The Effects of Driver Coupling and Automation Impedance on Emergency Steering Interventions

TL;DR

This study evaluates how driver coupling and automation impedance affect emergency steering performance, showing that high impedance reduces collisions during interventions but increases them during automation faults, with decoupling having minimal impact on control handback.

Contribution

It provides new insights into the effects of driver coupling and impedance settings on emergency steering effectiveness and fault management in automated vehicles.

Findings

High impedance reduces collisions during interventions.

Decoupling does not significantly affect control handback time.

Coupled drivers can partially compensate for automation faults.

Abstract

Automatic emergency steering maneuvers can be used to avoid more obstacles than emergency braking alone. While a steer-by-wire system can decouple the driver who might act as a disturbance during the emergency steering maneuver, the alternative in which the steering wheel remains coupled can enable the driver to cover for automation faults and conform to regulations that require the driver to retain control authority. In this paper we present results from a driving simulator study with 48 participants in which we tested the performance of three emergency steering intervention schemes. In the first scheme, the driver was decoupled and the automation system had full control over the vehicle. In the second and third schemes, the driver was coupled and the automation system was either given a high impedance or a low impedance. Two types of unexpected automation faults were also simulated. Results showed that a high impedance automation system results in significantly fewer collisions during intended steering interventions but significantly higher collisions during automation faults when compared to a low impedance automation system. Moreover, decoupling the driver did not seem to significantly influence the time required to hand back control to the driver. When coupled, drivers were able to cover for a faulty automation system and avoid obstacles to a certain degree, though differences by condition were significant for only one type of automation fault.