Traffic Injury Prevention

ISSN: 1538-9588 (Print) 1538-957X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gcpi20

Autonomous emergency braking systems adapted

to snowy road conditions improve drivers'
perceived safety and trust

Ioana Koglbauer, Jürgen Holzinger, Arno Eichberger & Cornelia Lex

To cite this article: Ioana Koglbauer, Jürgen Holzinger, Arno Eichberger & Cornelia
Lex (2018) Autonomous emergency braking systems adapted to snowy road conditions
improve drivers' perceived safety and trust, Traffic Injury Prevention, 19:3, 332-337, DOI:
10.1080/15389588.2017.1407411

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2017.1407411

© 2018 The Author(s). Published with Published online: 23 Feb 2018.

license by Taylor & Francis© 2018 Ioana
Koglbauer, Jürgen Holzinger, Arno
Eichberger and Cornelia Lex

Submit your article to this journal Article views: 2635

View related articles View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 10 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=gcpi20
TRAFFIC INJURY PREVENTION
, VOL. , NO. , –
https://doi.org/./..

Autonomous emergency braking systems adapted to snowy road conditions improve

drivers’ perceived safety and trust
a
Ioana Koglbauer , Jürgen Holzingerb , Arno Eichbergera , and Cornelia Lexa
a
Institute of Automotive Engineering, Graz University of Technology, Graz, Austria; b AVL List GmbH, Graz, Austria

ABSTRACT
ARTICLE HISTORY
Objective: This study investigated drivers’ evaluation of a conventional autonomous emergency braking
Received  July 
(AEB) system on high and reduced tire–road friction and compared these results to those of an AEB system Accepted  November 
adaptive to the reduced tire–road friction by earlier braking. Current automated systems such as the AEB
do not adapt the vehicle control strategy to the road friction; for example, on snowy roads. Because winter KEYWORDS
precipitation is associated with a 19% increase in traffic crashes and a 13% increase in injuries compared Autonomous emergency
to dry conditions, the potential of conventional AEB to prevent collisions could be significantly improved braking; adaptation to road
by including friction in the control algorithm. Whereas adaption is not legally required for a conventional friction; safety; trust; gender;
age
AEB system, higher automated functions will have to adapt to the current tire–road friction because human
drivers will not be required to monitor the driving environment at all times. For automated driving functions
to be used, high levels of perceived safety and trust of occupants have to be reached with new systems. The
application case of an AEB is used to investigate drivers’ evaluation depending on the road condition in
order to gain knowledge for the design of future driving functions.
Methods: In a driving simulator, the conventional, nonadaptive AEB was evaluated on dry roads with high
friction (µ = 1) and on snowy roads with reduced friction (µ = 0.3). In addition, an AEB system adapted to
road friction was designed for this study and compared with the conventional AEB on snowy roads with
reduced friction. Ninety-six drivers (48 males, 48 females) assigned to 5 age groups (20–29, 30–39, 40–49,
50–59, and 60–75 years) drove with AEB in the simulator. The drivers observed and evaluated the AEB’s brak-
ing actions in response to an imminent rear-end collision at an intersection.
Results: The results show that drivers’ safety and trust in the conventional AEB were significantly lower on
snowy roads, and the nonadaptive autonomous braking strategy was considered less appropriate on snowy
roads compared to dry roads. As expected, the adaptive AEB braking strategy was considered more appro-
priate for snowy roads than the nonadaptive strategy. In conditions of reduced friction, drivers’ subjective
safety and trust were significantly improved when driving with the adaptive AEB compared to the conven-
tional AEB. Women felt less safe than men when AEB was braking. Differences between age groups were
not of statistical significance.
Conclusions: Drivers notice the adaptation of the autonomous braking strategy on snowy roads with
reduced friction. On snowy roads, they feel safer and trust the adaptive system more than the nonadap-
tive automation.

