human behavior models are lacking. They are discussed here in the context of existing models of perceptual decision-making, situational awareness, and traffic interactions. It is argued that the human behavior in question might be usefully conceptualized as a number of interrelated decision processes, not all of which are necessarily directly associated with externally observable behavior. The results show that models based on this type of framework can reproduce qualitative patterns of behavior reported in the literature for the two addressed scenarios, and it is demonstrated how computer simulations based on the models, once these have been properly validated, could allow prediction and optimization of AV impacts on traffic flow and traffic safety.

The effect of varying levels of vehicle automation on drivers’ lane changing behaviour

Much of the Human Factors research into vehicle automation has focused on driver responses to critical scenarios where a crash might occur. However, there is less knowledge about the effects of vehicle automation on drivers’ behaviour during non-critical take-over situations, such as driver-initiated lane-changing or overtaking. The current driving simulator study, conducted as part of the EC-funded AdaptIVe project, addresses this issue. It uses a within-subjects design to compare drivers’ lane-changing behaviour in conventional manual driving, partially automated driving (PAD) and conditionally automated driving (CAD). In PAD, drivers were required to re-take control from an automated driving system in order to overtake a slow moving vehicle, while in CAD, the driver used the indicator lever to initiate a system-performed overtaking manoeuvre. Results showed that while drivers’ acceptance of both the PAD and CAD systems was high, they generally preferred CAD. A comparison of overtaking positions showed that drivers initiated overtaking manoeuvres slightly later in PAD than in manual driving or CAD. In addition, when compared to conventional driving, drivers had higher deviations in lane positioning and speed, along with higher lateral accelerations during lane changes following PAD. These results indicate that even in situations which are not time-critical, drivers’ vehicle control after automation is degraded compared to conventional driving.

Designing the interaction of automated vehicles with other traffic participants: design considerations based on human needs and expectations

Automated vehicles (AV) are expected to be integrated into mixed traffic environments in the near future. As human road users have established elaborated interaction strategies to coordinate their actions among each other, one challenge that human factors experts and vehicle designers are facing today is how to design AVs in a way that they can safely and intuitively interact with other traffic participants. This paper presents design considerations that are intended to support AV designers in reducing the complexity of the design space. The design considerations are based on a literature review of common human–human interaction strategies. Four categories of information are derived for the design considerations: (1) information about vehicle driving mode; (2) information about AVs’ manoeuvres; (3) information about AVs’ perceptions of the environment; and (4) information about AVs’ cooperation capabilities. In this paper, we apply the four categories to analyse existing research studies of traffic participants’ needs during interactions with AVs and results of the CityMobil2 project. From the CityMobil2 project we present central results from face-to-face interviews, an onsite-survey and two focus groups. To further support the AV designers we describe and rate different design options to present the information of the four categories, including the design of the infrastructure, the vehicle shape, the vehicle manoeuvres and the external human–machine interface of the AV.