Journal of Safety Research 80 (2022) 416–427

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Safety Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jsr

An improved automated braking system for rear-end collisions: A study

based on a driving simulator experiment
Junyu Hang a, Xuedong Yan a,⇑, Xiaomeng Li b, Ke Duan a, Jingsi Yang c, Qingwan Xue d
a
MOT Key Laboratory of Transport Industry of Big Data Application Technologies for Comprehensive Transport, School of Traffic and Transportation, Beijing Jiaotong University,
Beijing 100044, PR China
b
Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety-Queensland (CARRS-Q), Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation (IHBI), Kelvin
Grove, Queensland 4059, Australia
c
CRSC Communication & Information Group Company Ltd., Beijing 100070, PR China
d
Beijing Key Laboratory of Urban Intelligent Traffic Control Technology, North China University of Technology, Beijing 100144, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Introduction: To assist drivers in avoiding rear-end collisions, many early warning systems have been
Received 27 May 2021 developed up to date. Autonomous braking technology is also used as the last defense to ensure driver’s
Received in revised form 6 August 2021 safety. Method: By taking the accuracy and timeliness of automatic system control into account, this paper
Accepted 19 December 2021
proposes a rear-end Real-Time Autonomous Emergency Braking (RTAEB) system. The system inserts brake
Available online 29 December 2021
intervention based on drivers’ real-time conflict identification and collision avoidance performance. A
driving simulator-based experiment under different traffic conditions and deceleration scenarios were
Keywords:
conducted to test the different thresholds to trigger intervention and the intervention outcomes. The sys-
Rear-end collision
AEB
tem effectiveness is verified by four evaluation indexes, including collision avoidance rate, accuracy rate,
Driving simulator sensitivity rate, and precision rate. Results: The results showed that the system could help avoid all colli-
Collision avoidance sion events successfully and enlarge the final headway distance, and a TTC threshold of 1.5 s and a max-
imum deceleration threshold of
7.5 m/s2 could achieve the best collision avoidance effect. The paper
demonstrates the situations that are more inclined to trigger the RTAEB (i.e., a sudden brake of the leading
vehicle and a small car-following distance). Moreover, the study shows that driver characteristics (i.e.,
gender and profession) have no significant association with system trigger. Practical Applications: The
study suggests that development of collision avoidance systems design should pay attention to both
the real-time traffic situation and drivers’ collision avoidance capability under the present situation.
Ó 2021 National Safety Council and Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction result in rear-end collisions. Statistical and experimental crash

Rear-end collision is one of the most frequent collisions on the
road compared with other types of collisions. According to the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA, US), there
were 696,372 injured/fatal rear-end collisions in 2016, accounting
for 45.87% of the total rear-end collisions (NHTSA, 2016). The rear-
end collision avoidance process is dynamic and composed of risk
recognition, decision-making, and vehicle operation. A complete
rear-end collision avoidance process includes braking response
stage, deceleration adjustment stage, maximum deceleration
maintaining stage, and recover stage (Li et al., 2016; Xue et al.,
2018). Any judgments or behavior errors in these stages could
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: 18114033@bjtu.edu.cn (J. Hang), xdyan@bjtu.edu.cn (X. Yan),
xiaomeng.li@qut.edu.au (X. Li), 17114231@bjtu.edu.cn (K. Duan), 15114234@bjtu.
edu.cn (J. Yang), qwxue@ncut.edu.cn (Q. Xue).
data analysis showed that the common reasons related to rear-
end collisions are drivers’ inattentive driving (Li et al., 2016,
2019), inadequate headways (Winsum & Heino, 1996; You et al.,
2013), and late response to the leading vehicle’s deceleration
(Sheu & Wu, 2015; Wood & Zhang, 2017).
In recent years, autonomous driving or assistant driving tech-
nologies have rapidly developed and they are expected to elimi-
nate human errors and, consequently, reduce traffic accidents.
Autonomous driving systems are divided into 6 levels (Level 0–5)
and the highest level (Level 5) will achieve the ultimate goal of
self-driving without any control input from human drivers (Kala
& Warwick, 2013; Wenda & Dolan, 2012; Ziegler et al., 2014). Prior
to the launch of fully autonomous vehicles, much effort has been
dedicated to developing and improving various driver assistance
technologies, such as the Collision Avoidance Systems (CASs)
including Collision Warning Systems (CWSs), Autonomous Emer-
gency Braking Systems (AEBs), and Lane-departure Systems. These

