Search Results

Making manned and remotely-controlled wheeled and tracked vehicles easier to drive, especially off-road, is of great interest to the U.S. Army. If vehicles are easier to drive (especially closed hatch) or if they are driven autonomously, then drivers could perform additional tasks (e.g., operating weapons or communication systems), leading to reduced crew sizes. Further, poorly driven vehicles are more likely to get stuck, roll over, or encounter mines or improvised explosive devices, whereby the vehicle can no longer perform its mission and crew member safety is jeopardized. HMI technology and systems to support human drivers (e.g., autonomous driving systems, in-vehicle monitors or head-mounted displays, various control devices (including game controllers), navigation and route-planning systems) need to be evaluated, which traditionally occurs in mission-specific (and incomparable) evaluations.

To develop easy-to-use control panels, it is essential to measure driver performance, compare it with behavioral specifications, modify the design based on driver feedback, and then retest. Rapid prototypers help engineers do this quickly. This paper identifies the I/O capabilities, ease of use, ability to record user behavior, and real-time performance for several prototypers. Two example HyperCard prototypes are described here. The first, a car clock, shows how HyperCard can vary button size and location, labeling, auditory feedback, and the mapping of switches to system functions. The second, a car radio, shows that continuous controls and digitized sound can be handled.

The Lane Change Task (LCT) provides a simple, scorable simulation of driving, and serves as a primary task in studies of driver distraction. It is widely accepted, but somewhat limited in functionality, a problem this project partially overcomes. In the Lane Change Task, subjects drive along a road with 3 lanes in the same direction. Periodically, signs appear, indicating in which of the 3 lanes the subject should drive, which changes from sign to sign. The software is plug-and-play for a current Windows computer with a Logitech steering/pedal assembly, even though the software was written 18 years ago. For each timestamp in a trial, the software records the steering wheel angle, speed, and x and y coordinates of the subject. A limitation of the LCT is that few characteristics of this useful software can be readily modified as only the executable code is available (on the ISO 26022 website), not the source code.

Future in-vehicle information systems may overload drivers, compromising driving safety and product usability. Suggestions of overload appear in (1) statistics from Japan, the United States, and Kuwait for mobile phone-related crashes, (2) statistics from Japan for navigation system-related crashes, and (3) human performance data. From most to least frequent, tasks associated with crashes were receiving a call, dialing, talking (on a phone), looking at a (navigation) display and operating an interface (for navigation). To optimize driver performance for future interfaces, developers should comply with design guidelines (JAMA, SAE J2364), work more closely with human factors experts, expand usability testing, and implement workload managers.

Suggestions for pictographic symbols for identifying automotive controls and displays were obtained from 32 drivers. A total of 142 symbol candidates were developed from these suggestions for 25 functions. Subsequently, 104 people at a driver licensing office ranked these candidates and corresponding symbols in ISO Standard 2575 from best to worst. The criterion was how well the candidates represented the functions of interest. Based on those data the authors recommend replacing the ISO symbols for the lighter, fog lights, hood release, master lighting switch, and temperature and continuing to seek alternatives for the front defrost, hazard, headlamp cleaner, high beam headlamps, unleaded fuel, parking lights, rear defrost, windshield washer, and windshield washer/wiper.

Two experiments were conducted to develop symbols for seven automobile controls and displays (heater, air conditioner, fresh air vent, radio volume, radio tuning, exterior lamp failure, and tire pressure) and answer several related questions. In the first, 43 drivers drew pictures they thought should be used as symbols for the items in question. Based on their suggestions the author designed several candidate symbols for each function. In the second, 62 drivers rated how well each candidate's intended meaning was understood. For many functions a “best” symbol was found, often one which differed from that currently used by the automobile manufacturers.

Driving workload managers continually assess the difficulty of driving and regulate the flow of information to drivers that could interfere with driving, such as automatically diverting an incoming phone call to an answering machine when a driver is turning at an intersection. This paper summarizes the pertinent crash and human performance literature, identifies the unique nature of telematics tasks, and describes likely workload manager architectures, applicable regulations, and current industry efforts. In addition to promoting telematics system safety and enhancing warning systems, research on workload managers is likely to advance the science of driving and provide many other safety benefits.

This paper describes (1) the telematics distraction/overload problem, (2) what distraction and overload are and how they differ, (3) the standards and guidelines that apply to the design and evaluation of driver interfaces/human-machine interfaces (HMI) for telematics (and their strengths and weaknesses), and (4) what standards and research are needed to support the development of driver interfaces. Most of the paper is a detailed discussion of evaluation standards, in particular SAE Recommended Practices J2364 (Task Time and Occlusion Tests) and J2365 (Task Time Estimation), ISO Standards 16673 (Occlusion Test) and 26022 (Lane-Change Test), and the AAM Driver Focus Guideline.