Introduction
Worldwide, up to 50 million people suffer injuries and more
than 1.2 million people die yearly because of road traffic crashes
(World Health Organization 2015). In the United States, adverse
weather was associated annually with more than 1.5 million
vehicle crashes, which result in about 800,000 injuries and 7,000
fatalities (National Research Council 2004). Statistical analyses
of real accident data show that snowfall contributes to higher
accident rates (Andrey et al. 2003; Eisenberg and Warner 2005;
Khattak and Knapp 2001; Shankar et al. 1995). Winter precipita-
tion irrespective of type (e.g., snow, freezing rain, ice pellets, or
sleet) was associated with a 19% increase in traffic crashes and a
13% increase in injuries compared to dry conditions (Black and
Mote 2015).
Road conditions with reduced friction (e.g., wet, snowy, icy
surfaces) contribute to a higher accident rate, although the
severity of these accidents varies among gender and age groups
(Black and Mote 2015; Morgan and Mannering 2011; Myers et al.
2011; Ulfarsson and Mannering 2004). In adverse weather, older
drivers showed an increased likelihood of involvement in prop-
erty damage accidents only but not in those involving injuries;
the reason for this may be due to their greater experience as
drivers (Black and Mote 2015). The statistics show that women
are less frequently involved in traffic accidents than men (Statis-
tisches Bundesamt (Federal Statistical Office of Germany) 2016;
Oltedal and Rundmo 2006; Pulido et al. 2016; Rhodes and Pivik
2011; Scott-Parker and Oviedo-Trespalacios 2017; Tavris et al.
2001). Research also shows age and gender differences in the
braking behavior that could explain differences in the accident
rates (Kusano et al. 2015; Li et al. 2016; Montgomery et al. 2014).
In a naturalistic driving experiment, Montgomery et al. (2014)
found that women apply the brakes on average 1.3 s earlier than

CONTACT Ioana Koglbauer koglbauer@tugraz.at Institute of Automotive Engineering, Graz University of Technology, Inffeldgasse /II,  Graz, Austria.
Associate Editor Douglas J. Gabauer oversaw the review of this article.
©  Ioana Koglbauer, Jürgen Holzinger, Arno Eichberger and Cornelia Lex. Published with license by Taylor & Francis.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/./), which
permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.

