Factors that Influence Drivers’ Responses to Slower-Moving or Stopped Lead Vehicles

Introduction Summary

Rear-end crashes are a major safety concern, accounting for over one in five fatal crashes in the United States. The most dangerous rear-end scenario involves a following vehicle traveling at high speed (40 to 70 mph) closing on a slower-moving or stopped lead vehicle (LV) at a high closing rate (greater than 30 mph).

This research was conducted in two parts:

1. Part 1: A review and comparison of various kinematic models used to predict a driver’s response to a slowing lead vehicle, focusing on the concepts of looming (angular expansion rate) and Time to Contact (TTC).
2. Part 2: An analysis of 1,114 rear-end crash and near-crash events from the Second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP-2) Naturalistic Database to identify the real-world factors that influence driver response times and behavior.

The study aims to improve the understanding of human responses for the calibration of advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) and autonomous vehicle algorithms.

Methodology Summary

Part 1: Literature Review and Kinematic Model Comparison

The researchers compared the predictive power of kinematic models, specifically:

• Time to Contact (TTC): The time required to reach the lead vehicle if the speed difference remains constant.
• Inverse Time to Contact (ITTC): The rate of change of TTC.
• Looming: The rate at which the image of the lead vehicle expands on the driver’s retina (angular expansion rate, θ˙/θ).

The review confirmed that looming and TTC are the two primary models used to predict a driver’s braking response, with looming often found to be superior for predicting human perception.

Part 2: Naturalistic Driving Data Analysis

The analysis focused on 1,114 rear-end events extracted from the SHRP-2 database. The dependent variable was the driver’s Perception-Response Time (PRT), measured from the time the hazard began to the time the driver initiated an emergency maneuver (braking hard or steering).
The PRT was compared against four main categories of independent factors:

1. Kinematic Factors: Speed, TTC, and the rate of TTC change (TTC˙).
2. Environmental Factors: Lighting, weather, and road surface conditions.
3. Traffic Factors: Traffic density (Level of Service) and lane position (in a line of cars vs. in an empty line).
4. Individual Differences: Driver age, gender, and secondary task engagement (e.g., cell phone use).

Results Summary

The study found that a combination of kinematic and traffic-related factors significantly influenced the driver’s decision to respond, while demographic factors had a limited impact.

Significant Influences

• Kinematic Factors: The most significant predictors of the driver’s response were TTC and the rate of TTC change (TTC˙). The mean driver response (hard braking) was found to occur at a TTC of approximately 3.2 seconds.
• Traffic Density (Level of Service – LOS): Drivers responded faster (shorter PRT) in heavily congested traffic (LOS F) compared to free-flowing traffic (LOS A).
• Lane Position: Drivers responded faster when they were in a line of two or more vehicles than when they were alone in an empty lane. This suggests that the presence of other vehicles increases driver alertness.
• Lighting and Surface: Drivers responded faster during daylight hours and on dry roads.

Non-Significant Influences

• Driver Demographics: Driver age and gender were not significant factors in determining PRT.
• Secondary Tasks: The use of handheld cell phones and visual-manual tasks (e.g., tuning a radio) did not result in a statistically significant increase in PRT for this type of event.

The research validates that the driver’s perception of risk, driven primarily by time-based kinematic variables (TTC and its rate of change), dictates their response. Traffic and environmental context further refine this risk assessment.

References Cited

• Muttart, J. W., Kuzel, M., Dinakar, S., Gernhard Macha, S, et al. (2021). Factors that Influence Drivers’ Responses to Slower-Moving or Stopped Lead Vehicles. SAE Technical Paper 2021-01-0890.
• Boer, H. R. (2015). A threshold model for the timing of pedal applications using a driving simulator. Human Factors, 57(7), 1276-1288.
  D’Addario, P., & Donmez, B. (2019). The effect of cognitive distraction on perception-response time to unexpected abrupt and gradual onset roadway hazards. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 127, 177-185.
• Dingus, T. A., D. H. Antin, V. L. Neale, J. R. Lee, J. C. Bucher, M. C. G. et al. (2006). The 100-car naturalistic driving study: Phase II – Results of the 100-car field experiment.
• Lee, J. D., D. V. McGehee, T. A. Dingus, & T. Wilson (1998). Collision avoidance behavior of unalerted drivers’ using a front-to-rear-end collision warning display on the Iowa Driving Simulator. Transportation Research Record.
• Lerner, N. D., H. W. Smith, K. E. Janou, & R. J. Smalley (1995). Driver braking response times: A review of the literature.
• Muttart, J. W. (2003). Development and evaluation of driver response time predictors based upon meta-analysis. SAE transactions, 876-896.
• Muttart, J. W. (2015). Influence of Age, Secondary Tasks and Other Factors on Drivers’ Swerving Responses before Crash or Near-Crash Events. SAE Technical Paper 2015-01-1417.
• Neale, V. L., D’Addario, P. M., Dingus, T. A., & Hankey, J. M. (2005). The 100 car naturalistic driving study: Data acquisition and processing. SAE Technical Paper 2005-01-0400.
• Victor, T., Dozza, M., Bärgman, J., Boda, C.-N., Engström, J., Flannagan, C., Lee, J. D., Markkula, G. (2015). Analysis of Naturalistic Driving Study Data: Safer Glances and Increased Following Distance in Vehicles with Forward Collision Warning. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 81, 102-111.