Human Factors of Driving Automation: Evasive Maneuver Event Response Evaluation

Britten, Nicholas N; Hankey, Jon M · 2023 · ROSA P / Safety through Disruption (Safe-D) University Transportation Center (UTC)

archive: archived pipeline: cataloged verified

Get this paper ↗ (full text — opens at the source; we link to it, we don't host it)

Summary

This study investigates driver responses to evasive maneuvers initiated by conditionally automated driving (CAD) systems, addressing a gap in human factors research regarding how drivers react when automation handles safety-critical events. While previous research focused on takeover performance, this work examines whether drivers interrupt system-initiated braking or steering maneuvers, which could compromise safety if the driver overreacts or interferes with a properly executed avoidance action. The research was motivated by the increasing development of CAD systems, where drivers are not required to monitor the environment but must be prepared to resume control when prompted. To evaluate these responses, the researchers conducted a Wizard-of-Oz study involving 36 participants (18 male, 18 female, aged 30–75) using a modified 2019 Ford Edge on public roads and a controlled test track. The vehicle simulated CAD capabilities, allowing a rear-seat experimenter to control the vehicle while participants believed the system was autonomous. Participants experienced either a braking or swerving maneuver (approximately 0.3 g acceleration) to avoid a cardboard box placed in the lane. Data collection included vehicle telemetry, eye-glance tracking, and video annotation of hand and foot positions to determine if participants reached for controls or intervened. The results indicated that most drivers did not intervene or prepare to intervene during the evasive maneuvers. Only two participants out of 34 analyzed deactivated the system, and both did so safely. There was no significant difference in intervention rates between braking and swerving conditions. While 37% of participants in the braking condition and 27% in the swerving condition reached for the steering wheel, and smaller percentages reached for the brake, the majority maintained their positions. Eye-tracking data revealed that 61% of participants were looking toward the forward driving environment immediately prior to the maneuver, and drivers appropriately shifted their visual attention to the hazard and the lead vehicle during the event. The findings suggest that after a brief period of exposure to CAD, most drivers trust the system sufficiently to refrain from intervening during system-initiated evasive maneuvers. The study concludes that an acceleration force of around 0.3 g is appropriate for such maneuvers, as it does not trigger unsafe driver interventions. The authors recommend future research examine the impact of driver fatigue on these responses and investigate how experiencing CAD-initiated maneuvers affects driver decision-making in subsequent partial automation scenarios.

Key finding

Most drivers trusted the conditionally automated driving system enough to not intervene during system-initiated evasive maneuvers, and the few who did intervene did so safely.

Methodology

simulator

Sample size: 36

Provenance

The full processing record for this entry. Every stage of this paper's journey through the pipeline is logged — what ran, with which tool and model, how many attempts it took, and when it last completed. Discovered via bulk_ingest_rosap on 2026-05-23 (6 acquisition events logged).

Summary generated by qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant on 2026-06-10; verification: verified.

Topics

Ranked by relevance to this paper. Hover a topic for its definition.

• automation surprise
• manual
• automation
• takeover transitions
• situational awareness
• driver post crash behavior

Information type

What kind of knowledge this paper contributes, grouped by family — independent of topic (what it is about) and method (how it was studied).

• Empirical Findings: behavioral performance data
• Methodological Resource: measurement protocol
• Theoretical Contribution: conceptual framework