men and drivers younger than 30 years brake 1.7 s later than
drivers older than 30 years. However, there is also research on
braking behavior that shows no gender differences (Hancock
et al. 2002). Research shows that drivers can adapt to snow by
reducing speed and maintaining a longer headway on snowy
roads compared to dry roads (Kilpeläinen and Summala 2007).
Drivers can use visual cues to anticipate a reduced level of fric-
tion and to adapt the driving style before kinesthetic cues sig-
nalize the reduced friction (Öberg 1978; Wallman 1997).
The role of automation in preventing the occurrence and
reducing the severity of accidents
The deployment of automated driving systems is consid-
ered a key measure to reduce the number of accidents and
improve road safety (European Commission 2011; European
Road Transport Research Advisory Council 2015; U.S. Depart-
ment of Transportation 2016; World Health Organization 2015).
Autonomous emergency braking (AEB) systems were first intro-
duced to the market starting around 2006. The braking interven-
tion of an AEB is coupled with a visual/acoustic/haptic warning
when the collision risk is over a certain level determined by the
time to collision (Euro NCAP 2015). All AEB systems in produc-
tion minimize the risk of false positives (e.g., braking in wrong
situations). A reliable, robust, and accurate road friction mea-
surement is not currently available (Lex 2015). Engineers thus
design systems for high friction. Where collision risk is detected,
low times to collision (TTCs) are used. Warnings are typically
given between 1.5 and 2.5 s TTC and brake engagement typi-
cally between 0.8 and 1.2 s TTC.
Research has shown the potential of AEB to avoid crashes
or to reduce the severity of crashes. The AEB is one of the 5
best rated systems with the potentials to prevent 22% of fatal
accidents (Eichberger et al. 2010). An analysis of real crash
data showed 38% fewer rear-end crashes in vehicles equipped
with AEB than in similar vehicles without AEB (Fildes et al.
2015). It was shown that AEB was effective at reducing 40%
of fatally injured and 27% of severely injured pedestrians in
frontal collisions with cars having a 40° field of view (Rosén
et al. 2010). However, research also shows potentially negative
effects of automation on the road safety, such as drivers’ exces-
sive trust in automation, complacency, and inability to take over
the control when required that contribute to accidents (Shen and
Neyens 2014). Trust in automation is an attitude that automa-
tion will help achieve a goal in conditions of vulnerability and
uncertainty (Lee and See 2004). The appropriate level of trust
depends on the true capabilities of automation (Kidd et al. 2017).
Trust affects the automation use or lack of use (Parasuraman and
Riley 1997). If drivers have low trust in automation, as in the case
when automation produces many false alarms, they may not use
it.
Automated driving functions of SAE level 1 or 2 (SAE Inter-
national 2014) that are available in series-production vehicles
do not require tire–road friction adaption, because the driver
is legally responsible to monitor the driving environment at all
times and adapt the driving style accordingly. For SAE level 3
and above, the automated function will be required to adapt to
the road condition. Within the design of such adaptive func-
tions, both physical and human factors have to be considered,
such as imperfect sensor information and occupant’s perception
TRAFFIC INJURY PREVENTION 333
of safety and trust in automated functions at different road con-
ditions (Lex et al. 2017). In this study, it was shown that drivers
mainly rely on visual cues as well as the vehicle’s response when
estimating the road conditions, according to their own state-
ments. Being asked for categories they used to differentiate road
conditions, 24% of the drivers mentioned dry, 22% wet, 19% icy,
and 13% snowy, showing a similar distribution in different age
and gender groups (Lex et al. 2017).
To further understand human factors for tire–road friction
adaptive driving strategies, a conventional AEB City system is
used as an application case. AEB City typically works at lower
speeds (10–50 km/h), being designed for urban application
(Euro NCAP 2015). The braking interventions of the AEB are
activated at a certain TTC, which is calculated by Equation (1).
TTC = s/v, (1)
where s is the relative distance and v is the relative speed
between the ego and the target vehicle. The TTC values cur-
rently used by the conventional AEB systems at SAE level 1
(SAE International 2014) can avoid accidents on dry roads with
high friction. This is appropriate because the AEB is supposed
to react at the latest possible time if the driver fails to react. For
autonomous braking interventions on roads with low friction
at an SAE level of 3 and higher (SAE International 2014), the
TTC values must be higher; for example, TTC/µ in the case of
braking.
If the design of automation aims at compensating for human
limitations in driving, especially in conditions of reduced
friction, then age and gender differences clearly need to be
considered. The perceived usefulness, acceptance, and an
appropriate level of trust in automated assistance systems by
drivers are essential prerequisites for purchasing and using
them. Acceptance depends on the fail-safe characteristics of
automated systems and on drivers’ comfort (Brookhuis et al.
2001). Research shows that advanced driver assistance systems
could be improved if the control algorithms included indi-
vidual preferences and environmental conditions (Koglbauer
et al. 2017; Xiong and Boyle 2012). Theoretically, the greatest
potential of the driver assistance systems to reduce the number
of accidents would be in conditions of limited road friction
(Lex et al. 2013; Niederkofler et al. 2011). The increase in
similarities between automated and human driving behaviors
was found to improve the acceptance of automation (Van Driel
et al. 2007). Automated systems thus need a control strategy
adapted to the road conditions similar to that of human drivers.
In addition, automated systems should be able to assist drivers
in perceiving earlier, better understanding, and reacting more
appropriately to prevent accidents and reduce the severity of
accidents that cannot be avoided. Drivers should be able to trust