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2021.12.023
0022-4375/Ó 2021 National Safety Council and Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J. Hang, X. Yan, X. Li et al.
systems are assembled inside the vehicles and capable of providing
drivers with warnings in advance and even assist the vehicle con-
trol at safety–critical situations.
1.1. Collision warning systems (CWSs)
In the case of an impending rear-end situation, the key to avoid
a collision is that the driver recognizes the leading vehicle’s brake
or the gap reduced between vehicles, and takes proper and timely
actions (i.e., braking or lane-changing). To remind drivers of the
imminent danger, Collision Warning Systems (CWSs) are designed
to provide precise warning information. Previous research showed
that the release of warning messages could effectively reduce the
collision rate (Lee et al., 2002; Wu et al., 2018a; Xiang et al.,
2016). This reduction was achieved by shortening driver’s reaction
time, decreasing driving speed, and increasing the brake force
(Haas & Van Erp, 2014; Mohebbi et al., 2009; Wu et al., 2018b;
Zhu et al., 2020). The effectiveness of CWSs has been verified in dif-
ferent scenarios, such as intersections and work-zone related area
(Chang et al., 2009; Qiao et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2016, 2018).
1.2. Autonomous emergency braking systems (AEBs)
In addition to the warning systems, some automobile manufac-
turers have developed collision avoidance systems to help drivers
take evasive actions (Doi, 1994; Fujita, 1995). Among the various
collision avoidance systems, Rear-end Collision Avoidance Systems
(e.g., AEBs) is the most frequently used one (Braitman et al., 2010).
According to Cicchino (2017), low-speed AEB systems could reduce
rear-end crash rates and rear-end injury crash rates to 43% and
45%, respectively. Different from the CWSs, the AEB systems are
applied to intervene in the vehicle control, which is usually acti-
vated when the risk threshold is less than a safety margin in critical
situations. The millimeter-wave radar and/or video cameras are
usually used to track the moving vehicles in front of the AEB-
equipped vehicle (Brannstrom & Sjoberg, 2008; Fildes et al.,
2015; Kusano & Gabler, 2010). Once the driver does not respond
to the emergent situations, the AEB system will automatically
apply a specific deceleration to avoid the collisions.
AEB system is used to reduce the risk of common rear-end col-
lision scenarios. However, due to the lack of vehicle dynamics data
in real-world driving situations with and without the activation of
AEB system, it is challenging to evaluate the performance of AEB in
collision avoidance. At present, the traditional AEB system is acti-
vated by comparing the real-time TTC with pre-designed TTC
threshold. For example, in the study of Kusano and Gabler (2010,
2012), the TTC threshold of 0.45 s was identified as an optimal
value for triggering AEB system. Duan et al. (2017) further intro-
duced a response time (Tb) to measure whether the AEB was
needed based on driver’s behavior characteristics.
In these studies, the deceleration rate required by the driver
was calculated using two methods. The first method calculated
the deceleration pulse at fixed jerk and maximum deceleration
by using the momentum conservation theorem or kinematics rela-
tionship according to the relative speed and position relationship
of the drivers when specific TTC was reached (Duan et al., 2017;
Kusano & Gabler, 2010, 2012). This method used idealized AEB
deceleration profiles for analysis, which is lack of the driver’s real
reflection in the deceleration process. The second method used
the counterfactual algorithm to deduce the conditions that should
trigger the AEB system from the historical collision data (Bargman
et al., 2017; Seacrist et al., 2020). However, most of the above
methods are based on the historical accident data (such as reports
from the police or insurance companies) and due to the lack of real
vehicle dynamics data, it is difficult to verify the results correlated
to the actual driving scenarios.
417
Journal of Safety Research 80 (2022) 416–427
1.3. Key parameters of CWSs and AEBs
Overall, the above-mentioned approaches of rear-end CASs
have been confirmed with significant effects in improving the dri-
ver safety. However, when designing the algorithms of rear-end
CWSs and AEBs, most previous research tended to ignore the indi-
vidual difference among drivers and used fixed values for key
parameters such as deceleration rate or TTC (Bella & Russo, 2011;
Ho et al., 2006; Jeong et al., 2017; Scott & Gray, 2008; Wu et al.,
2018a; Zavareh et al., 2017). For instance, Kusano and Gabler
(2012) set 1.2 s as the warning delivered time, 0.8 s as the brake
assist delivered time, and 0.45 s as the autonomous braking time,
and limited the maximum deceleration rate to 0.8 g.
A review on the related literature showed that TTC threshold as a
safety indicator, played a critical role in assessing rear-end collision
risks and influencing the collision avoidance outcomes (Li et al.,
2018; Weng et al., 2015). Generally, a smaller TTC threshold repre-
sents a higher risk assessment accuracy but it also increases the
crash risks. On the contrary, a larger TTC value allows for a longer
collision avoidance time but it may lead to an increase in false alarm
rate. Therefore, it is necessary to adjust the threshold range of risk
indicators according to different situations. It should be noted that
some studies did consider some of the key parameters as variables
in the process of vehicle braking. For example, Seacrist et al. (2020)
applied a deceleration rate varying with time, and the operating
principle of the AEB system was used to estimate the deceleration
based on different road frictions. Nevertheless, drivers’ individual
differences and dynamic response that may lead to changes in the
parameters (such as their response abilities toward different situa-
tions) are still largely ignored in prior studies.
Drivers’ reaction time to a rear-end collision is one of the key
parameters that may change according to situations (Aust et al.,
2013; Li et al., 2016; Liebermann et al., 1995; Wang et al., 2016;
Xue et al., 2018). Liebermann et al. (1995) reported that drivers
reacted faster when the following distance got shorter. Especially
in urgent situations (e.g., small TTC), drivers tended to release
the accelerator and braked more quickly. Hulst and Der (1999) fur-
ther found that drivers could adjust their reaction time to the
deceleration level of the leading vehicle. Wang et al. (2016) tested
the effect of situational urgency on driver’s rear-end collision
avoidance behaviors and reported that an increased situational
urgency could lead to a faster deceleration. Given the varied driver
response in different situations, the collision avoidance systems
should take driver’s real-time response into account when evaluat-
ing the situation and making the decisions of warning or autono-
mous control.
1.4. Application of driving simulators
Driving behavior research based on driving simulators has been
a great contributor to the field of road safety. First, the driving sim-
ulator can depict human behavior in real time to the greatest
extent, and collect human driving behavior in a near real environ-
ment, such as car following (Li et al., 2019; Sheu & Wu, 2015), lane
changing (Hess et al., 2020), and gap acceptance (Li et al., 2020).
Secondly, driving simulators provide the opportunity to test differ-
ent driving conditions in a controlled and safe environment. Some
high-risk scenarios cannot be reproduced and tested in the real
world. The driving simulator can test the risky scenarios without
causing actual collision risk, such as distraction (Li et al., 2019;
Muttart et al., 2007; Navarro et al., 2017), adverse weather (Li
et al., 2015; Mcavoy et al., 2007; Yan et al., 2014; Zhao et al.,
2019), and fatigue driving (Meng et al., 2019). Third, the driving
simulator can also provide a low-cost, high-efficiency, and repeat-
able environment for researchers to develop and test new inter-
ventions, such as the improvement of road auxiliaries (Hang
J. Hang, X. Yan, X. Li et al.
et al., 2018; Ma & Yan, 2021) and new driver assistance technolo-
gies (Calvi et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2021)
The limitations of driving simulators should also be recognized.
First of all, driving simulators may cause motion sickness of partic-
_
ipants (Almallah et al., 2021; Duzmańska et al., 2018); thus, it is
necessary to select drivers who are suitable to operate the driving
simulator. Moreover, the validation of driving simulators is impor-
tant, mainly to ensure the data collected from a driving simulator
is comparable to the real world. At present, many studies have ver-
ified the authenticity of driving simulators at both subjective and
objective levels (e.g. Bella, 2005; Bham et al., 2014; Hussain
et al., 2019). For example, Rossi et al. (2020) compared driver’s
gap acceptance behavior through both field observations and driv-
ing simulator, and found that the mean critical gaps estimated in
the field and in the virtual environment are not significantly differ-
ent, confirming the consistency of behaviors in a simulator and in
the real world. Hussain et al. (2019) validated a fixed-base driving
simulator by comparing drivers’ speed perception and actual
speed, and the results showed the effectiveness of a fixed-base
driving simulator in speed assessment. Therefore, the commonly
recognized relative validity of driving simulators suggests that
they can be used as a valuable tool to evaluate driver’s behavior,
especially in risky situations.
1.5. Objective of this study
To take into account drivers’ dynamic response to a rear-end
collision situation, this study proposed a new framework of the
real-time Autonomous Emergency Braking (RTAEB) System. The
algorithm of the RTAEB was designed based on the principle of
existing ones. However, the proposed framework differentiated
from previous research by validating the combination of different
TTC and maximum deceleration thresholds under various condi-
tions, and considering the individual’s risk responding capabilities
in real time. To obtain the complete vehicle dynamics data during
the collision avoidance process, a driving simulator experiment
was conducted and the collected data was used to verify the effec-
tiveness of the system. As the proposed AEBs considers the driver’s
real-time response to an evolving risk situation, it is expected that
the AEBs could, to a large extent, avoid unnecessary intervention
and reduce the discrepancy between drivers’ expectation and the
system’s intervention in safety–critical situations. Specifically, this
study aimed to address the following research questions:
(1) What are the key situation indicators of rear-end collisions
and how do they influence the RTAEB system activation?
(2) How do the drivers’ real-time responses influence the RTAEB
system activation?
(3) What are the effects of RTAEB system on the collision avoid-
ance process and outcomes?
The paper is organized in the following sequence: Section 2
describes the technical framework design of the RTAEB and the
design of driving simulator experiment. Section 3 demonstrates
the experimental results and the system effectiveness. Section 4
presents the interpretations and discussions of the results. Sec-
tion 5 concludes the implications of the proposed RTAEB frame-
work and future study directions.
2. Methodology
The methodology framework of this study was shown in Fig. 1.
The framework of RTAEB system was designed considering differ-
ent key parameters, such as TTCth, amf(ti), amax. In light of the defect
of historical data, a driving simulator experiment was conducted to
418
Journal of Safety Research 80 (2022) 416–427
collect driver’s real time data and vehicle dynamic data. Combining
the RTAEB system algorithm with experimental data, a counterfac-
tual simulation method was used to evaluate the system effective-
ness. The counterfactual simulation algorithm assumed that RTAEB
system would intervene in the vehicle control when the risk
increased to a certain level and the driver did not take timely
and appropriate action. Based on the simulation results, collision
avoidance rate (CAR), accuracy rate (AR), sensitivity rate (SR),
and precision rate (PR) of AEB system were assessed under various
conditions. In addition, the vehicle dynamic data were compared
between driver control and RTAEB system control.
2.1. Framework design of the real-time autonomous Emergency
braking (RTAEB) system
The RTAEB system proposed in this study consists of risk
recognition function and collision avoidance function in a car-
following situation and the execution procedure is shown in
Fig. 2. During the collision avoidance process, which starts from
the leading vehicle’s (LV’s) deceleration and ends as the subject
(following) vehicle (SV) completes deceleration, the system mon-
itors the speed and the headway distance of the two vehicles at a
frequency of 60 Hz.
2.1.1. Risk recognition
After entering the work zone area, the system detects the vehi-
cles’ speed and position (including leading and subject vehicles) in
real-time. The conflict is recognized to appear if the speed of the
following vehicle is higher than that of the leading vehicle, and
the distance between the two vehicles is smaller than a normal
car-following distance margin. In this study, we considered a time
headway of 4 s as the normal car-following distance margin
(Lewis-Evans et al., 2010; Siebert et al., 2014).
As the conflict appears, TTC (Time-to-Collision) is monitored as
the risk indicator. Smaller TTC values indicate higher collision risk
and vice versa. A threshold value of TTC is usually applied to distin-
guish the safe zone and critical zone boundary. In the risk recogni-
tion stage, hazards could be identified earlier if a larger TTC
threshold is used, but it may also increase the likelihood of false
alarms. In contrast, a smaller TTC threshold corresponds to a more
accurate risk recognition but it may increase the possibility of late
intervention and failed collision avoidance. Prior research has
applied TTC threshold in CASs within a range of 0.5 s
3 s (Bella
& Russo, 2011; Benedetto et al., 2015; Lee et al., 2002). In this
study, a series of TTC thresholds (i.e., 0.5 s, 1 s, 1.5 s, 2 s, 2.5 s,
3 s) will be used to test the trade-off between false alarm rate
and successful intervention rate under different situations. Once
the real-time TTC value is smaller than the TTC thresholds, it is
regarded as the emergence of danger situation and the collision
avoidance process will be switched on.
2.1.2. Collision avoidance
The collision avoidance function will be triggered depending
on whether the drivers’ real-time response is sufficient or not.
Once the actual TTC between the two vehicles drops below the
preset TTC threshold, the system calculates the required deceler-
ation rate (amf(ti)) based on the following algorithm using the
real-time speed, headway distance, and leading vehicle’s deceler-
ation rate.
The driving distance of leading and following vehicle within the
time interval (ti, tf) could be calculated through Eqs. (1) and (2).
R tf  R tf     
xl ðu; tÞ ¼ ti
v l ðt i Þ þ ti
al ðt i Þdu dt u 2 ti ; tf ; t 2 ti ; tf ð1Þ
R tf  R tf     
xf ðu; t Þ ¼ ti
v f ðt i Þ þ ti
amf ðt i Þdu dt u 2 ti ; tf ; t 2 ti ; tf ð2Þ
J. Hang, X. Yan, X. Li et al.
Fig. 1. Methodology framework.
Fig. 2. The procedure of RTAEB system.
where xl(u,t) is the driving distance of the leading vehicle; xf(u,t) is
the driving distance of the following vehicle; ti is the start time of
the collision avoidance process; tf is the end time of the process; vl(-
ti) is the leading vehicle’s speed at time ti; vf(ti) is the following
vehicle’s speed at time ti; amf(ti) is the following vehicle’s required
deceleration rate at time ti; al(ti) is the leading vehicle’s decelera-
tion rate at time ti.
It should be noted that tf is an unknown variable in the calcula-
tion of xl(u,t) and xf(u,t) as it will be determined by the system
algorithm according to the definition of the end of collision avoid-
ance. It was defined that a successful collision avoidance ends as
speed of the following vehicle reduces to the same as that of the
leading vehicle, and the two vehicles maintain the required safety
clearance distance, as shown in Eqs. (3) and (4).
 
