Murat Dikmen
Catherine M. Burns
ABSTRACT
As autonomous driving emerges, it is important to understand drivers' experiences with autonomous cars. We report the results of an online survey with Tesla owners using two autonomous driving features, Autopilot and Summon. We found that current users of these features have significant driving experience, high self-rated computer expertise and care about how automation works. Surprisingly, although automation failures are extremely common they were not perceived as risky. The most commonly occurring failures included the failure to detect lanes and uncomfortable speed changes of the vehicle. Additionally, a majority of the drivers emphasized the importance of being alert while driving with autonomous features and aware of the limitations of the current technology. Our main contribution is to provide a picture of attitudes and experiences towards semi-autonomous driving, revealing that some drivers adopting these features may not perceive autonomous driving as risky, even in an environment with regular automation failures.
- Victoria A. Banks and Neville A. Stanton. 2014. Hands and Feet Free Driving: Ready or Not? Advances in Human Aspects of Transportation: Part II, 8, 55--63.Google Scholar
- Pavlo Bazilinskyy, Miltos Kyriakidis and Joost de Winter. 2015. An International Crowdsourcing Study into People's Statements on Fully Automated Driving. Procedia Manufacturing, 3, 2534--2542.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Oliver Carsten, Frank Lai, Yvonne Barnard, A. Hamish Jamson, and Natasha Merat. 2012. Control Task Substitution in Semiautomated Driving Does It Matter What Aspects Are Automated? Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 54, 747--761.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Dick de Waard, Monique van der Hulst, Marika Hoedemaeker, and Karel A. Brookhuis. 1999. Driver behavior in an emergency situation in the Automated Highway System. Transportation Human Factors, 1, 67--82.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Joost C.F. de Winter, Riender Happee, Marieke H. Martens, and Neville A. Stanton. 2014. Effects of adaptive cruise control and highly automated driving on workload and situation awareness: A review of the empirical evidence. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 27, 196--217.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Daniel Howard and Danielle Dai. 2014. Public perceptions of self-driving cars: The case of Berkeley, California. In Transportation Research Board 93rd Annual Meeting, (No. 14-4502). Retrieved June 8, 2016 from http://www.danielledai.com/academic/howard-dai-selfdrivingcars.pdf.Google Scholar
- Miltos Kyriakidis, Riender Happee, Joost C.F. de Winter. 2015. Public opinion on automated driving: results of an international questionnaire among 5000 respondents. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 32, 127--140.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Annika F. L. Larsson. 2012. Driver usage and understanding of adaptive cruise control. Applied ergonomics, 43, 3: 501--506.Google Scholar
- Robert E. Llaneras, Jeremy Salinger, and Charles A. Green. 2013. Human factors issues associated with limited ability autonomous driving systems: Drivers' allocation of visual attention to the forward roadway. In Proceedings of the 7th International Driving Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training and Vehicle Design, 92--98.Google Scholar
- William Payre, Julien Cestac, and Patricia Delhomme. 2014. Intention to use a fully automated car: Attitudes and a priori acceptability. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 27, 252--263.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Brandon Schoettle and Michael Sivak. 2014. Public opinion about self-driving vehicles in China, India, Japan, the U.S., the U.K., and Australia. Retrieved June 8, 2016 from https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/109433/103139.pdf.Google Scholar
- Neville A. Stanton and Mark S. Young. 1998. Vehicle automation and driving performance. Ergonomics, 41, 7: 1014--1028.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Neville A. Stanton and Mark S. Young. 2005. Driver behaviour with adaptive cruise control. Ergonomics, 48, 10: 1294--1313.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Tesla Motors. 2016. Model S Owner's Manual. Retrieved May 31, 2016 from https://www.teslamotors.com/sites/default/files/model_s_owners_manual_touchscreen_7.1_das_ap_north_america_r20160112_en_us.pdf.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- Autonomous Driving in the Real World: Experiences with Tesla Autopilot and Summon
Recommendations
Autonomous Driving: Investigating the Feasibility of Bimodal Take-Over Requests
Autonomous vehicles will need de-escalation strategies to compensate when reaching system limitations. Car-driver handovers can be considered one possible method to deal with system boundaries. The authors suggest a bimodal auditory and visual handover ...
Numerical Analysis of Tractor Accidents using Driving Simulator for Autonomous Driving Tractor
ICMRE'19: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Mechatronics and Robotics EngineeringAutonomous driving of automobiles is a hot research topic in recent years. The autonomous driving tractor also has been studied in the agricultural field as well as an autonomous driving automobile. On the other hand, tractor accidents frequently occur ...
Autonomous driving: investigating the feasibility of car-driver handover assistance
AutomotiveUI '15: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular ApplicationsSelf-driving vehicles are able to drive on their own as long as the requirements of their autonomous systems are met. If the system reaches the boundary of its capabilities, the system has to de-escalate (e.g. emergency braking) or hand over control to ...
Comments