the automation system and feel safe with it.
The objective of this study is to evaluate adaptive and con-
ventional (nonadaptive) vehicle control strategies of AEB with
female and male drivers from different age groups in a driv-
ing simulator (simulated high vs. reduced friction and summer
vs. winter sceneries). The systems tested are the conventional
AEB system that ignores the road friction and a new adaptive
AEB with a generic algorithm that includes the road friction and
adapts the timing of the braking intervention in a manner to
avoid the collision.
334 I. KOGLBAUER ET AL.
Research questions
r Hypothesis 1: Drivers will notice that the automated brak-
ing strategy of the conventional AEB system is not appro-
priate on snowy roads with reduced friction.
r Hypothesis 2: Drivers feel less safe and trust the conven-
tional AEB less on snowy roads with reduced friction than
on dry roads with high friction. Thus, this hypothesis refers
to the conventional AEB in 2 road conditions: Dry and
snowy roads.
r Hypothesis 3: Drivers will notice the difference between
adaptive and nonadaptive braking strategies on snowy
roads with reduced friction.
r Hypothesis 4: On snowy roads with reduced friction,
drivers will feel safer and have more trust in the adaptive
AEB system compared to the conventional AEB system.
Thus, this hypothesis refers to the conventional and adap-
tive AEB in snowy road conditions.
An additional research question refers to age and gender dif-
ferences in the evaluation of adaptive and conventional AEB in
conditions of high and reduced friction.
Method
Participants
The participants were recruited on a volunteer basis, using a
newspaper announcement. Ninety-six drivers (48 women) par-
ticipated in the study. Ten women and 10 men were recruited in
each of the age groups 20–29, 30–39, 40–49, and 50–59 years and
8 women and 8 men in the age group 60–75 years. The partici-
pants were selected to obtain a similar driving activity between
the gender groups within each age group and among the age
groups. Males had a mean driving activity of 18,323 km/year and
females had a mean driving activity of 18,094 km/year. Each par-
ticipant was informed about the purpose and procedure of the
experiment and signed an informed consent form. This research
complied with the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki.
Equipment
The simulator is a fixed-base full-vehicle mock-up of a Mini
Countryman with an autostereoscopic vision system. Sound
simulation includes engine, road, and wind noise of the simu-
lated vehicle and other traffic. The pitch at the onset of braking
was simulated in the visual system. The drivers were thus able to
notice the onset of a braking maneuver. The summer condition
used high friction (µ = 1) and showed a completely dry road in
a landscape with green grass and trees. The winter scenery used
reduced friction (µ = 0.3) and showed a road and landscape
partly covered with snow. The coefficient of friction µ = 0.3 is
within the typical range for snowy road condition (Gustafsson
1997).
The AEB City function was investigated in the present
article in the typical setting of a rear-end collision between the
simulated vehicle and the preceding target vehicle in a stopped
driving state. The setup was validated with real driving tests.
The braking of the conventional AEB was initiated at 1.2 s TTC,
together with a visual/acoustic driver warning. The braking
of the adaptive AEB was initiated at 1.9 s TTC, together with
a visual and acoustic driver warning. Thus, the adaptive AEB
brakes earlier on snow than the nonadaptive AEB. The drivers
were asked to drive in the city with a speed of 8 m/s. In case of an
imminent rear-end collision, the participants were instructed
to not react but to observe the collision avoidance actions of the
AEB.
Procedure
Each participant received a written briefing about the conven-
tional and adaptive AEB and a familiarization session with the
simulator on a dry road with high friction (µ = 1). Subsequently,
the participants drove and observed the AEB in 3 rear-end col-
lision scenarios:
r Conventional AEB, summer scenery, high friction (µ = 1).
r Conventional AEB, winter scenery, reduced friction
(µ = 0.3).
r Adaptive AEB, winter scenery, reduced friction (µ = 0.3).
Dependent measures
After each experimental block, the drivers evaluated the auto-
mated control actions of the AEB. Drivers could choose one of
these categories for evaluating the timeliness of the AEB’s reac-
tion: Appropriate, too early, or too late. Deceleration was evalu-
ated using the categories appropriate, too strong, and too weak.
In addition, the drivers rated their safety and trust in the AEB
system on a numerical scale ranging from 1 (very low) to 6 (very
high). The usefulness of the AEB was rated after each maneuver
block using the categories counterproductive, not useful, neu-
tral, and useful.
Data analysis
Chi-square tests were calculated for testing differences between
frequencies (hypotheses 1 and 3). Analysis of variance was used
to evaluate the effect of road conditions on driving with the
conventional AEB on drivers’ safety and trust in automation
(hypothesis 2). For the second hypothesis, the within-subjects
factor was the road condition (dry vs. snowy). Analysis of vari-
ance was used to evaluate the effect of AEB type on drivers’ safety
and trust in automation (hypothesis 4). For the fourth hypothe-
sis, the within-subjects factor was the type of AEB (conventional
vs. adaptive). There were 2 between-subjects factors: Age and
gender. Alpha was set at .05.
Results
Evaluation of the conventional AEB in conditions of high
and reduced friction
Significantly more drivers (99%) were of the opinion that the
conventional AEB reacted too late on snowy compared to dry
roads (54%, χ 2 = 12.08, df = 1, P < .001). Significantly fewer
drivers (18%) considered that the deceleration of the conven-
tional AEB was appropriate on snowy compared to dry roads
(73%, χ 2 = 32.29, df = 1, P < .001). In addition, significantly
fewer drivers (36%) considered the AEB useful on snowy com-
pared to dry roads (88%, χ 2 = 21.18, df = 1, P < .001). Differ-
ences between gender and age groups in the evaluation of auto-
mated control strategy of the conventional AEB did not reach a
statistical level of significance.
 TRAFFIC INJURY PREVENTION 335