D t f ¼ Lv
   
vl tf ¼ v f tf
where D(tf) is the headway distance between leading and following
vehicle at time tf; vl(tf) is the leading vehicle’s speed at time tf; vf(tf)
is the following vehicle’s speed at time tf; Lv is the safety clearance
distance set in the algorithm.
Then, the value of time interval Dt could be calculated through
the following Eq. (5):
   
Dt ¼ t f
t i ¼ v l ðti Þ
v f ðti Þ= amf ðt i Þ
al ðt i Þ
Based on the positional relationship between the leading and
following vehicle during the collision avoidance process, amf(ti)
can be obtained through Eqs. (6) and (7).
Lv
Dðt i Þ ¼ xl ðu; t Þ
xf ðu; tÞ
Journal of Safety Research 80 (2022) 416–427
 2
amf ðti Þ ¼ al ðt i Þ þ 0:5  v f ðti Þ
v l ðti Þ =ðLv
Dðti ÞÞ ð7Þ
where D(ti) is the headway distance between leading and following
vehicle at time ti.
Through comparing the value of actual deceleration apf(ti) and
required deceleration amf(ti) calculated from Eqs. (1)–(7), the con-
trol mode to be triggered can be determined. However, as a sudden
hard brake could lead to driver discomfort and even cause driver
injury, a maximum acceptable deceleration value was considered
to avoid an unrealistic amf(ti), which was represented as amax.
Therefore, the modified value of amf(ti) could be obtained in the fol-
lowing equation:
 
amf ðti Þ ¼ min amf ðt i Þ; amax ð8Þ
ð3Þ It should be noted that the maximum deceleration rate varies
according to road surface conditions, with the value higher on
ð4Þ dry roads and lower on icy roads (Chen et al., 2017; Seacrist
et al., 2020). The braking capacity of vehicles equipped with Antil-
ock Brake System (ABS) was also enhanced by increasing road
adhesion (Kudarauskas, 2007; Vangi & Virga, 2007). Since the max-
imum acceptable deceleration correlates to the system triggering, a
range of values (i.e.,
7,
7.5,
8,
8.5 and
9m/s2) were chosen
according to the empirical values applied in the above studies.
Based on Eqs. (1)–(8), the required deceleration rate amf(ti) is
ð5Þ calculated in real-time once a conflict is identified. In the cases
when the situation is under control by the driver, which means
the driver takes an equivalent or larger deceleration rate than
the calculated value (apf(ti)  amf(ti)), the collision avoidance func-
tion will not be activated. In the other cases (apf(ti) > amf(ti)), the
ð6Þ collision avoidance function will be activated to help driver achieve
the modified required deceleration amf(ti) and avoid the collision.
419
J. Hang, X. Yan, X. Li et al. Journal of Safety Research 80 (2022) 416–427

2.2. Driving simulator experiment
2.2.1. Scenario design
The study designed a typical car-following scenario on a two-
way, two-lane sub-urban road with the speed limit of 70 km/h.
As drivers’ behavior and safety in a car-following scenario were
correlated with the traffic situation, especially the leading vehicle’s
maneuver, different levels of traffic density and deceleration rates
of the leading vehicle were designed. The traffic density was repre-
sented by the operating speed of the surrounding vehicles and it
included three levels: low density/speed (5–30 km/h), mid den-
sity/speed (30–50 km/h), and high density/speed (40–70 km/h),
as shown in Fig. 3. Fig. 3 also shows the speed profile of the leading
vehicle in the three density/speed conditions. Specifically, in each
drive the leading vehicle had three acceleration stages (with the
acceleration rate of 0.5 m/s2, 1 m/s2 and 1.5 m/s2), three decelera-
tion stages (with the deceleration rate of 2 m/s2, 4 m/s2 and 6 m/
s2) and five constant speed driving stages.
2.2.2. Participants and apparatus
This study recruited 46 participants including 24 males (12 pro-
fessional drivers and 12 non-professional drivers) and 22 females
(10 professional drivers and 12 non-professional drivers), and all
of them completed the experiment successfully. The professional
drivers were full-time taxi drivers, and the non-professional
drivers were other occupations who often drove for commute. Each
participant held a valid driver’s license and had at least 3 years of
driving experience. Each participant held a valid driver’s license
and had at least 3 years of driving experience. The age of them ran-
ged from 30 to 40 years old with an average of 33 years old and
3 years of standard deviation. As age was identified as an impor-
tant factor of driving behavior (Lambert-Belanger et al., 2012;
Pitta et al., 2021; Zafian et al., 2021), the study used a strict age
range to collect a homogeneous sample with relatively mature
and stable driving performance.
The study used the BJTU driving simulator located at the Beijing
Jiaotong University (see Fig. 4). It is a high-performance, high-
fidelity driving simulator produced by the Real-time Technologies
Inc. in the United States. It has 300° horizontal field of view with
scenarios displayed in 8 channels (five forward views and three
rear view mirrors) at a resolution of 1400  1050 pixels. A full-
size fixed-based vehicle cabin (Ford Focus) is equipped with com-
plete operational interface as a real-vehicle, including steering
wheel, brake pedal, gas pedal, dashboard, gear, rear-view mirrors,
and so forth. Meanwhile, an environmental noise simulation sys-
tem and a vehicle vibration simulation system are also included
in this simulator to simulate the real driving environment. The
SimCreator and SimVista software is used for designing the sce-
nario and vehicle dynamic model. The simulator collects data at
a sampling rate of 60 Hz during the experiment.

 (a) Low driving speed (5-30 km/h)

Deceleration Deceleration
sensor 3 Deceleration
 Deceleration sensor 2:
sensor 3:
Vl (km / h)

sensor 1: al=-4m/s 2
al=-6m/s 2
al=-2m/s 2


L 



    W V
(b) Mid driving speed (30-50 km/h)
 Deceleration
Deceleration Deceleration sensor 2: Deceleration
sensor 2 sensor 1: al=-2m/s 2 sensor 3:
 al=-6m/s 2
Vl (km / h)

al=-4m/s 2


L 


 W
   W V
Deceleration
sensor 1
Leading
(c) High driving speed (40-70 km/h)

L vehicle  Deceleration
 sensor 3:
Vl (km / h)

al=-6m/s 2
Subject 
S vehicle Deceleration
Deceleration
sensor 2:
sensor 1:
 al=-2m/s 2
al=-4m/s 2
 W
   W V

Fig. 3. Experimental scenario and speed and deceleration rate of leading vehicle.

