Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Sunday August 09 2015, @06:53PM   Printer-friendly
from the do-you-remember-your-stopping-distances? dept.

Einstein once said, "Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute, and it seems like an hour. Sit with a pretty girl for an hour and it seems like a minute. THAT'S relativity."

So 5-8 seconds seems like a (relatively) short amount of time. But, is it enough to safely take back control of a self-driving car and negotiate a road hazard? And if the driver is given less time, is it better or worse? Researchers at Stanford attempted to find out:

In this study, we observed how participants (N=27) in a driving simulator performed after they were subjected to an emergency loss of automation. We tested three transition time conditions, with an unstructured transition of vehicle control occurring 2 seconds, 5 seconds, or 8 seconds before the participants encountered a road hazard that required the drivers' intervention.

Few drivers in the 2 second condition were able to safely negotiate the road hazard situation, while the majority of drivers in 5 or 8 second conditions were able to navigate the hazard safely.

Although the participants in the current study were not performing secondary tasks while the car was driving, the 2 second condition appeared to be insufficient. The participants did not perform well and liked the car less. Additionally, participants' comfort in the car was also lower in the 2 second condition. Hence, it is recommended to give warnings or relinquish control more than 2 seconds in advance. While not necessarily the minimum required time, 5 second condition from a critical event appeared to be sufficient for drivers to perform the take over successfully and negotiate the problem. While the results of this study indicated that there was a minimum amount of time needed for transition of control, this was true when the drivers only monitored the car's activity and did not perform secondary tasks. It is possible that these results can change if the drivers are occupied with other activities.

Full research paper available here.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Monday August 10 2015, @02:25AM

    by q.kontinuum (532) on Monday August 10 2015, @02:25AM (#220515) Journal

    Problem is, if you have to pay attention all the time, it is easier to drive yourself. Otherwise you will (or at least I would) inadvertently slack of, think of other things etc., and in that case even the 5 seconds were not realistic. So, I would second the point: Either driving is automated enough to contain a fail-safe, were the car pulls over and stops, giving the driver enough time to wake up. Or it isn't automated. It could still be assisted (distance guard, lane guard with vibrating effect if you accidentally leave your lane, speed limit warning, parking-aid, etc.). Cruise control is already dangerous in my opinion, since it will maintain the current speed even if the driver doses off. Responsibility would clearly rest with the driver all the time.

    --
    Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday August 10 2015, @04:28AM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday August 10 2015, @04:28AM (#220547) Journal

    Cruise control is already dangerous in my opinion, since it will maintain the current speed even if the driver doses off.

    So will the lack of cruise control. I don't see a significant drop in speed happening before the car and whatever it hits/lands on develops severe repair issues.