a
Table . Drivers’ subjective ratings of safety and trust in the conventional and adaptive AEB.

AEB type Conventional AEB Conventional AEB Adaptive AEB

Tire–road grip High friction (µ = ) Reduced friction (µ = .) Reduced friction (µ = .)
Descriptive data M SD M SD M SD

Safety ratings
Male drivers . . . . . .
Female drivers . . . . . .
Total . . . . . .
Trust in automation
Male drivers . . . . . .
Female drivers . . . . . .
Total . . . . . .
a The scale ranged from  (very low) to  (very high).

Drivers’ safety and trust in the conventional AEB in
conditions of high and reduced friction
The results of univariate analysis of variance showed a signif-
icant effect of the road friction on drivers’ safety, F(1,85) =
220.10, P < .0001, η2 = 0.72, and trust in the conventional AEB,
F(1,85) = 92.46, P < .0001, η2 = 0.52. As the total scores in
Table 1 show, the ratings of safety and trust were lower when
using the conventional AEB on snowy compared to dry roads.
A significant difference between the gender groups emerged
when compared on the issues of safety, F(1,85) = 7.49, P < .008,
η2 = 0.08, with lower ratings for safety among female compared
to male drivers (Table 1). The distribution of safety ratings across
age and gender groups is illustrated in Figure 1. Gender dif-
ferences in trust were not of statistical significance. Differences
among the age groups in safety and trust were also not of signif-
icance.
Evaluation of the adaptive and conventional AEB in
conditions of reduced tire–road friction
In snowy road conditions, significantly fewer drivers (34%) con-
sidered that the adaptive AEB reacted too late compared to the
conventional AEB (99%, χ 2 = 30.50, df = 1, P < .001). Sig-
nificantly more drivers (88%) considered that the deceleration
of the adaptive AEB was appropriate compared to the conven-
tional AEB (18%, χ 2 = 44.45, df = 1, P < .001). In addition,
significantly more drivers (92%) considered the adaptive AEB
useful in snowy road conditions compared to the conventional
AEB (36%, χ 2 = 23.21, df = 1, P < .001). Differences between
gender and age groups in the evaluation of automated control
strategy of the adaptive and conventional AEB did not reach sta-
tistical significance.
Drivers’ safety and trust in the conventional and adaptive
AEB in conditions of reduced friction
The results of univariate analysis of variance showed a signif-
icant effect of AEB type on drivers’ safety, F(1,85) = 231.07,
P < .0001, η2 = 0.73, and trust in automation, F(1,85) = 152.42,
P < .0001, η2 = 0.64. As the total scores in Table 1 show, the
ratings of safety and trust were higher when using the adaptive
AEB compared to the conventional AEB on snowy roads. A sig-
nificant difference between genders emerged in the comparison
of safety, F(1,85) = 8.45, P < .005, η2 = 0.09, with lower ratings
for safety among females than males (Table 1). The distribution
of safety ratings across age and gender groups is illustrated in
Figure 2. Gender differences in trust and age differences in safety
and trust were not of statistical significance.
Discussion
Compared to dry conditions, winter precipitation such as snow
is associated with a 19% increase in traffic crashes and a 13%
increase in injuries (Black and Mote 2015). Adaption to the road
friction is not legally required for conventional AEB systems,
but it could significantly improve their potential to prevent col-
lisions. Human factors such as occupant’s trust and safety in
automated functions at different road conditions have to be con-
sidered for the design of adaptive functions at SAE level 3 and
above. The aim of this study was to assess drivers’ evaluations of
the automated braking actions of a conventional and an AEB
adapted to road friction with 96 drivers in a driving simula-
tor and to specify areas of improvement. Although automated
driving systems could have a higher potential for preventing
accidents on roads with reduced friction (e.g., wet, snowy, icy
surfaces), the currently available driver assistance systems are
designed to function effectively only in conditions of high fric-
tion (e.g., dry surfaces).

