Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Forward collision warning based on a driver model to increase drivers' acceptance.

Pablo Puente Guillen1, Irene Gohl2

  • 1a Safety Research and Technical Affairs, Toyota Motor Europe , Zaventem , Belgium.

Traffic Injury Prevention
|August 6, 2019
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Modelling discomfort: How do drivers feel when cyclists cross their path?

Accident; analysis and prevention·2020
Same author

Assessing the safety criticality of driver behavior toward cyclists at intersections.

Traffic injury prevention·2020
Same author

Feedback-related potentials in a gambling task with randomised reward.

Data in brief·2016
Same journal

Bicyclist overtaking in naturalistic riding data: Speed, clearance, and implications for injury risk.

Traffic injury prevention·2026
Same journal

Study of adaptation parameters of merging zones for freeway interchange ramps considering CAV & AV mixed traffic environments.

Traffic injury prevention·2026
Same journal

Behavioral determinants of motorcyclist personal protective equipment (PPE) use in five European cities.

Traffic injury prevention·2026
Same journal

Impact of grade designs of long mountainous freeway tunnel with crest vertical curve on traffic safety at tunnel portals.

Traffic injury prevention·2026
Same journal

Associations between blood ethanol concentration, clinical impairment test results, and traffic accident involvement among apprehended drivers.

Traffic injury prevention·2026
Same journal

Crash severity determinants in Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province: Evidence from logistic regression and neural networks.

Traffic injury prevention·2026
See all related articles

Driver models can optimize forward collision warnings (FCWs) for vulnerable road users (VRUs). Warnings aligned with the driver's comfort boundary (CB) model improve acceptance and reaction times, enhancing road safety.

Area of Science:

  • Human-computer interaction
  • Automotive safety systems
  • Driver behavior modeling

Background:

  • Forward collision warnings (FCWs) for vulnerable road users (VRUs) offer safety benefits but require precise timing for driver acceptance.
  • Inappropriate warning timing (too early or too late) can lead to driver annoyance or delayed reactions, compromising system effectiveness.
  • Current methods lack a standardized approach for determining optimal FCW timing based on driver behavior.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To validate a driver model for selecting optimal warning times for forward collision warnings (FCWs).
  • To analyze driver acceptance of FCWs timed according to the comfort boundary (CB) model.
  • To investigate the impact of different warning timings on driver reaction and system acceptance.

Main Methods:

Keywords:
Collision warningacceptancecyclistdriver model

Related Experiment Videos

  • A test track study involving 31 participants evaluated two FCW timings: inside and outside the comfort boundary (CB) model.
  • The scenario involved a cyclist crossing, with warnings issued at Time To Collision (TTC) of 2.6s (inside CB) and 1.7s (outside CB).
  • Participants' reaction times were recorded, followed by a post-experiment survey to assess warning acceptance.

Main Results:

  • Drivers reacted significantly faster to warnings issued outside the CB (TTC 1.7s) compared to those inside (TTC 2.6s).
  • Warnings inside the CB were perceived as more disturbing, leading to lower acceptance rates.
  • The comfort boundary (CB) model effectively represents driver-perceived criticality, supporting the development of well-accepted warning systems.

Conclusions:

  • Driver acceptance of FCWs is enhanced when warning times align with their natural driving behavior, as indicated by the CB model.
  • The study highlights the potential of driver models in optimizing FCW timing for improved safety and user acceptance.
  • Further research is needed to assess warning acceptance among distracted drivers and in diverse scenarios.