420
J. Hang, X. Yan, X. Li et al.
Fig. 4. Illustration of the driving simulator.
2.2.3. Experiment procedure
Upon arrival, each participant read and signed an informed con-
sent form (per IRB). They were briefly introduced about the exper-
iment and advised to drive as they normally would in a real-life
situation. Before the formal test, each participant drove the simu-
lator for about 5 min to get familiar with the operations such as
acceleration, deceleration, and turning. Moreover, participants
were advised that they could quit the experiment at any time in
case of motion sickness or any discomfort.
During the formal test, each participant drove three scenarios
corresponding to the three speed profiles of the leading vehicle
as shown in Fig. 3. The order of three scenarios were counterbal-
anced among all the participants. As the leading vehicle deceler-
ated three times at different deceleration rates in each scenario,
each participant would encounter 3  3 times of rear-end collision
avoidance events in total. Between each two scenarios, the partic-
ipant took a rest for about 5 min, and the entire experiment took
about 1 h to complete. Each participant was asked to finish a ques-
tionnaire regarding the validity of the driving simulator and driv-
ing scenario after all the formal tests. Six questions were
included in the questionnaire (i.e., four ratings of the driving sim-
ulator operation: overall performance, accelerator, brake, and
steering wheel control) and two ratings of the driving environment
(i.e., other vehicles and buildings) on a five-point Likert scale. After
completing the experiment, each participant received 100 RMB
(about 15 USD) as a compensation for their participation.
2.3. System evaluation indexes and key variables
The proposed system algorithm were performed on the col-
lected samples data. If the system determines that driver’s deceler-
ation is insufficient, the sample data was divided into trigger
group. Otherwise, the sample data was divided into non-trigger
group. The relationships between the system control states and
collision outcomes is shown in Table 1.
Table 1
System effectiveness indexes.
System control Collision outcome
Collision Non-collision
Trigger True activation False activation
(TA) (Inaccurate judgment) (FA)
Non-trigger False inactivation True inactivation
(Missing judgment) (FN) (TN)
421
Journal of Safety Research 80 (2022) 416–427
Based on the classification listed in Table 1, four indexes includ-
ing collision avoidance rate (CAR), accuracy rate (AR), sensitivity
rate (SR) and precision rate (PR) were calculated to evaluate the
system effectiveness in different conditions. Definitions of the four
indexes are listed as below. The indexes will be compared under
different TTC and amax thresholds.
(1) Collision avoidance rate (CAR): ratio of successful collision
avoidance samples (STS) in all true activation samples. Note
that not all samples under correct intervention successfully
avoided the collisions due to the smaller TTC thresholds or
other reasons. Thus, CAR reflects whether the system could
help avoid collisions successfully.
CAR ¼ STS=TA  100%
(2) Accuracy rate (AR): ratio of true activation samples and true
inactivation samples in all samples, reflecting the system
accuracy in judging the safety–critical situations.
AR ¼ ðTA þ TN Þ=ðTA þ FN þ FA þ TNÞ  100%
(3) Sensitivity rate (SR): ratio of true activation samples in all
activation-required samples (i.e. collision samples).
SR ¼ TA=ðTA þ FNÞ  100%
(4) Precision rate (PR): ratio of true activation samples in all
triggered samples.
PR ¼ TA=ðTA þ FAÞ  100%
Apart from the system evaluation indexes, the situational indi-
cators and driver behavioral indicators were also extracted from
the raw experiment data to investigate their effects on system acti-
vation pattern. Meanwhile, through comparing the safety indica-
tors such as reaction time, maximum deceleration rate, minimum
distance, and collision number between system activation and
inactivation conditions, the system effectiveness was validated
and analyzed. The variables and the definitions were shown in
Table 2.
J. Hang, X. Yan, X. Li et al. Journal of Safety Research 80 (2022) 416–427

Table 2
Variables and their definitions under real driving.

Variable Variable Definition

type
System mode Categorical 0-driver control mode (DCM, no
system-triggered condition), 1-system
control mode (SCM, system-triggered
condition).
Driver behavioral indicators
Gender Categorical 0-male, 1-female.
Profession Categorical 0-professional driver, 1-non-
professional driver.
Situational indicators
Traffic condition Categorical 0-low speed, 1-mid speed, 2-high
speed.
Leading vehicle’s Categorical 0-
2m/s2, 1-
4m/s2, 2-
6m/s2.
deceleration rate
(al)
Initial speed of Continuous The subject vehicle’s speed at the start
following vhielce of leading vehicle’s deceleration.
(vf(t0)) (m/s)
Fig. 5. The validity of driving simulator (1 = not effective, 5 = highly effective).
Initial speed of Continuous The leading vehicle’s speed at the start
leading vhielce of leading vehicle’s deceleration.
(vl(t0)) (m/s)
increase of TTC threshold, the collision avoidance rate also
Initial distance (D Continuous The distance from the rear of leading
(t0)) (m) vehicle to the front of subject vehicle increased. When the TTC threshold was greater than 2 s, all the col-
at the start of leading vehicle’s lisions could be successfully avoided. Meanwhile, the increase of
deceleration. amax threshold also improved the successful rate of collision avoid-
Safety indicators ance. An appropriate combination of TTC threshold and amax
Reaction time (tr) (s) Continuous Driver’s brake reaction time, i.e. the threshold could increase the system’s collision avoidance rate to
time from when the leading vehicle
100%, e.g. TTC = 1.5 s and amax =
7.5 m/s2.
starts to decelerate to the time that the
driver starts to decelerate. The sensitivity rate (SR) represents the system’s sensitivity to
Maximum Continuous Driver’s maximum deceleration rate rear-end risks and low SR means that the system will miss some
deceleration rate from the subject vehicle begun to dangerous cases in the judgement process. As shown in Fig. 6(b),
(afmax) (m/s2) decelerate to the deceleration finished. the SR increased gradually with the increase of TTC thresholds.
Minimum distance Continuous The minimum distance from the rear
When the TTC threshold increased to 1.5 s, all the missing cases
(Dmin) (m) of leading vehicle to the front of
subject vehicle during the subject could be eliminated and the SR reached to 100%. Besides, the
vehicle begun to decelerate to the results also showed that for small TTC thresholds (e.g., 0.5 s or
deceleration finished. 1 s), a larger amax threshold could help improve the system
sensitivity.
The precision rate (PR) reflects the extent of system’s inaccurate
3. Results judgments. Low PR means that a large number of safe cases are
regarded as requiring system control. The results showed that
Among the 414 (46 participants  3 driving speed  3 deceler- the PR remarkably decreased when the TTC threshold increased
ation rate) data samples, 61 cases were excluded as outliers as from 0.5 s to 3 s as seen in Fig. 6(c), which means higher TTC
the driver had a large car-following distance (60 m) or a long thresholds could lead to more inaccurate judgment of the system
reaction time (3 s), remaining 353 data samples for further on the situations. As for different amax thresholds, changes in PR
analysis. were not obvious.
The post-experiment questionnaire was first analyzed as a sub- The accuracy rate (AR) measures the accuracy of the system in
jective evaluation of the simulator validity. As shown in Fig. 5, all implementing interventions, which integrated the information of
the six questions received higher scores than a middle value (i.e., PR and SR. Similar to the tendency of PR, the AR increased with
3), indicating that drivers were overall satisfied with the validity the decrease of TTC threshold as shown in Fig. 6(d). When the
of the simulator. The item with highest score was accelerator TTC threshold reduced to 0.5 s, the system could intervene with
(Mean = 4.43, S.D. = 0.65), while the lowest was brake pedal an accuracy rate of over 97%. However, there was no significant
(Mean = 3.23, S.D. = 1.20). As for the driving environment, driver’s changes in AR under different amax thresholds.
subjective ratings were almost the same for other vehicles In the premise of 100% collision avoidance rate, an optimal
(Mean = 4.02, S.D. = 1.07) and surrounding buildings (Mean = 4.06, combination of TTC and amax thresholds could be obtained given
S.D. = 1.01). the alternative values. According to the results of AR, it seemed
that smaller TTC thresholds are more conducive to improve the
accuracy of the system. However, small TTC thresholds also needs
3.1. System evaluation larger amax to ensure the CAR of the system control to reach 100%,
which may increase driver’s discomfort during the collision avoid-
Based on the experimental data, the system evaluation indexes ance process. More importantly, a small TTC threshold is likely to
were calculated, and changes of the indexes under different TTC omit some risky cases. As for a large TTC threshold, although lower
and amax thresholds were shown in Fig. 6. PR may bring distrust of some drivers, it can ensure more safety.
The collision avoidance rate (CAR) is a critical safety index that Given all the consideration, a TTC threshold of 1.5 s and an amax
reflects the RTAEB’s capability in avoiding collisions. A primary threshold of
7.5 m/s2 were recommended in this study, and the
principle of the system is that a 100% successful rate in collision combination was used in the following system performance
avoidance should be a priority. Fig. 6(a) showed that with the analysis.

