NHTSA to study how drivers react to crash avoidance tech

Crash avoidance technologies are often touted as the answer to any problems involving roadway safety. But how do humans interact with the technology?

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration hopes to soon have the answer to that question.

In a notice that is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on Thursday, Nov. 7, NHTSA has announced a study aimed at determining how human drivers react to all of the gadgets.

“The objective of his driving research is to examine driver behavior in using crash avoidance warning systems and assess effects of human-machine interface characteristics on drivers’ behavior and driver response in crash-imminent scenarios,” NHTSA wrote in the notice. “The research will involve driver behavior observation while driving on a test track, public roads or in a simulated environment.”

The agency plans to use about 200 licensed drivers – including some commercial driver’s license holders – from the Columbus, Ohio area in the research. Drivers in the study must be 25 to 65 years old. In addition, drivers of passenger vehicles must have a valid U.S. driver’s license and drive at least 11,000 miles annually in light passenger vehicles. Likewise, heavy-duty truck drivers must have a valid CDL and drive at least 11,000 miles each year in a commercial truck.

Crash avoidance systems provide drivers a variety of alerts and warnings to inform drivers of potential danger.

“These systems communicate the occurrence of such conditions to drivers via different sensory modalities, such as visual or auditory signals or vibration of the seat or steering wheel,” the agency wrote.

NHTSA plans to use the research to learn more about the effectiveness of the crash avoidance systems.

Test vehicles will be equipped with tech to record driver eye-glance behavior, vehicle control inputs, vehicle position, speed and turn-signal status.

Once the information is collected, a report will be made public.

“Analysis may also be used to inform NHTSA’s future safety research and rulemaking efforts,” the agency wrote.

Many truck drivers have complained about crash avoidance tech on trucks, saying that the system creates too many false alarms. Opponents of automatic emergency braking systems say the tech creates dangerous situations by mistaking a guardrail along a curve or an overpass as an immediate danger.

OOIDA Executive Vice President Lewie Pugh told Congress earlier this year that some of these technologies won’t necessarily work for heavy-duty trucks the same way they do for cars.

“Trucks are completely different than cars,” Pugh said. “And just because a technology works well on a car doesn’t mean it’s going to work well on a truck. Every load and every type of truck is different as far as weight and how the product moves. You take a tanker, there’s liquid in there moving around. So, the way you have to stop (a tanker) is completely different than how you’d have to stop a load of paper towels in a van trailer.” LL