Figure . Mean safety ratings for the conventional AEB on dry and snowy roads. Figure . Mean safety ratings for the conventional AEB and adaptive AEB on snowy
Error bars show standard deviations. roads with reduced friction. Error bars show standard deviations.
336 I. KOGLBAUER ET AL.
The first hypothesis stating that drivers will notice that the
automated braking strategy of the conventional AEB is not
appropriate on snowy roads with reduced friction was con-
firmed. More drivers considered that the conventional AEB
applied the brakes too late and too weakly on snowy roads
(reduced friction) compared to on dry roads (high friction).
Fewer drivers considered the conventional AEB useful on snowy
roads compared to dry roads. Drivers trusted the conventional
AEB less and felt less safe with the conventional AEB on snowy
roads compared to dry roads. Therefore, the second research
hypothesis was also confirmed.
The adaptive AEB evaluated in this study considered the road
friction and applied the brakes earlier, at 1.9 s TTC. On snowy
roads, more drivers considered that the adaptive AEB was use-
ful compared to the conventional AEB. In addition, fewer drivers
considered that the adaptive AEB applied the brakes too late and
too weak on snowy roads compared to the conventional AEB.
Drivers trusted the adaptive AEB more and felt safer with the
adaptive AEB than with the conventional AEB on snowy roads.
The third and fourth research hypotheses were thus confirmed.
The conventional AEB failed to adapt its braking strategy to
snowy roads with reduced friction by braking earlier, as human
drivers generally tend to do (Kilpeläinen and Summala 2007). In
contrast, the new adaptive AEB decelerated earlier than the con-
ventional AEB on snowy roads and could better meet drivers’
expectations.
This study shows no significant age and gender differences in
the evaluation of either the conventional or the adaptive AEB in
terms of usefulness and control strategy, despite reports of age
and gender differences in the estimation of time and distance
to collision (Koglbauer 2015; Koglbauer et al. 2015), driving/
braking strategy (Kusano et al. 2015; Montgomery et al. 2014),
and in the frequency and severity of traffic accidents (Statistis-
ches Bundesamt (Federal Statistical Office of Germany) 2016;
Oltedal and Rundmo 2006; Pulido et al. 2016; Rhodes and Pivik
2011; Scott-Parker and Oviedo-Trespalacios 2017; Tavris et al.
2001). However, female drivers felt less safe than male drivers
when observing the braking reactions of the conventional AEB
and adaptive AEB.
If the AEB is intended to contribute to reducing the number
and the severity of crashes, then its braking strategy should be
adapted to the road friction and aim for collision avoidance in
all road conditions. Given that the conventional AEB’s reaction
is later than that of human drivers in an emergency situation
of an imminent crash, its contribution to preventing accidents
and reducing crash severity could be further improved. A high
priority in the AEB design process was given to the reduction of
false positive reactions (e.g., unnecessarily decelerating the vehi-
cle or decelerating too early on dry surfaces). It is assumed that
drivers would deactivate or refuse to purchase automated sys-
tems with frequent false positives. However, both the results of
this study and the European roadmap policy toward automated
driving (European Road Transport Research Advisory Council
2015) indicate that future driving strategies need to be calculated
that consider the dynamic interaction of the traffic participants
in different environmental conditions (e.g., different coefficients
of friction).
More research is necessary to understand drivers’ process-
ing of anticipated friction for redesign of the AEB. Research
findings suggest that human drivers use visual cues indicating
reduced friction (e.g., snowy surface) and adapt their driving
strategy before the kinesthetic cues signalize the reduced fric-
tion (Öberg 1978; Wallman 1997). Lex et al. (2017) showed
that drivers mainly rely on visual cues as well as the vehicle’s
response when estimating the road conditions, being able to
distinguish various categories of the road friction: Dry, wet, icy,
and snowy. Notwithstanding future challenges for the improve-
ment of adaptive automated systems, this study highlights the
potential of the AEB to prevent collisions and meet driver
expectations by including the friction in the automated control
algorithm. Taking into account that higher levels of automation
will release the driver from her or his current duty to monitor
the environment including road conditions, the importance of
ongoing research in estimation of road friction with respect
to accuracy, reliability, and robustness is emphasized from the
human factors point of view presented in this study.
In summary, past AEB systems have been frequently
investigated for their potential benefit in accident avoidance
and collision severity mitigation. However, in order to avoid
false-positive braking interventions, the braking strategy of
conventional AEB systems is designed for late braking assum-
ing high friction. This resulted in low TTC values for braking
initiation. Adaptation to road friction will be crucial for future
automated systems. This article addresses human factors that
are relevant for the design of these functions. In order to inves-
tigate the human–machine interaction of AEB systems, we
conducted a driver simulator study to compare conventional
AEB systems and AEB systems adapted to the road condition.
The experimental evaluation with 96 drivers shows that the
reported potential benefits of AEB can be further improved by
including road friction in the automated braking algorithm in
an adaptive AEB braking strategy. The study focused on human
factors in automated driving and showed a significant increase
in drivers’ perceived safety, trust, and usefulness of the AEB.
Female drivers felt less safe than male drivers when observing
the AEB, but gender differences in the evaluation of the AEB
control strategy did not reach statistical significance. Different
levels of perceived safety and trust in the AEB can affect traffic
injury prevention. If drivers perceive the AEB as not useful or
not safe or trustworthy, they may not purchase it for their car or
they may deactivate it. Thus, they would decide against a safety
system that may not be effective in avoiding a vehicle collision
but could diminish the impact forces and occupant injury in case
of a crash. We expect that awareness about both the perceived
and objective limitations of the nonadaptive AEB on roads with
reduced friction will motivate the development and implemen-
tation of an adaptive AEB in due time. An adaptive AEB will
have greater potential to prevent traffic crashes and injuries.
Funding
This work was financially supported by the Austrian Federal Ministry for
Transportation, Innovation and Technology, the Austrian Research Promo-
tion Agency, FEMtech Program “Talents,” Grant No. 3413253. The funders
had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish,
or preparation of the article.
ORCID
Ioana Koglbauer http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1682-6304

