As automated vehicles require human drivers to resume control in critical situations, predicting driver takeover behaviour could be beneficial for safe transitions of control. While previous research has explored predicting takeover behaviour in relation to driver state and traits, little work has examined the predictive value of manual driving style. We hypothesised that drivers’ behaviour during manual driving is predictive of their takeover behaviour when resuming control from an automated vehicle. We assessed 38 drivers with varying experience in a high-fidelity driving simulator. After completing manual driving sessions to assess their driving style, participants performed an automated driving task, typically on a subsequent date. Measures of driving style from manual driving sessions, including headway and lane change speed, were found to be predictive of takeover behaviour. The level of driving experience was associated with the behavioural measures, but correlations between measures of manual driving style and takeover behaviour remained after controlling for driver experience. Our findings demonstrate that how drivers reclaim control from their automated vehicle is not an isolated phenomenon but is associated with manual driving behaviour and driving experience. Strategies to improve takeover safety and comfort could be based on driving style measures, for example by the automated vehicle adapting its behaviour to match a driver's driving style.

Future vehicles may drive automatically in a human-like manner or contain systems that monitor human driving ability. Algorithms of these systems must have knowledge of criteria of good and safe driving behavior with regard to different driving styles. In the current study, interviews were conducted with 30 drivers, including driving instructors, engineers, and race drivers. The participants were asked to describe good driving on public roads and race tracks, and in some questions were supported with video material. The results were interpreted with the help of Endsley's model of situation awareness. The interviews showed that there were clear differences between what was considered good driving on the race track and good driving on the public road, where for the former, the driver must touch the limit of the vehicle, whereas, for the latter, the limit should be avoided. However, in both cases, a good driver was characterized by self-confidence, lack of stress, and not being aggressive. Furthermore, it was mentioned that the driver's posture and viewing behavior are essential components of good driving, which affect the driver's prediction of events and execution of maneuvers. The implications of our findings for the development of automation technology are discussed. In particular, we see potential in driver posture estimation and argue that automated vehicles excel in perception but may have difficulty making predictions.

In highly automated driving, the driver can engage in a nondriving task but sometimes has to take over control. We argue that current takeover quality measures, such as the maximum longitudinal acceleration, are insufficient because they ignore the criticality of the scenario. This paper proposes a novel method of quantifying how well the driver executed an automation-to-manual takeover by comparing human behaviour to optimised behaviour as computed using a trajectory planner. A human-in-the-loop study was carried out in a high-fidelity 6-DOF driving simulator with 25 participants. The takeover required a lane change to avoid roadworks on the ego-lane while taking other traffic into consideration. Each participant encountered six different takeover scenarios, with a different time budget (5 s, 7 s, or 20 s) and traffic density level (low or medium). Results showed that drivers exhibited a considerably higher longitudinal and lateral acceleration than the optimised behaviour, especially in the short time budget scenarios. In scenarios of medium traffic density, the trajectory planner showed a moderate deceleration to let a vehicle in the left lane pass; many participants, on the other hand, did not decelerate before making a lane change, resulting in a dangerous emergency brake of the left-lane vehicle. In conclusion, our results illustrate the value of assessing human takeover behaviour relative to optimised behaviour. Using the trajectory planner, we showed that human drivers are unable to behave optimally in urgent scenarios and that, in some conditions, a medium deceleration, as opposed to a maximal or minimal deceleration, is optimal.