422
J. Hang, X. Yan, X. Li et al. Journal of Safety Research 80 (2022) 416–427

Fig. 6. Rate of collision avoidance, accuracy, sensitivity and precision under different TTC and amax thresholds.

3.2. System performance
3.2.1. System intervention
According to the 353 valid samples, 94.62% of them safely
avoided the collision and the rest 5.38% had a collision with the
leading vehicle. After applying the RTAEB algorithm on the 353
samples, 84 samples (23.80%) were determined to require a system
intervention, while the rest of the samples could complete the
deceleration by driver control.
In this section, the differences between the key variables in the
two sets of raw data were analyzed (i.e., samples requiring system
intervention vs. samples that did not require system intervention).
As seen in Table 3, the differences were checked by T-test and Chi-
square test. The results showed that leading vehicle’s deceleration
rate al (Chi-square = 101.851, P-value < 0.001), initial distance D
(t0) (t = 7.557, P-value < 0.001), reaction time tr (t = 2.257, P-
value = 0.025), maximum deceleration rate afmax (t = 16.126, P-
value < 0.001), and minimum headway distance Dmin (t = 19.119,

Table 3
T-test analysis and Chi-square test results of initial condition.

Parameter No intervention Intervention Chi-square P-value

Count N% Count N%
Gender Male 137 38.81 40 11.33 0.281 0.596
Female 132 37.39 44 12.46
Profession P 125 35.41 37 10.48 0.151 0.698
NP 144 40.79 47 13.31
Traffic condition Low 80 22.66 29 8.22 0.987 0.610
Mid 94 26.63 25 7.08
High 95 26.91 30 8.50
al
2m/s2 113 32.01 1 0.28 101.851 <0.001

4m/s2 101 28.61 17 4.82

6m/s2 55 15.58 66 18.70
Collision numbers 0 0.00 19 5.38
Total numbers 269 76.20 84 23.80
Mean S.D. Mean S.D. t P-value
D(t0) (m) 24.04 12.99 15.30 7.73 7.557 <0.001
vl(t0) (m/s) 12.41 4.81 11.56 4.27 1.558 0.121
vf(t0) (m/s) 12.63 5.04 11.61 4.26 1.822 0.070
tr (s) 1.27 0.91 1.10 0.47 2.257 0.025
afmax (m/s2)
4.48 1.90
7.31 1.22 16.126 <0.001
Dmin (m) 15.13 10.08 2.57 2.13 19.119 <0.001

