PROCEEDINGS of the HUMAN FACTORS and ERGONOMICS SOCIETY 56th ANNUAL MEETING - 2012

2296

Automated Driving: Human-factors issues and design solutions

M. Saffarian*, J. C. F. de Winter**, R. Happee**
* Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
** Department of Biomechanical Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Delft, the Netherlands
The goal of this paper is to outline human-factors issues associated with automated driving, with a focus on
car following. First, we review the challenges of having automated driving systems from a human-factors
perspective. Next, we identify human-machine interaction needs for automated vehicles and propose some
available solutions. Finally, we propose design requirements for Cooperative Adaptive Cruise Control.

Copyright 2012 by Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Inc. All rights reserved. DOI 10.1177/1071181312561483

I. INTRODUCTION
Automation has entered many aspects of our daily life,
including the way we transport ourselves. Adaptive Cruise
Control (ACC), lane-keeping assistance, and blind spot
assistance are being introduced into vehicles at a rapid pace.
Such systems provide information and advice (e.g., warnings,
suggested actions) or control the vehicle in specific
longitudinal or lateral tasks. Although fully automated cars
have been under investigation for about half a century (e.g.,
Levine & Athans, 1966; Burnham & Bekey, 1976; Ioannou &
Chien, 1993; Hall & Chaib-Draa, 2005; Naus et al., 2009),
they are not yet available for public use. The challenges of
vehicular automation are more than technical. Neale & Dingus
(1998) stated that the hardest problems associated with an
Automated Highway System (AHS) are soft; that is, they
are human factors issues of safety, usability, and acceptance,
as well as institutional issues. These are problems that are
many times more difficult to overcome and must be overcome,
largely, in parallel with the traditionally hard technological
issues (p. 111).
II. CHALLENGES OF INTERACTION BETWEEN HUMAN AND
AUTOMATION
One might be inclined to think that automation
eventually reduces the humans task to the selection of the
travel destination. However, the reality is that even with
highly automated systems, the contribution of the human
operator is crucial (Bainbridge, 1983). Using automation shifts
the humans driving tasks from manual control to supervisory
control of the conducted maneuvers (Geyer et al., 2011).
Being out of the loop may lead to overreliance, behavioral
adaptation, erratic mental workload, skill degradation, reduced
situation awareness, and an inadequate mental model of
automation capabilities (cf. Endsley & Kiris, 1995;
Parasuraman et al., 2000). In the following, we briefly revisit
these issues in the driving context.

vigilance could make these problems worse. For example,

Kazi et al. (2007) found that drivers are not good in
developing appropriate trust levels with respect to the
reliability level of ACC.
Behavioral Adaptation
Rajaonah et al. (2008) showed that drivers who often use ACC
had a lower perceived risk and lower workload than infrequent
users of the system. An experiment by Rudin-Brown & Parker
(2004) showed that drivers using ACC may be more tempted
to engage in activities other than driving. Drivers using ACC
tend to adopt higher speeds and shorter headways than drivers
without ACC (Hoedemaeker & Brookhuis, 1998), a
phenomenon which can be explained by the risk homeostasis
theory (RHT) (Ward, 2000; Wilde, 1988). The RHT states that
humans adapt their behavior when their perceived risk
changes, to restore their target level of preferred risk.
Erratic Mental Workload
Automated systems have the potential to relieve the
human of tasks that are complex, dangerous, or temporally
demanding. Consequently, automation reduces mental
workload in routine situations (e.g., Ma & Kaber, 2005;
Stanton & Young, 2005). However, automation can also
increase mental workload in unexpected situations (Vahidi &
Eskandarian, 2003). Lee (2006) summarized several examples
from the aviation and shipping industry where poorly designed
automation results in an improper increase of workload.
Skill Degradation
Loss of manual control skills due to automation is a
serious concern in the highly automated aviation industries
(Damos et al., 1999). Automation not only results in loss of
psychomotor dexterity but also degradation of the cognitive
skills required to accomplish the task successfully (e.g.,
Parasuraman et al., 2000).

