Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 submissions in the queue.
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This discussion has been archived.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: 3, Insightful) by TheRaven on Monday August 10 2015, @08:47AM

    by TheRaven (270) on Monday August 10 2015, @08:47AM (#220593) Journal
    Cruise control is useful, but there are fairly strict limits. Safety doesn't have a simple correlation automation. With no automation, your entire attention is focused on the task and you're pretty likely to handle unusual conditions. With full automation, you don't need any attention on the task and it's pretty safe.

    When you have a little bit of automation, like cruise control, it can mean that you've removed some things from your locus of attention but all of the safety-critical things are still there and get more of your attention. Now imagine cruise control taken a bit further, so it will also do lane tracking and keep you in lane. All that you need to do is steer when the road markings aren't clear or when there's an unexpected obstacle. Now steering is no longer part of your attention and so it takes a little while to bring it back into your awareness. The time when you actually need to be involved in the process is when you are least mentally prepared to be.

    Various forms of computer assistance in cars are likely to be a lot less safe than either a fully manual or a fully automatic vehicle.

    --
    sudo mod me up
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3