423
J. Hang, X. Yan, X. Li et al.
P-value < 0.001) between the system intervention and non-
intervention groups showed significant difference.
The leading vehicle’s deceleration rate significantly influenced
whether the system was activated or not. As the leading vehicle’s
deceleration rate increased from 2 m/s2 to 4 m/s2, the number of
samples that required system intervention increased from 1
(0.28%) to 66 (18.70%). The initial headway distance in the inter-
vention group (Mean = 15.30 m, S.D. = 7.73 m) was significantly
smaller than that of the non-intervention group (Mean = 24.04 m,
S.D. = 12.99 m), which indicates that drivers who followed the
leading vehicle closely were more likely to trigger the system.
Regarding the safety indicators, the reaction time of the sam-
ples who needed system intervention (Mean = 1.10 s, S.D.
= 0.47 s) was smaller than those who did not (Mean = 1.27 s, S.D.
= 0.91 s). The maximum deceleration rate of samples who needed
system intervention (Mean =
7.31 m/s2, S.D. = 1.22 m/s2) was lar-
ger than those who did not (Mean =
4.48 m/s2, S.D. = 1.90 m/s2).
Moreover, samples who needed system intervention also ended
up with smaller minimum distance with the leading vehicle
(Mean = 2.57 m, S.D. = 2.13 m) compared with the non-
intervention group (Mean = 15.13 m, S.D. = 10.08 m). The experi-
ment collected 19 collisions and they all occurred on samples
who were identified to require a system intervention. Overall, it
can be inferred that samples under the group of system interven-
tion always encounter more dangerous situations. The combina-
tion of the TTC threshold and amax threshold selected in this
research could effectively identify the dangerous cases.
3.2.2. System effectiveness
According to the observation of driver’s deceleration behavior,
the cases requiring the system intervention could be divided into
two categories: drivers with late response and/or drivers with
insufficient deceleration. Typical deceleration patterns of the two
type of drivers were shown in Fig. 7. When the driver did not
respond timely to the leading vehicle’s deceleration, the system
would intervene before the driver’s actual deceleration started
(Fig. 7(a)). For drivers who were aware of the risk but failed to take
sufficient deceleration, the system would enlarge the deceleration
rate to a required value (Fig. 7(b)).
To examine the effectiveness of the system, the differences of
key variables before and after the application of system control
were compared. Behavior under driver control mode (DCM) repre-
sented the results of raw data set, which required the system inter-
vention, and behavior under system control mode (SCM)
represented the results of the same data set after being modified
by RTAEB. The comparison was conducted based on the two pat-
tern groups depicted in Fig. 7, respectively, since the conditions
Fig. 7. Different behavior patterns.
424
Journal of Safety Research 80 (2022) 416–427
that triggered the system were different. Paired-sample T-tests
were performed and the results were shown in Table 4.
For pattern 1 (late response group), the reaction time under dri-
ver control and reaction time after the modification of system
intervention showed significant difference (t = 5.547, P-
value < 0.001). The reaction time in SCM group (Mean = 0.98 s, S.
D. = 0.60 s) was smaller than that in DCM group (Mean = 1.18 s, S.
D. = 0.60 s), which illustrated that the system could compensate
some drivers’ late reaction. The mean value of minimum distance
was significantly different (t =
5.139, P-value < 0.001) between
driver control and system control, and the system (Mean = 2.98 m,
S.D. = 1.30 m) enlarged the minimum distance by nearly 2 m com-
pared to the human drivers (Mean = 1.01 m, S.D. = 1.20 m). Fur-
thermore, under system control, all eight of the collisions that
occurred in this pattern group could be avoided successfully. How-
ever, the average deceleration rate showed no significant differ-
ence between driver control and system control (t =
1.999, P-
value = 0.061).
For pattern 2 (insufficient deceleration group), there was no sig-
nificant difference on the reaction time. However, the maximum
deceleration rate (t =
2.675, P-value = 0.009) and minimum dis-
tance (t =
2.034, P-value = 0.046) showed significant differences
between driver control and system control. Samples under system
control showed a smaller maximum deceleration rate
(Mean =
6.79 m/s2, S.D. = 1.79 m/s2) compared to the drivers
(Mean =
7.28 m/s2, S.D. = 1.24 m/s2). The minimum distance
under system (Mean = 3.52 m, S.D. = 2.09 m) was also larger than
that under human control (Mean = 3.03 m, S.D. = 2.13 m). Mean-
while, the system control could successfully avoid all the 11 colli-
sions that occurred in driver control group.
4. Discussion
This paper designed a real-time Autonomous Emergency Brak-
ing (RTAEB) system based on the traditional conflict judgment
and risk perception process, which was used to judge whether to
implement autonomous braking according to driver’s different
reactions. In order to preliminarily verify the effect of the system,
a driving simulator-based experiment was conducted to explore
the system effectiveness under different risk thresholds and com-
fort levels, and to compare which conditions and driver character-
istics were more likely to trigger autonomous control. Further
comprehensive discussions will be illustrated in this section.
To make up for driver mistakes, previous studies have
attempted to deliver warning massages in advance under emer-
gent situations, which help drivers to avoid collisions by shorten-
ing their reaction time and smoothing the braking process (Ho
J. Hang, X. Yan, X. Li et al.
Table 4
Descriptive analysis and T-test results.
Pattern Parameter Count Behavior under DCM
Mean
1 tr (s) 19 1.18
afmax (m/s2) 19
7.43
Dmin (m) 19 1.01
Collision numbers 19 8 (2.27%) under DCM, 0 (0.00%) under SCM
2 tr (s) 65 1.08
afmax (m/s2) 65
7.28
Dmin (m) 65 3.03
Collision numbers 65 11 (3.12%) under
et al., 2006; Wu et al., 2018a; Zhu et al., 2020). However, if the
warning system was triggered too late, or drivers failed to comply
with the warning information, it would still lead to accidents and
even cause property damage and casualties. Different from the
warning system, the autonomous collision avoidance system, as
the last defensive line, needed to interfere with driver’s behavior
when the danger came, and thus effectively reduce the crash rates
(Cicchino, 2017). In the previous studies of autonomous braking
system’s algorithm, researchers usually used the speed and posi-
tion information of the leading vehicle to infer the safe distance
(Bella & Russo, 2011; Doi, 1994; Wang et al., 2016). However, the
changes in driver behavior were often unpredictable, and the vari-
ation of deceleration and reaction time would also reduce the accu-
racy of the autonomous emergency braking system (Xiong et al.,
2019). Based on the speed and position information in each time
interval, a real-time based Autonomous Emergency Braking algo-
rithm was established in this paper, which judged driver’s risk
level according to their real-time reaction.
The speed and accuracy of drivers in identifying and responding
to the impending rear-end risks determine if they can avoid the
collisions successfully or not. For the collision avoidance system,
overly-early intervention normally sacrifices the accuracy to some
extent and may confuse the drivers when the risk cues have not
been perceived yet (Wang et al., 2016; Xiong et al., 2019). On the
other hand, overly-late system interventions could result in the
failure of collision avoidance (Brannstrom & Sjoberg, 2008;
Vahidi & Eskandarian, 2004). This study proposed a RTAEB frame-
work to help driver avoid rear-end collisions and examined a series
of TTC thresholds (from 0.5 s to 3 s) and maximum deceleration
thresholds (from
7.5 m/s2 to
9m/s2) to seek an optimal balance
between safety and accuracy. Four system evaluation indexes were
analyzed including collision avoidance rate, accuracy rate, preci-
sion rate, and sensitivity rate. The study demonstrated the changes
of the indexes under different TTC and amax thresholds. It was
found that when the TTC threshold was larger than 2 s, all the col-
lisions were successfully avoided. However, larger TTC thresholds
also brought lower precision rate since there might be some safe
cases divided into the system intervention group. Although smaller
TTC thresholds could achieve a higher accuracy rate and precision
rate, it needed a larger amax to ensure the collision avoidance rate
of the system could reach 100%, which may increase driver’s dis-
comfort during the deceleration process. Moreover, smaller TTC
thresholds had another serious defect (i.e., the missing judgments
due to the low sensitivity rate of the system), which may omit
some risky situations. Therefore, after comprehensive considera-
tion, this research recommended a TTC threshold of 1.5 s and an
amax threshold of
7.5 m/s2 as the parameters of RTAEB, and the
combination of the mentioned thresholds were used as a case
study to further examine the performance of the system.
In the case study, the paper explored which driving conditions
were more inclined to trigger the system. The results indicate that
the system was more likely to be triggered when the leading vehi-
425
Journal of Safety Research 80 (2022) 416–427
Behavior under SCM T-test results
S.D. Mean S.D. t P-value
0.60 0.98 0.60 5.547 <0.001
1.16
6.47 1.84
1.999 0.061
1.20 2.98 1.30
5.139 <0.001
0.42 1.08 0.42 – –
1.24
6.79 1.79
2.675 0.009
2.13 3.52 2.09
2.034 0.046
DCM, 0 (0.00%) under SCM
cle braked with larger deceleration rate and when the initial dis-
tance between two vehicles was small. This finding is consisted
with previous studies that reported that rear-end collision risk
would increase due to the leading vehicle’s sudden brake or close
car-following distance (Shangguan et al., 2020; Xue, et al., 2018).
Besides, from the following vehicle drivers’ perspective, the cases
requiring system control often corresponded to drivers with a
short reaction time, which means they probably needed to apply
an emergent brake (Li et al., 2019; Liebermann et al., 1995;
Wang et al., 2016). Even so, the rear-end collisions might still be
inevitable. Therefore, when the effectiveness of warning messages
cannot be guaranteed, autonomous control intervention is neces-
sary to be adopted as once the cases are judged to require system
control, any form of warnings would be invalid due to the insuffi-
cient response time.
The study verified the system effectiveness through comparing
the differences of key variables before and after the application of
system control. It was found that the RTAEB could solve the inap-
propriate deceleration cause by late response or insufficient decel-
eration. For the late response drivers, the application of the system
could shorten the reaction time of taking brake action and enlarge
the minimum distance. For the insufficient deceleration drivers,
the system could reduce hard braking and increase the minimum
distance through intervening the braking process early. All the col-
lision cases in the raw data sets were eliminated after applying the