References
Andrey J, Mills B, Leahy M, Suggett J. Weather as a chronic hazard for road
transportation in Canadian cities. Na Hazards. 2003;28:319–343.
Black AW, Mote TL. Effects of winter precipitation on automobile collisions,
injuries and fatalities in the United States. J Transp Geogr. 2015;48:165–
175.
Brookhuis KA, De Waard D, Janssen WH. Behavioural impacts of advanced
driver assistance systems—an overview. European Journal of Transport
and Infrastructure Research. 2001;1(3):245–253.
Eichberger A, Tomasch E, Rohm R, Steffan H, Hirschberg W. Detailed anal-
ysis of the benefit of different traffic safety systems in fatal accidents.
Paper presented at: 19th Annual EVU Congress; 2010.
Eisenberg D, Warner KE. Effects of snowfalls on motor vehicle collisions,
injuries, and fatalities. Am J Public Health. 2005;95:120–124.
Euro NCAP. Assessment Protocol—Safety Assist. Version 7.0. 2015. Avail-
able at: http://www.euroncap.com/en/for-engineers/protocols/safety-
assist/. Accessed November 28, 2016.
European Commission. Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area—
Towards a Competitive and Resource Efficient Transport System. Brus-
sels, Belgium: Office for Official Publications of the European Commis-
sion; 2011. White Paper COM.
European Road Transport Research Advisory Council. Automated Driv-
ing Roadmap. 2015. Available at: http://www.ertrac.org/uploads/
documentsearch/id38/ERTRAC_Automated-Driving-2015.pdf.
Accessed October 3, 2016.
Fildes B, Keall M, Bos N, et al. Effectiveness of low speed autonomous
emergency braking in real-world rear-end crashes. Accid Anal Prev.
2015;81:24–29.
Gustafsson F. Slip-based tire–road friction estimation. Automatica.
1997;33:1087–1099.
Hancock PA, Kane MJ, Scallen S, Albinson CB. Effects of gender and athletic
participation on driving capability. Int J Occup Saf Ergon. 2002;8:281–
292.
Khattak AJ, Knapp KK. Snow event effects on interstate highway crashes.
Journal of Cold Regions Engineering. 2001;15(4):219–229.
Kidd DG, Cicchino JB, Reagan IJ, Kerfoot LB. Driver trust in five driver
assistance technologies following real-world use in four production
vehicles. Traffic Inj Prev. 2017;18(Suppl 1):S44–S50.
Kilpeläinen M, Summala H. Effects of weather and weather forecasts
on driver behaviour. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav.
2007;10(4):288–299.
Koglbauer I. Gender differences in time perception. In: Hoffman R, Han-
cock PA, Scerbo M, Parasuraman R, Szalma JL, eds. The Cambridge
Handbook of Applied Perception Research. New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press; 2015:1004–1028.
Koglbauer I, Eichberger A, Lex C, et al. Bewertung von Fahrerassis-
tenzsystemen von nicht professionellen Fahrerinnen und Fahrern
im Realversuch. In: Chaloupka-Risser C, ed. In Motion (5) Human-
wissenschaftliche Beiträge zur Sicherheit und Ökologie des Verkehrs.
Salzburg, Austria: Institut für Nachschulung und Fahrer-Rehabilitation
[Institute for retraining and driver rehabilitation] (INFAR); 2015:59–
70.
Koglbauer I, Holzinger J, Eichberger A, Lex C. Drivers’ interaction with the
adaptive cruise control on dry and snowy roads with various tire–road
grip potentials. Journal of Advanced Transportation. 2017;2017:1–10.
Kusano KD, Chen R, Montgomery J, Gabler HC. Population distributions
of time to collision at brake application during car following from nat-
uralistic driving data. J Safety Res. 2015;54:95–104.
Lee JD, See KA. Trust in automation: designing for appropriate reliance.
Hum Factors. 2004;46:50–80.
Lex C. Estimation of the Maximum Coefficient of Friction between Tire and
Road Based on Vehicle State Measurements [Dissertation thesis]. Graz,
Austria: Graz University of Technology; 2015.
Lex C, Eichberger A, Koglbauer I. Road condition estimation for automated
driving considering drivers’ acceptance. Paper presented at: 2nd IAVSD
Workshop on Dynamics of Road Vehicles; March 29–31. 2017; Berlin.
Lex C, Rojas Rojas AE, Niederkofler H, Eichberger A. Evaluation of
the potential of active powertrain, braking and steering systems
based on in wheel motors to improve the effectiveness of an evasive
manoeuvre assistant. International Journal of Powertrains. 2013;2(2/3):
132–152.
TRAFFIC INJURY PREVENTION 337
