Driver Expectations of a Partial Driving Automation System in Relation to Branding and Training.

OBJECTIVE: The current study examined whether differences in the branding and description or mode of training materials influence drivers' understanding and expectations of a partial driving automation system. BACKGROUND: How technology is described might influence consumers' understanding and expectations, even if all information is accurate. METHOD: Ninety drivers received training about a real partial driving automation system with a fictitious name. Participants were randomly assigned to a branding condition (system named AutonoDrive, training emphasized capabilities; or system named DriveAssist, training emphasized limitations) and training mode (quick-start brochure; video; or in-person demonstration). No safety-critical information was withheld nor deliberately misleading information provided. After training, participants drove a vehicle equipped with the system. Associations of drivers' expectations with branding condition and training mode were assessed using between-subjects comparisons of questionnaire responses obtained pre- and post-drive. RESULTS: Immediately after training, those who received information emphasizing the system's capabilities had greater expectations of the system's function and crash avoidance capability in a variety of driving scenarios, including many in which the system would not work, as well as greater willingness to utilize the system's workload reduction benefits to take more risks. Most but not all differences persisted after driving the vehicle. Expectations about collision avoidance differed by training mode pre-drive but not post-drive. CONCLUSION: Training that emphasizes a partial driving automation system's capabilities and downplays its limitations can foster overconfidence. APPLICATION: Accuracy of technical information does not guarantee understanding; training should provide a balanced view of a system's limitations as well as capabilities.

Salesperson knowledge of teen-specific vehicle safety features.

OBJECTIVE: Teen drivers experience elevated crash risk compared with experienced adult drivers. Active parental oversight can improve teen driving safety, and several manufacturers have released teen-focused safety features over the past decade. Still, parents don't always use these systems and often don't even know their vehicle is equipped. A recent survey found that parents who do know about such systems on their vehicle first learned of them from a salesperson at a dealership. The current study examined how salespeople discuss and sell teen-specific safety systems on vehicles to parents shopping for a new teen driver. METHODS: The study focused on four vehicle brands. Two researchers posed as the parents of a new teen driver who were shopping for a vehicle for their teen. They entered dealerships and conducted semistructured interviews with the salesperson that approached them, using prompts of increasing specificity about their teen driver and their interest in safety, and tracking at what point each salesperson mentioned their brand's teen-specific systems, what features they mentioned, and how accurate those mentions were. RESULTS: Thirty of the 40 participating salespeople were able to mention their brand's teen-specific system at some point during the procedure. Hyundai salespeople most consistently brought up their brand's teen features, and Chevy salespeople mentioned the most features while Ford salespeople mentioned the fewest. Salespeople often mentioned speed-related features, although the most commonly mentioned features varied by brand. No participating salespeople reported receiving training specifically about their brand's teen features. DISCUSSION: Most salespeople approached did mention their brand's teen-focused safety systems, but did not usually do so until they had received more targeted prompts. Information these salespeople did share was often vague and general. Salespeople are a key source of information about a vehicle's specific and relevant safety features, and parents without at least some vague preexisting knowledge about the systems or features that could be available on a vehicle of interest are not likely to leave a dealership with a clear idea of all available features that could aid their efforts to keep their teen drivers safe.

Perceptions and experiences of participants in a study of in-vehicle monitoring of teenage drivers.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the perceptions and experiences of participants in a study of a device that monitored teenagers' driving. METHODS: A device that continuously monitors and reports risky driving maneuvers was installed in vehicles of 84 newly licensed teenagers. Study groups varied by whether parents had access to a Web site that summarized their teenagers' driving and by whether in-vehicle alerts provided feedback to drivers. Recruitment of subjects and problems with the device were documented. Teenagers and parents were interviewed after removal of the device. RESULTS: Although the study was conducted in a large urban area, recruitment progressed slowly. Parents who declined to participate usually said their teenagers opposed it, or they were concerned about intruding on the privacy of their children or jeopardizing trust with them. Both parents and teenagers thought in-vehicle alerts helped teenagers drive more safely, although two thirds of teenagers tried to drown out the alerts with loud music. Parents found the Web site useful but reported fewer Web site visits over time. Most parents would prefer receiving information through summary report cards rather than through a Web site. Both parents and teenagers thought the overall system was effective in improving teenagers' driving. Most parents said the Web site and/or device helped them talk to their teenagers about their driving. Parents thought the most effective system would be an in-vehicle alert with immediate parental notification; teenagers preferred a system allowing them to correct behavior before parental notification. CONCLUSIONS: The difficulties in recruiting families for a study of in-vehicle monitoring and feedback technology suggest that gaining broad acceptance may be challenging. Although many teenagers were annoyed by the technology, most said they drove more safely because of it. Sending report cards to parents and allowing teenagers to correct behavior before parents are notified may increase the usefulness and acceptability of monitoring systems.

Effects of manual versus voice-activated dialing during simulated driving.

We measured driving performance (lane-keeping errors, driving times, and glances away from the road scene) in a video driving simulator for 24 volunteers who each drove alone on a 10.6-km multicurved course while simultaneously placing calls on a mobile phone subscribed to a voice-activated dialing system. Driving performance also was measured for the same distance while participants manually dialed phone numbers and while they drove without dialing. There were 22% fewer lane-keeping errors (p<.01) and 56% fewer glances away from the road scene (p<.01) when they used voice-activated dialing as compared to manual dialing. Significantly longer driving times in both of the dialing conditions as compared to the No Dialing condition are discussed in terms of the hypothesis that drivers decrease driving speed to compensate for the demands of the secondary phone tasks.