RTAEB.
In addition, the research also found that there was no signifi-
cant difference caused by driver’s characteristics in terms of trig-
gering or not triggering the RTAEB. To some extent, the system
did not need to distinguish driver’s gender and profession factors.
The finding implies that for the rear-end collision avoidance sys-
tem, more attention should be paid to the real-time risk situation
of external environment and driver’s risk avoidance performance,
such as reaction ability and deceleration ability.
5. Conclusion and limitation
This study proposed a new framework of Autonomous Emer-
gency Braking System (RTAEB). According to vehicles’ real-time
information and driver’s real-time response, the system could dis-
tinguish whether there was a risky situation in the car-following
process. If the situation became critical, the system could assist dri-
vers to brake safely. A driving simulator experiment was con-
ducted to collect the drivers’ collision avoidance behavioral data
and thus provided the test database for the RTAEB system. The test
results generated several implications:
 The system performance changed with the thresholds of TTC
and maximum deceleration rate. TTC threshold directly affected
the accuracy of the system. Larger TTC thresholds could result in
inaccurate judgments, and smaller TTCs could cause missed
judgments. The maximum deceleration threshold directly
J. Hang, X. Yan, X. Li et al.
affected the comfort level of drivers. Considering the two
parameters, it was suggested that 1.5 s TTC and
7.5 m/s2 max-
imum deceleration rate were suitable thresholds for risk assess-
ment, which also provides a theoretical reference for the future
autonomous control system.
 The system was more likely to be triggered when the situation
was urgent or dangerous, such as leading vehicle’s sudden
brake, or too close car-following. In these cases, the reaction
time left for the driver was very short. If the driver did not
respond in time or brake improperly, the collision risks rose.
This also explains why the autonomous control system is
needed as a final defense to protect the drivers.
 The driver’s characteristics, such as gender and profession, did
not show significant differences in this study. This suggests that
in the process of collision avoidance, driver’s present capability
to avoid danger is more important. In the future, driver’s reac-
tion and braking ability should be highlighted in driver train-
ing/education process.
Finally, some limitations of the study should be mentioned. The
study only examined limited TTC and maximum deceleration
thresholds because of the limitation of driving simulator experi-
ment. Although we believe the investigated options are sufficient
to reflect the underlying patterns, more values should be tested
using different traffic simulation methods to validate the results
observed in the study. Moreover, a restricted age group of drivers
were examined to avoid the potential confounding effect of drivers’
age. To verify the generalizability of the study results, a larger sam-
ple size with broad age distribution should be tested in the future.
In addition, this paper uses the car-following behavior data derived
from a driving simulator to preliminarily verify the rear-end colli-
sion avoidance algorithm of RTAEB, which provides theoretical
basis for the application of RTAEB. In the future, the algorithm
should be integrated into the driving simulator to conduct an
online test.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Junyu Hang: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Formal
analysis, Investigation, Visualization, Writing – original draft. Xue-
dong Yan: Supervision, Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing –
review & editing. Xiaomeng Li: Methodology, Writing – review &
editing. Ke Duan: Methodology, Writing – review & editing. Jingsi
Yang: Writing – review & editing. Qingwan Xue: Writing – review
& editing.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by the BJTU Basic Scientific
Research (2019YJS105) and National Natural Science Foundation
of China (72171017, 71621001).
References
Almallah, M., Hussain, Q., Reinolsmann, N., & Alhajyaseen, W. (2021). Driving
simulation sickness and the sense of presence: Correlation and contributing
factors. Transportation Research Part F Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 78(7),
180–193.
Aust, M. L., Engstr, M. J., & Vistr, M. M. (2013). Effects of forward collision warning
and repeated event exposure on emergency braking. Transportation Research
Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 18, 34–46.
Bargman, J., Boda, C. N., & Dozza, M. (2017). Counterfactual simulations applied to
shrp2 crashes: The effect of driver behavior models on safety benefit
estimations of intelligent safety systems. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 102
(MAY), 165–180.
Bella, F., & Russo, R. (2011). A collision warning system for rear-end collision: A
driving simulator study. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 20(none),
676–686.
426
Journal of Safety Research 80 (2022) 416–427
Bella, F. . (2005). Validation of a driving simulator for work zone design.
Transportation Research Record(1937), p.136-144.
Benedetto, F., Ca Lvi, A., D’Amico, F., & Giunta, G. (2015). Applying
telecommunications methodology to road safety for rear-end collision
avoidance. Transportation Research Part C, 50(jan.), 150–159.
Bham, G. H., Leu, M. C., Vallati, M., & Mathur, D. R. (2014). Driving simulator
validation of driver behavior with limited safe vantage points for data collection
in work zones. J Safety Res, 49.
Braitman, K. A., Mccartt, A. T., Zuby, D. S., & Singer, J. (2010). Volvo and infiniti
drivers’ experiences with select crash avoidance technologies. Traffic Injury
Prevention, 11(3), 270–278.
Brannstrom, M. , Sjoberg, J. , & E C oelingh. (2008). A situation and threat assessment
algorithm for a rear-end collision avoidance system. Intelligent Vehicles
Symposium, 2008 IEEE. IEEE.
Calvi, A., D’Amico, F., Ferrante, C., & Ciampoli, L. B. (2020). A driving simulator study
to assess driver performance during a car-following maneuver after switching
from automated control to manual control. Transportation Research Part F Traffic
Psychology and Behaviour, 70, 58–67.
Chang, S. H., Lin, C. Y., Hsu, C. C., Fung, C. P., & Hwang, J. R. (2009). The effect of a
collision warning system on the driving performance of young drivers at
intersections. Transportation Research Part F Traffic Psychology & Behaviour, 12
(5), 371–380.
Chen, C., Xiang, H., Qiu, T., Cong, W., Yang, Z., & Chang, V. (2017). A rear-end collision
prediction scheme based on deep learning in the internet of vehicles. Journal of
Parallel and Distributed Computing, 117(jul.), 192–204.
Cicchino, J. B. (2017). Effectiveness of forward collision warning and autonomous
emergency braking systems in reducing front-to-rear crash rates. Accident;
analysis and prevention, 99(Pt A), 142–152.
Doi, A. (1994). Development of a rear-end collision avoidance system with
automatic brake control. JSAE Review, 15(4), 335–340.
Duan, J., Li, R., Hou, L., Wang, W., Li, G., Li, S. E., et al. (2017). Driver braking
behavior analysis to improve autonomous emergency braking systems in
typical chinese vehicle-bicycle conflicts. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 108
(nov.), 74–82.
_
Duzmańska, N., Strojny, P., & Strojny, A. (2018). Can simulator sickness be avoided?
a review on temporal aspects of simulator sickness. Frontiers in Psychology, 9.
Fildes, B., Keall, M., Bos, N., Lie, A., Page, Y., Pastor, C., et al. (2015). Effectiveness of
low speed autonomous emergency braking in real-world rear-end crashes.
Accident Analysis & Prevention, 81(aug.), 24–29.
Fujita, Y. (1995). Radar brake system. JSAE Review, 16(1), 113.
Haas, E. C., & Van Erp, J. B. F. (2014). Multimodal warnings to enhance risk
communication and safety. Safety ence, 61, 29–35.
Hang, J., Yan, X., Ma, L., Duan, K., & Zhang, Y. (2018). Exploring the effects of the
location of the lane-end sign and traffic volume on multistage lane-changing
behaviors in work zone areas: A driving simulator-based study. Transportation
Research Part F Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 58(OCT.), 980–993.
Hess, S., Choudhury, C. F., & Bliemer, M. C. J. (2020). Modelling lane changing
behaviour in approaches to roadworks: Contrasting and combining driving
simulator data with stated choice data. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging
Technologies, 112, 282–294.
Ho, C., Reed, N., & Spence, C. (2006). Assessing the effectiveness of ‘‘intuitive”
vibrotactile warning signals in preventing front-to-rear-end collisions in a
driving simulator. Accid Anal Prev, 38(5), 988–996.
Hulst & Der, M. V. (1999). Anticipation and the adaptive control of safety margins in
driving. Ergonomics, 42(2), 336–345.
Hussain, Q., Alhajyaseen, W., Pirdavani, A., Reinolsmann, N., Brijs, K., & Brijs, T.
(2019). Speed perception and actual speed in a driving simulator and real-
world: A validation study. Transportation research, 62F(APR.), 637–650.
Jeong, E., Oh, C., & Lee, S. (2017). Is vehicle automation enough to prevent crashes?
role of traffic operations in automated driving environments for traffic safety.
Accident Analysis & Prevention, 104, 115–124.
Kala, R., & Warwick, K. (2013). Multi-level planning for semi-autonomous vehicles
in traffic scenarios based on separation maximization. Journal of Intelligent &
Robotic Systems, 72(3–4), 559–590.
Kudarauskas, N. (2007). Analysis of emergency braking of a vehicle. Transport, 22(3),
154–159.
Kusano, K. D., & Gabler, H. C. (2010). Potential occupant injury reduction in pre-
crash system equipped vehicles in the striking vehicle of rear-end crashes.
Annals of advances in automotive medicine, 54, 203–214.
Kusano, K., & Gabler, H. C. (2012). Safety benefits of forward collision warning,
brake assist, and autonomous braking systems in rear-end collisions. IEEE
Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems.
Lambert-Belanger, A., Dubois, S., Weaver, B., Mullen, N., & Bedard, M. (2012).
Aggressive driving behaviour in young drivers (aged 16 through 25) involved in
fatal crashes. J Safety Res, 43(5–6), 333–338.
Lee, J. D., Mcgehee, D. V., Brown, T. L., & Reyes, M. L. (2002). Collision warning
timing, driver distraction, and driver response to imminent rear-end collisions
in a high-fidelity driving simulator. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human
Factors and Ergonomics Society, 44(2), 314–334.
Lewis-Evans, B., W Aa Rd, D. D. , & Brookhuis, K. A. . (2010). That’s close enough-a
threshold effect of time headway on the experience of risk, task difficulty, effort,
and comfort. Accident; Analysis and Prevention, 42(6), 1926-1933.
Li, X., Oviedo-Trespalacios, O., & Rakotonirainy, A. (2020). Drivers’ gap acceptance
behaviours at intersections: A driving simulator study to understand the impact
of mobile phone visual-manual interactions. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 138
105486.
J. Hang, X. Yan, X. Li et al.
Li, X., Oviedo-Trespalacios, O., Rakotonirainy, A., & Yan, X. (2018). Collision risk
