Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
194 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
7 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
46 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
38 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

A new computational perceived risk model for automated vehicles based on potential collision avoidance difficulty (PCAD) (2306.08458v1)

Published 14 Jun 2023 in cs.HC

Abstract: Perceived risk is crucial in designing trustworthy and acceptable vehicle automation systems. However, our understanding of its dynamics is limited, and models for perceived risk dynamics are scarce in the literature. This study formulates a new computational perceived risk model based on potential collision avoidance difficulty (PCAD) for drivers of SAE level 2 driving automation. PCAD uses the 2D safe velocity gap as the potential collision avoidance difficulty, and takes into account collision severity. The safe velocity gap is defined as the 2D gap between the current velocity and the safe velocity region, and represents the amount of braking and steering needed, considering behavioural uncertainty of neighbouring vehicles and imprecise control of the subject vehicle. The PCAD predicts perceived risk both in continuous time and per event. We compare the PCAD model with three state-of-the-art models and analyse the models both theoretically and empirically with two unique datasets: Dataset Merging and Dataset Obstacle Avoidance. The PCAD model generally outperforms the other models in terms of model error, detection rate, and the ability to accurately capture the tendencies of human drivers' perceived risk, albeit at a longer computation time. Additionally, the study shows that the perceived risk is not static and varies with the surrounding traffic conditions. This research advances our understanding of perceived risk in automated driving and paves the way for improved safety and acceptance of driving automation systems.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (35)
  1. Driving speed and the risk of road crashes: A review. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 38(2):215–224.
  2. Traffic dynamics: studies in car following. Operations research, 6(2):165–184.
  3. A Driver steering behavior model based on lane-keeping characteristics analysis. 2014 17th IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems, ITSC 2014, pages 623–628.
  4. How to define the accident risk level of car drivers by combining objective and subjective measures of driving style. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 49:29–38.
  5. Speed, speed limits and crashes. crowthorne, berkshire. Transport Research Laboratory TRL, Project Report PR, 58.
  6. Fuller, R. (1984). A conceptualization of driving behaviour as threat avoidance. Ergonomics, 27(11):1139–1155.
  7. Fuller, R. (1999). The Task-Capability Interface model of the driving process.
  8. Fuller, R. (2011). Driver control theory: From task difficulty homeostasis to risk allostasis. Elsevier.
  9. Patterns in perceived crash risk among male and female drivers with and without substantial cycling experience. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 69:1–12.
  10. Modelling perceived risk and trust in driving automation reacting to merging and braking vehicles. Transportation Research Part F: Psychology and Behaviour, 86(February):178–195.
  11. Trust-Based and Individualizable Adaptive Cruise Control Using Control Barrier Function Approach With Prescribed Performance. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, pages 1–11.
  12. The influence of a colour themed HMI on trust and take-over performance in automated vehicles. pages 1–18. Preprint.
  13. Developing an inverse time-to-collision crash alert timing approach based on drivers’ last-second braking and steering judgments. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 37(2):295–303.
  14. Design and evaluation of user interfaces enhancing trust in partially automated vehicles. Preprint.
  15. Analysis of effects of driver/vehicle characteristics on acceleration noise using GPS-equipped vehicles. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 13(1):21–31.
  16. Human-like driving behaviour emerges from a risk-based driver model. Nature Communications, (September):1–19.
  17. Which parts of the road guide obstacle avoidance? Quantifying the driver’s risk field. Applied Ergonomics, 89(July):103196.
  18. Direct Evidence of the Inverse of TTC Hypothesis for Driver’s Perception in Car-Closing Situations. International Journal of Automotive Engineering, 5(4):121–128.
  19. Identification of visual cues and quantification of drivers’ perception of proximity risk to the lead vehicle in car-following situations. Journal of Mechanical Systems for Transportation and Logistics, 1(2):170–180.
  20. Lee, D. (1976). A theory of visual control of braking based on information about time-to- collision. Perception, 5:437–459.
  21. Risk perception and the warning strategy based on safety potential field theory. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 148(December).
  22. McKenna, F. P. (1982). The human factor in driving accidents an overview of approaches and problems. Ergonomics, 25(10):867–877.
  23. Probabilistic field approach for motorway driving risk assessment. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 118(July):102716.
  24. Road-user behaviour and traffic accidents. Publication of: North-Holland Publishing Company.
  25. Calibration and validation of a new time-based surrogate safety measure using fuzzy inference system. Journal of Traffic and Transportation Engineering (English Edition), 3(1):51–58.
  26. Ni, D. (2013). A Unified Perspective on Traffic Flow Theory Part I : The Field Theory. Applied Mathematical Sciences, 7(39):1929–1946.
  27. Modeling Driver Risk Perception on City Roads Using Deep Learning. IEEE Access, 6:68850–68866.
  28. Does risk perception really exist? Safety Science, 93:230–240.
  29. Drivers’ use of deceleration and acceleration information in car-following process. Transportation Research Record, 1883(1):31–39.
  30. Summala, H. (1988). Risk control is not risk adjustment: The zero-risk theory of driver behaviour and its implications. Ergonomics, 31(4):491–506.
  31. Analyzing human driving data an approach motivated by data science methods. Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, 90:37–45.
  32. Driving safety field theory modeling and its application in pre-collision warning system. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 72:306–324.
  33. Extending Time to Collision for probabilistic reasoning in general traffic scenarios. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 51:66–82.
  34. World Health Organization (2020). Road traffic injuries. Retrieved May 28, 2023, from https://www.who.int/health-topics/road-safety#tab=tab_1.
  35. What drives people to accept automated vehicles? Findings from a field experiment. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 95(February):320–334.

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.