Overreliance
Overreliance (or complacency) is defined as the situation
where the human does not question the performance of
automation and insufficiently counterchecks the automation
status. Distraction and poor judgment are two major causes of
accidents (Peters & Peters, 2002). Overreliance and loss of

Reduced Situation Awareness

High levels of automation can prevent humans from
receiving feedback within a proper time window, can diminish
understanding of the process under control, and result in
degraded event detection and response (Norman, 1990; Sarter

Downloaded from pro.sagepub.com at Northeastern University on January 22, 2015

PROCEEDINGS of the HUMAN FACTORS and ERGONOMICS SOCIETY 56th ANNUAL MEETING - 2012

2297

& Woods, 1997; Young & Stanton, 2002; Wickens, 2008). An

experimental study by Spiessl and Hussmann (2011) showed
that compared to manual control of the steering wheel,
operators of an automated steering system adopted longer
reaction times. A related issue is carrying out inappropriate
actions for the mode that the automation is in, a phenomenon
known as mode error (Degani et al. 1999). Research has
shown that lack of mode awareness can significantly increase
the response time of the driver (Horiguchi et al., 2010). In a
driving-simulator experiment, Stanton et al. (1997) showed
that a third of the participants were unsuccessful in reclaiming
control of the vehicle without collision.

salient warnings are annoying (Lee et al., 2007). Feedback

provided too early or inappropriately (i.e., false alarms) can
result in distraction, ignoring the alarm, or shutting down the
alarm system entirely (Meyer & Bitan, 2002; Parasuraman &
Riley, 1997). Abe & Richardson (2005) showed that drivers
trust early collision alarms more than late alarms.
Displays and automation settings may need to be
configurable based on operator preference. Setting
customization, however, can be a double-edged sword because
of potential confusion by other users.

Inadequate Mental Model of Automation Functioning

The driver and vehicle automation interaction

mechanism deals with achieving the functions and purposes
addressed above. In the following, we present some available
solution frameworks.

Automation does not control the vehicle the same way as

a human does. Because of sensory limitations and regulatory
requirements, automation systems have a restricted working
envelope (Zhang & McDonald, 2005). For example, although
ACC systems can maintain steady headway and constant
speed, radars used in ACC have a limited operating range.
Drivers could fail to reclaim control of the vehicle due to not
clearly understanding the ACCs functional limitations (e.g.,
Stanton & Young, 2000).
III. MAIN INTERACTION FUNCTIONS OF HUMAN AND
AUTOMATED CAR
Because of vehicular automation, humans are more
engaged in supervision and intervention and less involved in
manual control and continuous compensation of the vehicle
(Sheridan, 1999). With ACC, humans are currently required to
handle new tasks including initialization (e.g., headway
setting), monitoring automation status, and takeover control
(e.g., when approaching a sharp curve). Humans need to
interact with the automation system for two main functions
(adapted from Ran et al., 1997): (a) authority transitions, (b)
human-vehicle instruction and feedback. In the following, we
explain these functions.
Authority Transition
Authority transition is defined as the timing and
procedure of transferring responsibility from the human to
automation system, and vice versa. Some situations requiring
a transition are automation failure, road blockage, severe
weather conditions, sudden maneuvers by another vehicle, and
operator preference. A proper automation system should avoid
automation surprises, and facilitate proper trust on automation
(Adell et al., 2011). The human should be aware of the
automation systems limits well in time and be able to take
over the vehicle control when needed (Pauwelussen &
Feenstra, 2011).
Human-to-Vehicle
Feedback

Instruction

and

Vehicle-to-Human

Not only the presence of the feedback is important, but

feedback should also be provided in a timely and useful
manner. Humans may miss nonsalient warnings, whereas too

IV. POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS FOR INTERACTION OF HUMAN

AND AUTOMATION

Shared Control
Several researchers have argued that interactions
between human and automation should not merely consist of
activations and deactivations. They have proposed developing
appropriate frameworks to keep drivers involved in the control
loop (Stanton & Young, 2000), allow drivers to understand the
systems capability (Seppelt & Lee, 2007), and support the
acquisition of situation awareness with a minimum of
cognitive effort.
Shared control is a framework whereby human and
automation cooperate to achieve the required control action
together. This approach should realize automation benefits
(e.g., fast response, accurate control) while avoiding problems
such as the out-of-the-loop unfamiliarity and mode errors
(Flemisch et al., 2012). Abbink et al. (2012) developed a
haptic gas pedal and steering which has been tested as a
medium for shared control for car following and curve
negotiation. The gas pedal stiffness adapts according to the
headway to the following car. The human can still overrule
and change the distance by using more or less force on the
pedals. De Winter and Dodou (2011) provided a critical
reflection of the literature on the effects of shared control on
road safety. They argued that force feedback should not be
provided continuously, but only when deviations from
acceptable tolerance limits arise.
Adaptive Automation
Variation in driving conditions (e.g., infrastructure,
traffic rules, traffic density, and weather) and drivers
population (e.g., age, gender, and experience) justify
designing automation systems that can adapt to these
differences. Adaptive interfaces can reduce the drivers mental
workload by filtering the presentation of information
according to situational requirements. Piechulla et al. (2003)
implemented such a filter as a projective real-time workload
estimator based on an assessment of the current traffic
situation. In a driving-simulator study, Lee et al. (2007)
quantified driver sensitivity to different ranges of brake
duration and magnitude. They suggested that their findings

