Cooper, Joel M., Crabtree, Kaedyn W., McDonnell, Amy S., May, Dominik, Strayer, Sean C., Tsogtbaatar, Tushig, Cook, Danielle R., Alexander, Parker A., Sanbonmatsu, David M., and Strayer, David L.
Vehicle automation is becoming more prevalent. Understanding how drivers use this technology and its safety implications is crucial. In a 6–8 week naturalistic study, we leveraged a hybrid naturalistic driving research design to evaluate driver behavior with Level 2 vehicle automation, incorporating unique naturalistic and experimental control conditions. Our investigation covered four main areas: automation usage, system warnings, driving demand, and driver arousal, as well as secondary task engagement. While on the interstate, drivers were advised to engage Level 2 automation whenever they deemed it safe, and they complied by using it over 70% of the time. Interestingly, the frequency of system warnings increased with prolonged use, suggesting an evolving relationship between drivers and the automation features. Our data also revealed that drivers were discerning in their use of automation, opting for manual control under high driving demand conditions. Contrary to common safety concerns, our data indicated no significant rise in driver fatigue or fidgeting when using automation, compared to a control condition. Additionally, observed patterns of engagement in secondary tasks like radio listening and text messaging challenge existing assumptions about automation leading to dangerous driver distraction. Overall, our findings provide new insights into the conditions under which drivers opt to use automation and reveal a nuanced behavioral profile that emerges when automation is in use. Key findings: Drivers were less likely to use automation when roadway demands were higher. Secondary task engagements did not alarmingly change with automation usage (i.e., we only observed an increase in radio listening with Automation-L2). Automation usage alarms increased over time suggesting that drivers adopt a more relaxed interaction strategy with practice. The use of automation did not, by itself, increase fatigue or fidgeting. Rather, drivers used automation when they were already at risk of fatigue (i.e., during situations of low driving demand). Naturalistic Driving Research may benefit from true experimental control, especially in cases where driver behavior is contextually dependent (e.g., drivers may choose to use Automation only when they feel it is safe to do so). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]