This work aimed to organise recommendations for keeping people engaged during human supervision of driving automation, encouraging a safe and acceptable introduction of automated driving systems. First, heuristic knowledge of human factors, ergonomics, and psychological theory was used to propose solution areas to human supervisory control problems of sustained attention. Driving and non-driving research examples were drawn to substantiate the solution areas. Automotive manufacturers might (1) avoid this supervisory role altogether, (2) reduce it in objective ways or (3) alter its subjective experiences, (4) utilize conditioning learning principles such as with gamification and/or selection/training techniques, (5) support internal driver cognitive processes and mental models and/or (6) leverage externally situated information regarding relations between the driver, the driving task, and the driving environment. Second, a cross-domain literature survey of influential human-automation interaction research was conducted for how to keep engagement/attention in supervisory control. The solution areas (via numeric theme codes) were found to be reliably applied from independent rater categorisations of research recommendations. Areas (5) and (6) were addressed by around 70% or more of the studies, areas (2) and (4) in around 50% of the studies, and areas (3) and (1) in less than around 20% and 5%, respectively. The present contribution offers a guiding organisational framework towards improving human attention while supervising driving automation.

Merging sections are challenging for drivers of heavy goods vehicles. Visual support for merging was evaluated in a simulator. Experiment 1 tested HMIs that provided participants (n = 5) driving on the on-ramp with a top view or various forms of speed advice for accelerating behind or in front of a truck platoon on the freeway. Experiment 2 tested HMIs that provided drivers (n = 18) on the acceleration lane with a top view complemented with speed and gap advice for finding a gap to merge in. Experiment 1 showed that speed advice yielded less unnecessary braking compared to unsupported driving. In Experiment 2, speed advice yielded low satisfaction ratings. Our results highlight the potential of visual support and stress the importance of not visually overloading the driver.

We provide a brief comment on the work of Martinussen et al. (2017), who studied the relationships between self-reported driving behavior, registered traffic offences, and registered crash involvement. It is argued that if the number of crashes is small, then the correlation with crashes is also small. Our analysis of the SHRP2 naturalistic driving study shows that the violations score of the Driver Behavior Questionnaire and the Sensation Seeking Scale exhibit small correlations with recorded crashes, and small-to-moderate correlations with recorded near-crashes and measures of driving style.