Downloaded from pro.sagepub.com at Northeastern University on January 22, 2015

PROCEEDINGS of the HUMAN FACTORS and ERGONOMICS SOCIETY 56th ANNUAL MEETING - 2012

could be used to create ACC algorithms and develop brake

pulse warnings. Adaptive automation can also be used to
monitor and alert drivers to their impairments, such as
drowsiness and inattentiveness (Victor, 2000).
Use of an Information Portal
Providing the relevant information at the suitable
moment can assist drivers to improve their situation awareness
(Seppelt & Lee, 2007; Stanton & Young, 2000). An
information portal can be used to communicate required
actions, provide augmented feedback (e.g., improved rearview vision or enhanced night vision), provide
recommendations for better performance (e.g., eco-driving
feedback), or to highlight risky driving conditions (e.g., blind
spot assistance). In automated systems, information portals
can be used to avoid automation surprises and increase the
acceptance rate of the system. Information portals can be
implemented as visual displays, or by complementing thvisual
task-intrinsic information with non-visual (audio) cues (e.g.,
Van Den Broek et al., 2010; Risto & Martens, 2011).
New Training Methods
Because the role of the human changes from manual to
supervisory control, changes in driving licensing and driver
training may be needed. Future drivers may have to
demonstrate competency in computer skills and mode-conflict
resolution, while psychomotor skills will be less relevant.
Educating drivers on the capabilities and limits of automation
has been proposed as a preventive strategy to minimize
adverse behavioral adaptation (Stanton & Young 2005; RudinBrown & Parker, 2004).
Automation can be used to develop new types of
training. In theory, a consistent, accurate, and tireless
automated trainer is capable of capturing every event in the
vehicle, including erratic and unsatisfactory human behavior.
Sensor systems can reveal transient errors or driver
drowsiness, which might remain unnoticed by human trainers.
Using automated trainers can result in a quantitative
evaluation of the operator, making it possible to provide
feedback of human error in real-time (e.g., Panou et al., 2010).
V. REQUIREMENTS AND POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS OF HUMAN
INTERACTION WITH CACC
We propose using the Cooperative Adaptive Cruise
Control (CACC) system as a main platform to integrate
human-automation control. The CACC system enables a
platoon of two or more vehicles driving with automated
longitudinal control at a set distance parameter (e.g., time
headway) through shared kinematic information (Naus et al.,
2009). Cooperative cars can be used in driving in reduced
visibility, such as in fog, at night or on unlit motorways, and
for driving long periods. In these conditions, cooperative
vehicles have the potential to outperform humans in terms of
safety, traffic flow, and eco-driving. In the CACC framework,
one can distinguish three main maneuvers: platooning, joining,
and splitting. Joining and splitting are transition maneuvers,
whereas platooning involves stationary motion.

2298

In the following, we discuss design requirements,

expected human-factors issues, and design solutions for
interaction between drivers and CACC. These findings are
based on the human-factors issues discussed in Section II, the
CACC goals and functions briefly introduced above, and a
consideration of the main interaction functions in Section III.

Figure 1. Illustration of CACC-equipped platooning vehicles.

