Kidd David G, Cicchino Jessica B, Reagan Ian J, Kerfoot Laura B
a Insurance Institute for Highway Safety , Arlington , Virginia.
Traffic Inj Prev. 2017 May 29;18(sup1):S44-S50. doi: 10.1080/15389588.2017.1297532. Epub 2017 Mar 1.
Information about drivers' experiences with driver assistance technologies in real driving conditions is sparse. This study characterized driver interactions with forward collision warning, adaptive cruise control, active lane keeping, side-view assist, and lane departure warning systems following real-world use.
Fifty-four Insurance Institute for Highway Safety employees participated and drove a 2016 Toyota Prius, 2016 Honda Civic, 2017 Audi Q7, or 2016 Infiniti QX60 for up to several weeks. Participants reported mileage and warnings from the technologies in an online daily-use survey. Participants reported their level of agreement with five statements regarding trust in an online post-use survey. Responses were averaged to create a composite measure of trust ranging from -2 (strongly disagree) to +2 (strongly agree) for each technology. Mixed-effect regression models were constructed to compare trust among technologies and separately among the study vehicles. Participants' free-response answers about what they liked least about each system were coded and examined.
Participants reported driving 33,584 miles during 4 months of data collection. At least one forward collision warning was reported in 26% of the 354 daily reports. The proportion of daily reports indicating a forward collision warning was much larger for the Honda (70%) than for the Audi (18%), Infiniti (15%), and Toyota (10%). Trust was highest for side-view assist (0.98) and lowest for active lane keeping (0.20). Trust in side-view assist was significantly higher than trust in active lane keeping and lane departure warning (0.53). Trust in active lane keeping was significantly lower than trust in adaptive cruise control (0.67) and forward collision warning (0.71). Trust in adaptive cruise control was higher for the Audi (0.72) and Toyota (0.75) compared with the Honda (0.30), and significantly higher for the Infiniti (0.93). Trust in Infiniti's side-view assist (0.58) was significantly lower than trust in Audi (1.17) and Honda (1.23) systems. Coding of answers to free-response questions showed that more than 80% of complaints about Honda's adaptive cruise control were about the way it functioned and/or performed. Infiniti's side-view assist was the only one with complaints mentioning circumstances where it was used. Trust in forward collision warning, lane departure warning, and active lane keeping was not significantly different among vehicles.
Driver trust varied among driver assistance technologies, and trust in adaptive cruise control and side-view assist differed among vehicles. Trust may affect real-world use of driver assistance technologies and limit the opportunity for the systems to provide their intended benefits.
关于驾驶员在实际驾驶条件下使用驾驶辅助技术的体验信息匮乏。本研究描述了驾驶员在实际使用后与前方碰撞预警、自适应巡航控制、主动车道保持、侧视辅助和车道偏离预警系统的交互情况。
54名美国公路安全保险协会的员工参与了研究，他们驾驶一辆2016款丰田普锐斯、2016款本田思域、2017款奥迪Q7或2016款英菲尼迪QX60长达数周。参与者在每日在线使用调查中报告行驶里程和技术发出的警告。参与者在使用后在线调查中报告他们对关于信任的五条陈述的认同程度。对回答进行平均，为每种技术创建一个从-2（强烈反对）到+2（强烈同意）的综合信任度衡量指标。构建混合效应回归模型以比较不同技术之间以及不同研究车辆之间的信任度。对参与者关于他们对每个系统最不满意之处的自由回答进行编码和分析。
在4个月的数据收集期间，参与者报告共行驶了33584英里。在354份每日报告中，有26%报告了至少一次前方碰撞预警。显示前方碰撞预警的每日报告比例，本田（70%）远高于奥迪（18%）、英菲尼迪（15%）和丰田（10%）。侧视辅助的信任度最高（0.98），主动车道保持的信任度最低（0.20）。对侧视辅助的信任度显著高于对主动车道保持和车道偏离预警（0.53）的信任度。对主动车道保持的信任度显著低于对自适应巡航控制（0.67）和前方碰撞预警（0.71）的信任度。与本田（0.30）相比，奥迪（0.72）和丰田（0.75）对自适应巡航控制的信任度更高，英菲尼迪（0.93）则显著更高。对英菲尼迪侧视辅助（0.58）的信任度显著低于对奥迪（1.17）和本田（1.23）系统的信任度。对自由回答问题的答案编码显示，超过80%对本田自适应巡航控制的抱怨是关于其功能和/或性能方面。英菲尼迪的侧视辅助是唯一有抱怨提及使用场景的。不同车辆对前方碰撞预警、车道偏离预警和主动车道保持的信任度没有显著差异。
驾驶员对驾驶辅助技术的信任度各不相同，并且对自适应巡航控制和侧视辅助的信任度在不同车辆之间也存在差异。信任可能会影响驾驶辅助技术在实际中的使用，并限制这些系统发挥预期效益的机会。
