Until automated cars function perfectly, drivers will have to take over control when automation fails or reaches its functional limits. Two simulator experiments (N = 24 and 27) were conducted, each testing four automation levels ranging from manual control (MC) to highly automated driving. In both experiments, participants about once every 3 min experienced an event that required intervention. Participants performed a secondary divided attention task while driving. Automation generally resulted in improved secondary task performance and reduced self-reported physical demand and effort as compared to MC. However, automated speed control was experienced as more frustrating than MC. Participants responded quickly to the events when the stimulus was salient (i.e., stop sign, crossing pedestrian, and braking lead car), but often failed to react to an automation failure when their vehicle was driving slowly. In conclusion, driving with imperfect automation can be frustrating, even though mental and physical demands are reduced.@en

This article synthesises the latest information on the relationship between the Driver Behaviour Questionnaire (DBQ) and accidents. We show by means of computer simulation that correlations with accidents are necessarily small because accidents are rare events. An updated meta-analysis on the zero-order correlations between the DBQ and self-reported accidents yielded an overall r of .13 (fixed-effect and random-effects models) for violations (57,480 participants; 67 samples) and .09 (fixed-effect and random-effects models) for errors (66,028 participants; 56 samples). An analysis of a previously published DBQ dataset (975 participants) showed that by aggregating across four measurement occasions, the correlation coefficient with self-reported accidents increased from .14 to .24 for violations and from .11 to .19 for errors. Our meta-analysis also showed that DBQ violations (r = .24; 6353 participants; 20 samples) but not DBQ errors (r = − .08; 1086 participants; 16 samples) correlated with recorded vehicle speed.@en

Adaptive cruise control (ACC), a driver assistance system that controls longitudinal motion, has been introduced in consumer cars in 1995. A next milestone is highly automated driving (HAD), a system that automates both longitudinal and lateral motion. We investigated the effects of ACC and HAD on drivers’ workload and situation awareness through a meta-analysis and narrative review of simulator and on-road studies. Based on a total of 32 studies, the unweighted mean self-reported workload was 43.5% for manual driving, 38.6% for ACC driving, and 22.7% for HAD (0% = minimum, 100 = maximum on the NASA Task Load Index or Rating Scale Mental Effort). Based on 12 studies, the number of tasks completed on an in-vehicle display relative to manual driving (100%) was 112% for ACC and 261% for HAD. Drivers of a highly automated car, and to a lesser extent ACC drivers, are likely to pick up tasks that are unrelated to driving. Both ACC and HAD can result in improved situation awareness compared to manual driving if drivers are motivated or instructed to detect objects in the environment. However, if drivers are engaged in non-driving tasks, situation awareness deteriorates for ACC and HAD compared to manual driving. The results of this review are consistent with the hypothesis that, from a Human Factors perspective, HAD is markedly different from ACC driving, because the driver of a highly automated car has the possibility, for better or worse, to divert attention to secondary tasks, whereas an ACC driver still has to attend to the roadway.@en