CACC Design Requirements
We assume that all vehicles are equipped with equivalent
CACC systems. Thus, the issue of interaction with
heterogeneous technologies is not considered.
System Initialization. The system should make drivers
aware whether the CACC is enabled or disabled. Initialization
should result in a clear driver understanding of what the
headway and speed setting implies in terms of stopping
distance and hazard. The system should enable drivers to
distinguish the difference between driving in platoons and
individual driving. The system should enable drivers to easily
retrieve and change the headway and speed settings, and the
initialization setting should not pose too much extra workload
on drivers (i.e., no erratic mental workload).
Platooning. The tailgating behavior of CACC cars
should gain acceptance of drivers. Drivers should not
experience automation surprises, such as very rapid
acceleration and deceleration, sudden closure of inter-vehicle
gap, unexpected change of the topology of the platoon, and
poor string stability. The system should clarify and
communicate the constraints that driving in platoons pose in
terms of feasible maneuvers (i.e., have a correct mental
model). For example, the system should make it clear for
drivers that they are not able to override the headway
instantly. Drivers should have an option to come out of the
platoon in a safe and smooth manner (i.e., proper trust) and
should not experience very low workload levels.
Joining and Splitting can be initiated either by platoon
control hierarchy (Hall & Chaib-Draa, 2005) or by the
human. Drivers should be able to take over vehicle control
when coming out of the platoon. Drivers should not be
surprised by the automations behavior, either initiated by the
controller or driver. Joining and splitting should be performed
with as few as possible steps to avoid confusion (i.e., avoid
mental overload). The system should make drivers aware of
the start, end, and the process of the joining and splitting
transitions.
CACC Design Solutions
Initialization. The process of selecting a headway and
speed during driving is distracting and disconnects the driver

Downloaded from pro.sagepub.com at Northeastern University on January 22, 2015

PROCEEDINGS of the HUMAN FACTORS and ERGONOMICS SOCIETY 56th ANNUAL MEETING - 2012

from the driving task. In addition, there is a risk that the driver
does not fully understand what the setting implies. The use of
additional icons can be distracting, while the learning and
remembering involved can impose an extra workload on
drivers. An alternative option is to use a system consisting of
an adaptive setting based on the drivers history of manual car
following. The system can choose the average minimum
headway distance and maximum speed that the driver held for
more than a set period (e.g., one minute) within the most
recent hour of driving. Such a mechanism will prevent the
driver from having to face an unexpected following distance
and bring forward an expected following distance. The CACC
should be turned on by the driver who should be informed of
the system status by visual/audio cues to maintain correct
awareness.
Joining. When the system is on, the car should start
cruising at the set speed, resort to car following when
approaching a slower vehicle, and brake to a complete
standstill if needed. In other words, a platoon can be joined
from the rear without driver intervention. However, drivers
have to be informed about large speed differences, and may be
advised to change lanes to better follow their desired speed.
Here, adaptive automation may be used, monitoring the driver
state, and providing person-specific advice to the driver.
Drivers should be aware of situations where joining is not
feasible due to the maneuvers of other members of the platoon
or any other constraints, such as maximum length of the
platoon because of the road layout. Thus, transitions in the
platoon that pose constraints on any other platooning members
should be communicated to the constrained members.
Platooning. The state of the system should be clearly
communicated to the driver as Platoon Mode through a
communication portal or icon. This mode can be announced
audibly and repeated at certain intervals to keep the human
aware. Again, using adaptive automation, frequency, and
intensity should be raised when humans are potentially less
attentive (e.g., when they do not provide any input for a
prolonged time).
When platooning, humans should not experience
unannounced or abrupt changes. Topology changes in the
platoon and the splitting off and joining of other members
should be announced to avoid surprises and lowering of trust
in the automation. Humans should be aware of the limits of
maneuvers. For example, a human cannot close the headway
beyond a certain threshold and should not steer instantly. To
avoid sudden steering, haptic feedback can be used on the
steering wheel.
Splitting. Drivers should be able to safely end their
platooning. One potential solution is that the human increases
the headway to an allowable limit. When this limit is reached
the CACC system disables and the driver is informed of the
shutdown via an information portal.
VI. CONCLUSION
This paper reviewed several human-factors challenges of
automated driving. We applied the issues, needs and solutions
for vehicle automation to the concept of CACC and proposed
an interaction mechanism between humans and CACC. The
proposed system has few modes, keeps drivers engaged in the