Li X, Yan X, Wu J, Radwan E, Zhang Y. A rear-end collision risk assessment
model based on drivers’ collision avoidance process under influences
of cell phone use and gender—a driving simulator based study. Accid
Anal Prev. 2016;97:1–18.
Montgomery J, Kusano KD, Gabler HC. Age and gender differences in time
to collision at braking from the 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study.
Traffic Inj Prev. 2014;15:15–20.
Morgan A, Mannering FL. The effects of road-surface conditions, age,
and gender on driver-injury severities. Accid Anal Prev. 2011;43:1852–
1863.
Myers AM, Trang A, Crizzle AM. Naturalistic study of winter driving prac-
tices by older men and women: examination of weather, road condi-
tions, trip purposes, and comfort. Can J Aging. 2011;30:577–589.
National Research Council. Where the Weather Meets the Road. Washing-
ton, DC: National Academies Press; 2004.
Niederkofler H, Lex C, Eichberger A, Rojas Rojas AE. Potentialanalyse
von aktiven Fahrwerks- und Antriebssystemen für die Anwendung
in Fahrerassistenzsystemen in kritischen Fahrsituationen. Paper pre-
sented at: 13th Internationale VDI-Tagung Reifen Fahrwerk Fahrbahn
International VDI conference “Tyres - Suspension - Track; October,
25–26, 2011; Hanover, Germany.
Öberg G. Effekter av Sandning [Effect of sanding]. Linköping, Sweden:
National Road & Traffic Research Institute; 1978. VTI Rapport No. 164.
Oltedal S, Rundmo T. The effects of personality and gender on risky driving
behaviour and accident involvement. Saf Sci. 2006;44:621–628.
Parasuraman R, Riley V. Humans and automation: use, misuse, disuse,
abuse. Hum Factors. 1997;39:230–253.
Pulido J, Barrio G, Hoyos J, et al. The role of exposure on differences in
driver death rates by gender and age: results of a quasi-induced method
on crash data in Spain. Accid Anal Prev. 2016;94:162–167.
Rhodes N, Pivik K. Age and gender differences in risky driving: the roles of
positive affect and risk perception. Accid Anal Prev. 2011;43:923–931.
Rosén E, Källhammer JE, Eriksson D, Nentwich M, Fredriksson R, Smith K.
Pedestrian injury mitigation by autonomous braking. Accid Anal Prev.
2010;42:1949–1957.
SAE International. Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to On-road
Motor Vehicle Automated Driving Systems. Warrendale, PA: Author;
2014. Technical Standard No. J3016_201401.
Scott-Parker B, Oviedo-Trespalacios O. Young driver risky behaviour and
predictors of crash risk in Australia, New Zealand and Colombia: same
but different? Accid Anal Prev. 2017;99:30–38.
Shankar V, Mannering F, Barfield W. Effect of roadway geometrics and
environmental-factors on rural freeway accident frequencies. Accid
Anal Prev. 1995;27:371–389.
Shen S, Neyens DM. Assessing drivers’ performance when automated driver
support systems fail with different levels of automation. Proc Hum Fac-
tors Ergon Soc Annu Meet. 2014;58:2068–2072.
Statistisches Bundesamt (Federal Statistical Office of Germany).
Verkehrsunfälle. Unfälle von Frauen und Männern im Straßenverkehr
2015. Wiesbaden, Germany: Statistisches Bundesamt Wiesbaden,
Deutschland; 2016. F8 R7 2080700117004.
Tavris DR, Kuhn EM, Layde PM. Age and gender patterns in motor vehicle
crash injuries: importance of type of crash and occupant role. Accid
Anal Prev. 2001;33:167–172.
Ulfarsson G, Mannering FL. Differences in male and female injury severities
in sport-utility vehicle, minivan, pickup and passenger car accidents.
Accid Anal Prev. 2004;36:135–147.
U.S. Department of Transportation. Federal Automated Vehicles Policy.
Accelerating the Next Revolution in Roadway Safety. 2016. Available
at: http://www.nhtsa.gov/nhtsa/av/av-policy.html. Accessed October 3,
2016.
Van Driel CJG, Hoedemaeker M, Van Arem B. Impacts of a congestion
assistant on driving behavior and acceptance using a driving simula-
tor. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav. 2007;10:139–152.
Wallman C-G. Driver Behavior on Winter Roads. Linköping, Sweden:
Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute; 1997. VTI
Rapport 419A-1997.
World Health Organization. Global Status Report on Road Safety. Geneva,
Switzerland: Author; 2015.
Xiong H, Boyle LN. Drivers’ adaptation to adaptive cruise control: exami-
nation of automatic and manual braking. IEEE Trans Intell Transp Syst.
2012;13:1468–1473.