Almost a million people are killed worldwide each year in motor vehicle crashes, over 42,000 of them in the U.S. Human/driver error (or induced error) is the most commonly identified contributing cause according to crash studies, especially studies conducted in the U.S. Accordingly, if crashes are to be reduced, a human-centered approach is needed. As part of its Intelligent Transportation Systems program, the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) is funding several major projects (e.g., VII, IVBSS) concerned with active safety, warnings, and communications. As part of these and other projects, several meta-issues have arisen that deserve further attention.

Sixty-six drivers participated in a test of their knowledge and understanding of instrument panel displays. They were asked about specifications for their vehicles (e.g., engine temperatures), viewed numerous slides of instrument clusters and said what was wrong (e.g., low fuel) and what they would do (e.g., stop at the next gas station), and ranked displays from most to least understandable. The data showed that -- (1) Many drivers knew little about their vehicles. (2) For engine functions, drivers were more likely to understand moving pointer than numeric displays. Pointer alignment, color-coding, and labeling the normal zone all greatly improved understanding of engine displays. (3) Drivers understood all of the existing labeling schemes for analog fuel displays but had varying degrees of difficulty with digital fuel displays.

Engaging in visual-manual tasks such as selecting a radio station, adjusting the interior temperature, or setting an automation function can be distracting to drivers. Additionally, if setting the automation fails, driver takeover can be delayed. Traditionally, assessing the usability of driver interfaces and determining if they are unacceptably distracting (per the NHTSA driver distraction guidelines and SAE J2364) involves human subject testing, which is expensive and time-consuming. However, most vehicle engineering decisions are based on computational analyses, such as the task time predictions in SAE J2365. Unfortunately, J2365 was developed before touch screens were common in motor vehicles.

Often, when assessing the distraction or ease of use of an in-vehicle task (such as entering a destination using the street address method), the first question is “How long does the task take on average?” Engineers routinely resolve this question using computational models. For in-vehicle tasks, “how long” is estimated by summing times for the included task elements (e.g., decide what to do, press a button) from SAE Recommended Practice J2365 or now using new static (while parked) data presented here. Times for the occlusion conditions in J2365 and the NHTSA Distraction Guidelines can be determined using static data and Pettitt’s Method or Purucker’s Method. These first approximations are reasonable and can be determined quickly. The next question usually is “How likely is it that the task will exceed some limit?”

Forty-five drivers of late model cars equipped with advanced driver-information systems (trip computers, phones, etc.) participated in 4 focus groups, 2 in Los Angeles and 2 near New York City. The purpose of the groups was to determine driver attitudes toward existing, high-technology, driver-information systems and what drivers might want in future cars. Drivers wanted systems that would give them (1) advance information about vehicle malfunctions (such as a warning about low oil, not just a failure light) and (2) navigation information. Drivers complained about current systems that divert their attention from driving, especially entertainment systems (“the buttons are too small”) and cellular phones (drivers weaving in traffic). There were reports of accidents and near accidents associated with use of in-vehicle systems and maps.

This paper (1) summarizes previous human factors/safety research on parking (8 studies, mostly over 20 years old), (2) provides statistics for 10,400 parking-related crashes in Michigan from 2000-2002, and (3) summarizes interviews with 6 insurance agents concerning parking crashes. These sources indicate: 1 About 1/2 to 3/4 of parking crashes involve backing, often into another moving vehicle while emerging from a parking stall. 2 Eight-and-a-half foot-wide stalls had higher crash rates than wider stalls. 3 Most parallel parking crashes occur on major streets, not minor streets. 4 Lighting and driver impairment were minor factors in parking crashes.

This paper describes an ongoing effort to develop computer-simulated instrumentation for the UMTRI Driver Interface Research Simulator. The speedometer, tachometer, engine and fuel gauges, along with warning lights are back projected onto a screen in front of the driver. The image is generated by a Macintosh running LabVIEW. Simulated instrumentation (instead of a production cluster) was provided so that new display designs can be rapidly generated and tested. This paper addresses the requirements for prototyping software, the advantages and disadvantages of the packages available, and the UMTRI implementation of the software, and its incorporation into the driving simulator.

This paper describes new driver-information systems that are suggested for cars of the 21st century and proposes a method for selecting them. This method will help government officials, product planners, engineers, designers, and scientists identify functions and features that will be most beneficial to drivers. The systems (functions) of interest were navigation, vehicle monitoring, traffic information, road-hazard warning, communications, motorist services, in-car signing, office functions, and entertainment. Features and information elements of these systems were identified and rated on three dimensions: effect on accidents, impact on traffic operations, and driver needs and wants. Based on the ranking of features, information about slick roads, accidents, congestion, construction, blocked views, emergency vehicles, and tire and brake problems would be particularly beneficial.