2299

control loop, and facilitates cooperation between drivers and

their vehicles as well as among other vehicles.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This research was supported by the Dutch Ministry of
Economic affairs through the program High Tech Automotive
Systems (HTAS), grant HTASD08002 to the project Connect
& Drive. Mehdi Saffarians research is also supported by the
Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada
(NSERC) graduate scholarship program.
REFERENCES
Abbink, D. A., Mulder, M., & Boer, E. R. (2012). Haptic shared
control: smoothly shifting control authority? Cognition,
Technology & Work, 14, 1928.
Abe, G., & Richardson, J. (2005). The influence of alarm timing
on braking response and driver trust in low speed driving, Safety
Science, 43, 639654.
Adell, E., Vrhelyi, A., & Dalla Fontana, M. (2011). The effects
of a driver assistance system for safe speed and safe distance
A real-life field study. Transportation Research Part C:
Emerging Technologies, 19, 145155.
Bainbridge, L. (1983). Ironies of automation. Automatica, 19,
775779.
Burnham, G. O., & Bekey, G. A. (1976). A heuristic finite-state
model of the human driver in a car-following situation. IEEE
Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 6, 554562.
Damos, D. L., John, R. S., & Lyall, E. A. (1999). Changes in pilot
activities with increasing automation. 10th International
Symposium on Aviation Psychology, Columbus, OH, 810814.
Degani, A., Shafto, M., & Kirlik, A. (1999). Modes in humanmachine systems: Constructs, representation, and classification.
The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 9, 125138.
De Winter, J. C. F., & Dodou, D. (2011). Preparing drivers for
dangerous situations: A critical reflection on continuous shared
control. IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and
Cybernetics, Anchorage, AL, 10501056.
Endsley, M. R., & Kiris, E. O. (1995). The out-of-the-loop
performance problem and level of control in automation. Human
Factors, 37, 381394.
Flemisch, F., Heesen, M., Hesse, T., Kelsch, J., Schieben, A.
& Beller, J. (2012). Towards a dynamic balance between
humans and automation: Authority, ability, responsibility and
control in shared and cooperative situations. Cognition,
Technology & Work, 14, 318.
Geyer, S., Hakuli, S., Winner, H., Franz, B., & Kauer, M. (2011).
Development of a cooperative system behavior for a highly
automated vehicle guidance concept based on the conduct-bywire principle. IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium, 411416.
Hall, S., & Chaib-Draa, B. (2005). A collaborative driving
system based on multiagent modelling and simulations.
Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 13,
320345.
Hoedemaeker, M., & Brookhuis, K. (1998). Behavioural
adaptation to driving with an adaptive cruise control (ACC).
Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and
Behaviour, 1, 95106.
Horiguchi, Y., Suzuki, T., Nakanishi, H., & Sawaragi, T. (2010).
Analysis of time delay in users awareness of ACC system mode
transitions. SICE Annual Conference, 911915.
Ioannou, P. A., & Chien, C. C. (1993). Autonomous intelligent

Downloaded from pro.sagepub.com at Northeastern University on January 22, 2015

PROCEEDINGS of the HUMAN FACTORS and ERGONOMICS SOCIETY 56th ANNUAL MEETING - 2012

cruise control. IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, 42,

657672.
Kazi, T. A., Stanton, N. A., Walker, G. H., & Young, M. S.
(2007). Designer driving: Drivers' conceptual models and level
of trust in adaptive cruise control. International Journal of
Vehicle Design, 45, 339360.
Lee, J. D. (2006). Human factors and ergonomics in automation
design. In G. Salvendy (Ed.) Handbook of Human Factors and
Ergonomics, 3rd Ed., John Wiley & Sons, 15701596.
Lee, J. D., McGehee, D. V., Brown, T. L., & Nakamoto, J.
(2007). Driver sensitivity to brake pulse duration and magnitude.
Ergonomics, 50, 828836.
Levine, W. S., & Athans, M. (1966). On the optimal error
regulation for a string of moving vehicles. IEEE Transactions on
Automatic Control, 11, 355361.
Ma, R., & Kaber, D. B. (2005). Situation awareness and workload
in driving while using adaptive cruise control and a cell phone.
International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 35, 939953.
Meyer, J., & Bitan, Y. (2002). Why better operators receive
worse warnings. Human Factors, 44, 343353.
Naus, G., Vugts, R., Ploeg, J., Molengraft, R. V., & Steinbuch,
M. (2009). Towards on-the-road implementation of cooperative
adaptive cruise control. 16th ITS World Congress and Exhibition
on Intelligent Transport Systems and Services.
Neale, V. L., & Dingus, T. A. (1998). Commentaries in: Human
Factor Issues for Automated Highway Systems (AHS).
Intelligent Transportation Systems Journal: Technology,
Planning, and Operations, 4, 111119.
Norman, D. A. (1990). The problem with automation:
Inappropriate feedback and interaction, not over-automation.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B,
327, 585593.
Panou, M. C., Bekiaris, E. D. & Touliou, A. A. (2010).
ADAS module in driving simulation for training young drivers,
13th International IEEE Conference on Intelligent
Transportation Systems, Madeira Island, Portugal, 15821587.
Parasuraman, R., & Riley, V. (1997). Humans and automation:
Use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Human Factors, 39, 230253.
Parasuraman, R., Sheridan, T. B., & Wickens, C. D. (2000). A
model for types and levels of human interaction with
automation. IEEE Transactions of System Man and Cybernetics,
30, 286297.
Pauwelussen, J., & Feenstra, P. J. (2011). Driver behavior
analysis during ACC activation and deactivation in a real traffic
environment. IEEE Transaction on Intelligent Transportation
Systems, 11, 329338.
Peters, A., & Peters, J. (2002). Automotive Vehicle Safety.
Taylor & Francis, London.
Piechulla, W., Mayser, C., Gehrke, H., & Konig, W. (2003).
Reducing drivers mental workload by means of an adaptive
man-machine interface. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic
Psychology and Behaviour, 6, 233248.
Rajaonah, B., Tricot, N., Anceaux, F., & Millot, P. (2008). The
role of intervening variables in driverACC cooperation.
International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 66, 185
197.
Ran, B., Leight, S., Johnson, S., & Huang, W. (1997). Human
factor studies in evaluation of automated highway system
attributes. Transportation Research Record, 3034.
Risto, M., & Martens, M. H. (2011). Assessing drivers ability to
carry out headway advice in motorway car driving. 55th Human
Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, Las Vegas,

