Mueller Alexandra S, Cicchino Jessica B, Calvanelli Joseph V
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, 4121 Wilson Blvd, Suite 600, Arlington, VA 22203, USA.
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, 4121 Wilson Blvd, Suite 600, Arlington, VA 22203, USA.
J Safety Res. 2024 Feb;88:125-134. doi: 10.1016/j.jsr.2023.10.015. Epub 2023 Nov 27.
Little is known about regular users' perceptions of partial (Level 2) automation or how those perceptions affect behind-the-wheel behavior.
A mixed mode (phone and online) survey explored the habits, expectations, and attitudes among regular users of General Motors Super Cruise (n = 200), Nissan/Infiniti ProPILOT Assist (n = 202), and Tesla Autopilot (n = 202).
All three groups reported being more likely to engage in non-driving-related activities while using their systems than while driving unassisted. Super Cruise and Autopilot users especially were more likely to report engaging in activities that involved taking their hands off the wheel or their eyes off the road. Many Super Cruise and Autopilot users also said they could perform secondary (non-driving-related) tasks better and more often while using their systems, while fewer ProPILOT Assist users shared this opinion. Super Cruise users were most likely and ProPILOT Assist users least likely to think that secondary activities were safer to perform while using their systems. While some drivers said they found user safeguards (e.g., attention reminders, lockouts) annoying and tried to circumvent them, most people said they found them helpful and felt safer with them. Large percentages of users (53% Super Cruise, 42% Autopilot and 12% ProPILOT Assist) indicated they were comfortable treating their systems as self-driving.
Some regular users have a poor understanding of their technology's limits. System design appears to contribute to user perceptions and behavior. However, owner populations also differ, which means habits, attitudes, and expectations may not generalize. Most people value user safeguards, but some implementations may not be effective for everyone.
Multifaceted, proactive user-centric safeguards are needed to shape proper behavior and understanding about drivers' roles and responsibilities while using partial driving automation.
对于普通用户对部分（二级）自动化的看法，以及这些看法如何影响实际驾驶行为，我们了解甚少。
采用混合模式（电话和在线）调查，探究了通用汽车超级巡航系统（n = 200）、日产/英菲尼迪ProPILOT Assist系统（n = 202）和特斯拉自动驾驶仪（n = 202）的普通用户的习惯﹑期望和态度。
所有三组用户均表示，与无辅助驾驶时相比，使用各自系统时更有可能从事与驾驶无关的活动。超级巡航系统和自动驾驶仪用户尤其更有可能报告从事过双手离开方向盘或视线离开道路的活动。许多超级巡航系统和自动驾驶仪用户还表示，在使用各自系统时，他们能更好且更频繁地执行次要（与驾驶无关）任务，而较少有ProPILOT Assist系统用户持此观点。超级巡航系统用户最有可能，而ProPILOT Assist系统用户最不可能认为在使用各自系统时进行次要活动更安全。虽然一些驾驶员表示他们觉得用户保护措施（如注意力提醒、锁定）很烦人，并试图规避它们，但大多数人表示他们觉得这些措施很有用，并且有了这些措施会感觉更安全。很大比例的用户（超级巡航系统为53%，自动驾驶仪为42%，ProPILOT Assist系统为12%）表示，他们愿意将各自的系统视为自动驾驶。
一些普通用户对其技术的局限性了解不足。系统设计似乎会影响用户的看法和行为。然而，用户群体也存在差异，这意味着习惯、态度和期望可能无法一概而论。大多数人重视用户保护措施，但某些实施方式可能并非对所有人都有效。
需要多方面、积极主动且以用户为中心的保护措施，以规范使用部分驾驶自动化时的正确行为，并增进对驾驶员角色和责任的理解。