management of cognitively distracted drivers in a car-following situation.
Transportation Research Part F Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 60, 288–298.
Li, X., Oviedo-Trespalacios, O., Rakotonirainy, A., & Yan, X. (2019). Collision risk
management of cognitively distracted drivers in a car-following situation.
Transportation Research Part F Traffic Psychology & Behaviour, 60, 288–298.
Li, X., Yan, X., & Wong, S. C. (2015). Effects of fog, driver experience and gender on
driving behavior on S-curved road segments. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 77,
91–104.
Li, X., Yan, X., Wu, J., Radwan, E., & Zhang, Y. (2016). 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.
Accident Analysis & Prevention, 97, 1–18.
Liebermann, D. G., Ben-David, G., Schweitzer, N., Apter, Y., & Parush, A. (1995). A
field study on braking responses during driving. i. triggering and modulation.
Ergonomics, 38(9), 9.
Ma, S., & Yan, X. (2021). Examining the efficacy of improved traffic signs and
markings at flashing-light-controlled grade crossings based on driving
simulation and eye tracking systems. Transportation Research Part F Traffic
Psychology and Behaviour, 81(1), 173–189.
Mcavoy, D., Schattler, K., & Datta, T. (2007). Driving simulator validation for
nighttime construction work zone devices. Transportation Research Record
Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2015(2015), 55–63.
Meng, F., Wong, S. C., Yan, W., Li, Y. C., & Yang, L. (2019). Temporal patterns of
driving fatigue and driving performance among male taxi drivers in Hong Kong:
A driving simulator approach. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 125(APR.), 7–13.
Mohebbi, R., Gray, R., Tan & Hong (2009). Driver reaction time to tactile and
auditory rear-end collision warnings while talking on a cell phone. Human
Factors.
Muttart, J., Fisher, D., Knodler, M., & Pollatsek, A. (2007). Driving without a clue:
Evaluation of driver simulator performance during hands-free cell phone
operation in a work zone. Transportation Research Record Journal of the
Transportation Research Board, 43, 9–14.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (2016). Visual-manual NHTSA
driver distraction guidelines for portable and aftermarket devices. Washington,
DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
Navarro, J., Deniel, J., Yousfi, E., Jallais, C., Bueno, M., & Fort, A. (2017). Influence of
lane departure warnings onset and reliability on car drivers’ behaviors. Applied
Ergonomics, 59, 123–131.
Pitta, L., Quintas, J. L., Trindade, I., Belchior, P., & Camargos, E. F. (2021). Older drivers
are at increased risk of fatal crash involvement: Results of a systematic review
and meta-analysis. Archives of Gerontology and, Geriatrics(2) 104414.
Qiao, F., Rahman, R., Li, Q., & Yu, L. (2017). Safe and environment-friendly forward
collision warning messages in the advance warning area of a construction zone.
International Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems Research, 15(3), 1–14.
Rossi, R., Meneguzzer, C., & Orsini, F. (2020). Gap-acceptance behavior at
roundabouts: Validation of a driving simulator environment using field
observations - sciencedirect. Transportation Research Procedia, 47, 27–34.
Scott, J. J., & Gray, R. (2008). A comparison of tactile, visual, and auditory warnings
for rear-end collision prevention in simulated driving. Human Factors: The
Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 50(2), 264–275.
Seacrist, T., Sahani, R., Chingas, G., Douglas, E. C., & Loeb, H. (2020). Efficacy of
automatic emergency braking among risky drivers using counterfactual
simulations from the shrp 2 naturalistic driving study. Safety Science, 128
104746.
Shangguan, Q., Fu, T., & Liu, S. (2020). Investigating rear-end collision avoidance
behavior under varied foggy weather conditions: A study using advanced
driving simulator and survival analysis. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 139
105499.
Sheu, J. B., & Wu, H. J. (2015). Driver perception uncertainty in perceived relative
speed and reaction time in car following – a quantum optical flow perspective.
Transportation Research Part B, 80(OCT.), 257–274.
Siebert, F. W., Oehl, M., & Pfister, H. R. (2014). The influence of time headway on
subjective driver states in adaptive cruise control. Transportation Research Part F
Traffic Psychology & Behaviour, 25, 65–73.
Vahidi, A., & Eskandarian, A. (2004). Research advances in intelligent collision
avoidance and adaptive cruise control. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent
Transportation Systems, 4(3), 143–153.
Vangi, D., & Virga, A. (2007). Evaluation of emergency braking deceleration for
accident reconstruction. Vehicle System Dynamics, 45(10), 895–910.
Wang, X., Zhu, M., Chen, M., & Tremont, P. (2016). Drivers’ rear end collision
avoidance behaviors under different levels of situational urgency.
Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 71, 419–433.
Wenda, X. u., & Dolan, J. M. (2012). A Real-Time Motion Planner with Trajectory
Optimization for Autonomous Vehicles. Advances in Electronic Commerce. Berlin
Heidelberg: Web Application and Communication. Springer.
Weng, J., Xue, S., Yang, Y., Yan, X., & Qu, X. (2015). In-depth analysis of drivers’
merging behavior and rear-end crash risks in work zone merging areas. Accident
Analysis & Prevention, 77(apr.), 51–61.
Winsum, W. V., & Heino, A. (1996). Choice of time-headway in car-following and
the role of time-to-collision information in braking. Ergonomics, 39(4), 579–592.
Wood, J., & Zhang, S. (2017). Evaluating Relationships Between Perception-Reaction
Times, Emergency Deceleration Rates, and Crash Outcomes Using Naturalistic
Driving Data (No. Fargo, ND: Mountain-Plains Consortium, North Dakota State
University.
427
Journal of Safety Research 80 (2022) 416–427
Wu, Y., Abdel-Aty, M., Park, J., & Zhu, J. (2018). Effects of connected-vehicle warning
systems on rear-end crash avoidance behavior under fog conditions.
Transportation research, 95(OCT.), 481–492.
Wu, X., Boyle, L. N., Marshall, D., & O’Brien, W. (2018). The effectiveness of auditory
forward collision warning alerts. Transportation research, 59F(PT.A), 164–178.
Xiang, W., Yan, X., Weng, J., & Li, X. (2016). Effect of auditory in-vehicle warning
information on drivers’ brake response time to red-light running vehicles
during collision avoidance. Transportation Research Part F Traffic Psychology and
Behaviour, 40(Jul.), 56–67.
Xiong, X., Wang, M., Cai, Y., Chen, L., Farah, H., & Hagenzieker, M. (2019). A forward
collision avoidance algorithm based on driver braking behavior. Accident
Analysis & Prevention, 129(AUG.), 30–43.
Xue, Q., Markkula, G., Yan, X., & Merat, N. (2018). Using perceptual cues for brake
response to a lead vehicle: Comparing threshold and accumulator models of
visual looming. Accident; analysis and prevention, 118(SEP.), 114.
Yan, X., Li, X., Liu, Y., & Zhao, J. (2014). Effects of foggy conditions on drivers’ speed
control behaviors at different risk levels. Safety Science, 68, 275–287.
You, S., Wang, X., & Chen, M. (2013). Driver collision avoidance behavior after
braking. In ICTE 2013-Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on
Transportation Engineering (pp. 2327–2334).
Zafian, T., Ryan, A., Agrawal, R., Samuel, S., & Knodler, M. (2021). Using shrp2 nds
data to examine infrastructure and other factors contributing to older driver
crashes during left turns at signalized intersections. Accident Analysis &
Prevention, 156(106141).
Zavareh, M. F., Mamdoohi, A. R., Nordfj?Rn, & T. (2017). The effects of indicating
rear-end collision risk via variable message signs on traffic behaviour.
Transportation Research Part F Traffic Psychology & Behaviour,
S1369847816303291.
Zhang, Y., Yan, X., & Li, X. (2021). Effect of warning message on driver’s stop/go
decision and red-light-running behaviors under fog condition. Accident Analysis
& Prevention, 150 105906.
Zhang, Y., Yan, X., Li, X., & Wu, J. (2018). Changes of drivers’ visual performances
when approaching a signalized intersection under different collision avoidance
warning conditions. Transportation Research Part F Traffic Psychology and
Behaviour, S1369847816303850.
Zhang, Y., Yan, X., Li, X., & Xue, Q. (2016). Drivers’ eye movements as a function of
collision avoidance warning conditions in red light running scenarios. Accident
Analysis & Prevention, 96(nov.), 185–197.
Zhao, X., Xu, W., Ma, J., Li, H., Chen, Y., & Rong, J. (2019). Effects of connected vehicle-
based variable speed limit under different foggy conditions based on simulated
driving. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 128(JUL.), 206–216.
Zhu, M., Wang, X., & Hu, J. (2020). Impact on car following behavior of a forward
collision warning system with headway monitoring. Transportation Research
Part C: Emerging Technologies, 111, 226–244.
Ziegler, J., Bender, P., Dang, T., & Stiller, C. (2014). Trajectory planning for Bertha — A
local, continuous method. IEEE: Intelligent Vehicles Symposium.
Junyu Hang received the B.E. degree from the School of Automobile, Chang’an
University, in 2016, where she is currently pursuing the Ph.D. degree with the MOT
Key Laboratory of Transport Industry of Big Data Application Technologies for
Comprehensive Transport, Beijing Jiaotong University. Her research interests
include intelligent transportation systems, driving behavior and human factor, and
traffic safety.
Xuedong Yan is a professor from the MOT Key Laboratory of Transport Industry of
Big Data Application Technologies for Comprehensive Transport, Beijing Jiaotong
University. His research expertise includes advanced driving simulator research,
driving behavior and human factor, GIS application on traffic engineering, traffic
safety and security, statistical analysis, traffic simulation, highway geometric
design, highway-rail grade crossing, ITS, and urban design and planning.
Xiaomeng Li is a research fellow from the Centre for Accident Research and Road
Safety – Queensland (CARRS-Q), Queensland University of Technology. She was
awarded a PhD degree in January, 2017 from Beijing Jiaotong University. Her
research mainly focuses on road traffic safety, driving performance, ITS and traffic
engineering.
Ke Duan graduated from Shijiazhuang Tiedao University, in 2016. He is currently
pursuing the Ph.D. degree with the MOT Key Laboratory of Transport Industry of Big
Data Application Technologies for Comprehensive Transport, Beijing Jiaotong
University. His research interests include traffic safety research, driving behavior
analysis and intelligent transportation system.
Jingsi Yang is a postdoctor from the CRSC Communication & Information Group
Company Ltd. She was awarded a PhD degree in October, 2020 from Beijing Jiaotong
University. Her research mainly focuses on road traffic safety, driving performance,
ITS, and road traffic signs and markings.
Qingwan Xue is a lecturer from Beijing Key Laboratory of Urban Intelligent Traffic
Control Technology, North China University of Technology. She was awarded a PhD
degree in June, 2019 from Beijing Jiaotong University. Her research interests include
the modelling of driving behavior, and the assessment of the impacts of intelligent
technologies on drivers.