2300

NV, 19331938.
Rudin-Brown, C., & Parker, H. (2004). Behavioural adaptation to
adaptive cruise control (ACC): implications for preventive
strategies. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology
and Behaviour, 7, 5976.
Sarter, N. B., & Woods, D. D. (1997). Team play with a powerful
and independent agent: Operational experiences and automation
surprises on the Airbus A-320. Human Factors, 39, 553569.
Seppelt, B., & Lee, J. (2007). Making adaptive cruise control
(ACC) limits visible. International Journal of Human Computer
Studies, 65, 192205.
Sheridan, T. B. (1999). Human supervisory control of aircraft, rail
and highway vehicles. Transactions of the Institute of
Measurement and Control, 21, 191201.
Spiessl, W., & Hussmann, H. (2011). Assessing error recognition
in automated driving. IET Intelligent Transportation Systems, 5,
103111.
Stanton, N., Young, M., & McCaulder, B. (1997). Drive-by-wire:
The case of driver workload and reclaiming control with
adaptive cruise control. Safety Science, 27, 149159.
Stanton, N. A., & Young, M. S. (2000). A proposed
psychological model of driving automation. Theoretical Issues
in Ergonomics Science, 1, 315331.
Stanton, N., & Young, M. (2005). Driver behavior with adaptive
cruise control. Ergonomics, 48, 12941313.
Van den Broek, T. H. A., Netten, B. D., Hoedemaeker, M., &
Ploeg, J. (2010). The experimental setup of a large field
operational test for cooperative driving vehicles at the A270.
13th International IEEE Annual Conference on Intelligent
Transportation Systems, Madeira Island, Portugal, 198203.
Vahidi, A., & Eskandarian, A. (2003). Research advances in
intelligent collision avoidance and adaptive cruise control. IEEE
Transaction on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 4, 143152.
Victor, T. (2000). On the need for driver attention support
systems. Journal of Traffic Medicine, 28.
Ward, N. J. (2000). Automation of task processes: An example of
Intelligent Transportation Systems. Human Factors and
Ergonomics in Manufacturing, 10, 395408.
Wickens, C. D. (2008). Multiple Resources and Mental
Workload. Human Factors, 50, 449455.
Wilde, G. J. S. (1988). Risk Homeostasis Theory and traffic
accidents: Propositions, deductions and discussions of
dissension in recent reactions. Ergonomics, 31, 441468.
Young, M. S., & Stanton, N. (2002). Attention and automation:
new perspectives on mental under load and performance.
Theoretical Issues Ergonomic Science, 3, 178194.
Zhang, P., & McDonald, M. (2005). Manual vs. adaptive cruise
control Can drivers expectation be matched? Transportation
Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 13, 421431.

Downloaded from pro.sagepub.com at Northeastern University on January 22, 2015