Driver Response Time in Cut-Off Scenarios from the Second Strategic Highway Research Program Naturalistic Database

Introduction Summary

This research investigates the cut-in or cut-off scenario, a high-risk event where a vehicle (POV) intrudes into the lane of another vehicle (SV) traveling in the same direction. These lane changes frequently lead to sideswipe or rear-end crashes.

The study aims to use real-world data to address two critical questions:

1. What are the constraints defining the field of safe travel, or “dreadzone,” that drivers maintain?
2. What are drivers’ response times once this safe field is breached by the intruding vehicle?

The research analyzed 552 cut-in events (4 crashes and 548 near-crashes) using data from the Second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP-2) Naturalistic Database. Understanding the kinematic and temporal trigger that instigates the SV driver’s response is crucial for developing robust crash avoidance systems.

Methodology Summary

The study utilized continuous video and onboard data recorder information from the SHRP-2 Naturalistic Driving Study, which captured data from thousands of drivers.

Data Filtering and Sample

The event list was carefully filtered to include only “sideswipe, same direction” scenarios where the SV’s path was interrupted by a POV. The final sample used 552 events involving 448 distinct drivers. Events where the SV was traveling below 20 km/h or started from a stop were excluded.

Response Time Measurement (PRT)

Driver Perception-Response Times (PRT) were the primary dependent measure. The PRT measurement stopped when the SV driver initiated an evasive action: either braking hard (to a threshold of 0.4 G or 4 m/s2) or initiating the first significant steering movement.

• PRTV​ (Visibility): Time from when the POV first became visible in the forward camera view.
• PRTLAT​ (Lateral Movement): Time from when the POV first began moving laterally toward the SV.
• PRTNL​ (Near Lane): Time from when the POV front reached the nearest lane line of the SV.

Variables Analyzed

The measured PRTs were compared against factors like driver age and gender, secondary task engagement, POV behavior (e.g., use of turn indicators, time taken to reach the lane edge), and environmental factors (e.g., lighting, location, weather).

Results Summary

The study’s results showed that driver response times were significantly influenced by the kinematics of the intruding vehicle, rather than common demographic or distraction factors.

Significant Influences

• Time to Lane Edge: This was a strong influence; drivers responded more slowly when the POV took a longer time to move laterally to the SV’s lane edge and faster when that time was short. This suggests the actual trigger is a kinematic threshold related to lateral distance and speed, confirming the breach of the driver’s safe following field.
• Location: Drivers responded faster when the cut-off event occurred near intersections.
• Initial POV Movement: Drivers responded faster to merging vehicles that started from a stop.
• Lighting: Response times measured from the Near Lane (PRTNL​) were significantly slower in daylight conditions than in nighttime conditions.
• Response Choice: Drivers who only braked responded approximately 0.2 s faster than drivers who chose to brake and steer.

Non-Significant Influences

• Turn Indicator: The use of a directional signal by the POV did not significantly affect the SV driver’s response time.
• Secondary Tasks: Engaging in secondary tasks did not significantly influence response times for this specific crash type.
• Weather and Demographics: Driver age, gender, weather, and roadway surface conditions did not have a significant effect on response times.

The findings establish baseline metrics for key driver response times, which are crucial for the development and calibration of advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) and autonomous vehicle algorithms.

