Driver performance in the presence of adaptive cruise control related failures: Implications for safety analysis and fault tolerance

Nilsson, Josef; Strand, Niklas; Falcone, Paolo; Vinter, Jonny · 2013 · OpenAlex-citations

DOI: 10.1109/dsnw.2013.6615531

archive: archived pipeline: cataloged verified

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

Summary

This study investigates driver responses and safety outcomes when Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC) systems experience technical failures, specifically focusing on acceleration and deceleration malfunctions. The research addresses the critical need to understand "controllability"—the likelihood of a driver successfully handling automation failures—as ACC systems become more prevalent. While previous studies examined functional limitations, this work isolates unexpected technical faults to determine how drivers react and whether keeping a failing system operational is safer than disabling it. The researchers conducted an experimental study using a moving-base driving simulator equipped with a Volvo S80 cabin interface. Forty-eight participants, selected for their driving experience but lacking regular ACC usage, were exposed to four specific failure modes: unwanted acceleration (FM1), complete lack of deceleration (FM2), partial lack of deceleration (FM3), and speed limit violation (FM4). Each failure scenario was preceded by a baseline drive to establish normal system behavior. The simulator enforced specific constraints, such as disabling the accelerator pedal to ensure repeatability, while allowing drivers to brake or steer manually. Fault injection mechanisms manipulated the ACC’s control signals in MATLAB/Simulink to simulate these errors during following scenarios on a simulated rural highway. The results revealed distinct driver behaviors and collision rates across failure types. For unwanted acceleration, 88% of drivers successfully avoided collisions, with the majority choosing to steer and change lanes rather than brake. In contrast, deceleration failures yielded different outcomes: only 14% of drivers collided during the complete lack of deceleration scenario, whereas 43% collided during the partial lack of deceleration scenario. However, the partial failure resulted in significantly lower impact speeds (mean 36 km/h) compared to the complete failure (mean 82 km/h). Drivers generally preferred steering maneuvers over braking when facing acceleration or deceleration faults. The study also identified a trade-off: while keeping a failing ACC operational can cause confusion regarding system mode, it may reduce impact severity by maintaining some control authority. The findings imply that driver reliance on automation affects response strategies, with steering being a preferred corrective action over braking. The higher collision rate in partial deceleration failures suggests that degraded performance is more hazardous than total failure, likely because it creates ambiguity about the system's state. These results inform safety analysis and fault tolerance design, indicating that system designers must account for driver confusion and the varying severity of different failure modes. The study highlights that while drivers can often avoid collisions, the method of avoidance and the resulting safety margins depend heavily on the specific nature of the ACC malfunction.

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.

Summary generated by qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant on 2026-06-25; verification: verified.

Topics

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

• automation surprise
• pedal misapplication

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