References Cited

• 1. Fatality Analysis Reporting System. https://www.nhtsa.gov/research-data/fatality-analysis-reporting-system-fars Accessed July 24, 2020.
• 2. Huang, Z., D. Zhao, H. Lam, D. J. LeBlanc, and H. Peng. Evaluation of Automated Vehicles in the Frontal Cut-In Scenario—An Enhanced Approach Using Piecewise Mixture Models. Proc., IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), Singapore, IEEE, 2017, pp. 197–202.
• 3. Remmen, F., I. Cara, E. de Gelder, and D. Willemsen. Cut-In Scenario Prediction for Automated Vehicles. Proc., IEEE International Conference on Vehicular Electronics and Safety (ICVES), Madrid, Spain, 2018. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328767951_Cutin_Scenario_Predic tion_for_Automated_Vehicles
• 4. Wang, X., M. Yang, and D. Hurwitz. Analysis of Cut-In Behavior Based on Naturalistic Driving Data. Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol. 124, 2019, pp. 127–137.
• 5. Antin, J. F., B. Wotring, M. A. Perez, and D. Glaser. Investigating Lane Change Behaviors and Difficulties for Senior Drivers Using the SHRP 2 Naturalistic Database. 2017. https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/bitstream/handle/10919/79716/SeniorLaneChange_Final.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=yAccessed March 5, 2020.
• 6. Di Stefano, M., and W. Macdonald. Assessment of Older Drivers: Relationships among On-Road Errors, Medical Conditions and Test Outcome. Journal of Safety Research, Vol. 34, No. 4, 2003, pp. 415–429.
• 7. Gibson, J. J., and L. E. Crooks. A Theoretical Field-Analysis of Automobile-Driving. The American Journal of Psychology, Vol. 51, No. 3, 1938, pp. 453–471
• 8. Dinakar, S., and J. W. Muttart. Driver Behavior in Left Turn across Path from Opposite Direction Crash and Near Crash Events from SHRP2 Naturalistic Driving. SAE Technical Paper 2019-01- 0414. 2019. https://doi.org/10.4271/2019-01-0414
• 9. Ba¨rgman, J., K. Smith, and J. Werneke. Quantifying Drivers’ Comfort-Zone and Dread-Zone Boundaries in Left Turn across Path/Opposite Direction (LTAP/OD) Scenarios. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, Vol. 35, 2015, pp. 170–184.
• 10. Dinakar, S., J. W. Muttart, J. Suway, J. Marr, D. Edewaard, and A. Enes. Driver Response Times to Side Road Path Intrusions from SHRP-2 Naturalistic Database. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, Vol. 64, No. 1, 2020, pp. 1525–1529.
• 11. Smiley, A., T. Smahel, D. C. Donderi, J. K. Caird, S. L. Chisholm, J. K. Caird, J. Lockhart, and E. Teteris. The Effects of Cellphone and CD Use on Novice and Experienced Driver Performance. Insurance Bureau of Canada, Toronto, Ontario, 2007.
• 12. Chen, W. H., C. P. Fung, C. C. Chang, W. J. Chou, and P. H. Ting. Study of Driver Behavior as Motorcycles Mixed in Traffic Flow. Proc., 19th International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles (ESV), Washington, D.C., 2005. http://www.nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/esv/esv19/05-0296-O.pdf
• 13. Muttart, J. W. Estimating Driver Response Times, In Handbook of Human Factors in Litigation (I. Noy, and E. D. Karkowski, eds.), CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 2004. http://www.crcnetbase.com/doi/abs/10.1201/9780203490297.ch14Accessed March 10, 2020.
• 14. Muttart, J. W. Development and Evaluation of Driver Perception-Response Equations Based Upon Meta-Analysis. Technical Paper No. 2003-01-0885. Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA, 2003.
• 15. Koo, C-C., and R. Machemehl. Modeling Driver Behavior During Merge Maneuvers. Report SWUTC/98/472840- 00064-1. Southwest Region University Transportation Center, U.S. DOT, Austin, TX, 1997.
• 16. Nodine, E., A. Lam, M. Yanagisawa, and W. Najm. Naturalistic Study of Truck Following Behavior. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2017. 2615: 35–42.
• 17. Transportation Research Board of the National Academy of Sciences. The 2nd Strategic Highway Research Program Naturalistic Driving Study Dataset. 2013. https://insight.shrp2nds.usAccessed March 23, 2018.
• 18. Prynne, K., and P. Martin. Braking Behaviour in Emergencies. SAE Technical Paper 950969. 1995. https://doi.org/10.4271/950969
• 19. Ising, K. W., J. A. Droll, S. G. Kroeker, P. M. D’Addario, and J. F. Goulet. Driver-Related Delay in Emergency Braking Response to a Laterally Incurring Hazard. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, Vol. 56, No. 1, 2012, pp. 705–709.
• 20. Wu, Y., L. N. Boyle, D. McGehee, C. A. Roe, K. Ebe, and J. Foley. Modeling Types of Pedal Applications Using a Driving Simulator. Human Factors, Vol. 57, No. 7, 2015, pp. 1276–1288.
• 21. Shannon, C. E. A Mathematical Theory of Communication. Bell System Technical Journal, Vol. 27, No. 379–423, 1948, pp. 623–656.
• 22. Muttart, J. W.Influence of Age, Secondary Tasks and Other Factors on Drivers’ Swerving Responses before Crash or Near-Crash Events. Paper 2015-01-1417. SAE International Congress & Exposition, Detroit, MI, 2015.
• 23. Anderson, J. R. Cognitive Psychology and Its Implications, 6th ed. Worth Publishers, New York, 2004.
• 24. McGehee, D., E. Mazzae, and S. G. Baldwin. Examination of Drivers’ Collision Avoidance Behavior Using Conventional and Antilock Brake Systems on the Iowa Driving Simulator. NHTSA Light Vehicle Antilock Brake Research Program, Task 5. National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA, 1999.
• 25. D’Addario, P. M., and B. Donmez. The Effect of Cognitive Distraction on Perception-Response Time to Unexpected Abrupt and Gradual Onset Roadway Hazards. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 127, 2019, pp. 177–185.
• 26. Jurecki, R., and T. L. Stanczyk. The Test Methods and the Reaction Time of Drivers, Eksploatacja I Niezawodnosc, Vol. 3, 2011, pp. 16–23.
• 27. Xu, J., Y. Lin, and R. Sipahi. Impact of Distracted Drivers on Individual and Group Behavior of Following Vehicles: A Network Multi-Driver Simulator Study. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 2017.