The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Collision Warning Timing, Driver Distraction, and Driver Response to Imminent Rear-End Collisions in a High-Fidelity Driving Simulator
Abstract
Rear-end collisions account for almost 30% of automotive crashes. Rear-end collision avoidance systems (RECASs) may offer a promising approach to help drivers avoid these crashes. Two experiments performed using a high-fidelity motion-based driving simulator examined driver responses to evaluate the efficacy of a RECAS. The first experiment showed that early warnings helped distracted drivers react more quickly---and thereby avoid more collisions---than did late warnings or no warnings. Compared with the no-warning condition, an early RECAS warning reduced the number of collisions by 80.7%. Assuming collision severity is proportional to kinetic energy, the early warning reduced collision severity by 96.5%. In contrast, the late warning reduced collisions by 50.0 % and the corresponding severity by 87.5%. The second experiment showed that RECAS benefits even undistracted drivers. Analysis of the braking process showed that warnings provide a potential safety benefit by reducing the time required for drivers to release the accelerator. Warnings do not, however, speed application of the brake, increase maximum deceleration, or affect mean deceleration. These results provide the basis for a computational model of driver performance that was used to extrapolate the findings and identify the most promising parameter settings. Potential applications of these results include methods for evaluating collision warning systems, algorithm design guidance, and driver performance model input.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation
Parasuraman, R., Sheridan, T. B., & Wickens, C. D. (2000) · IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part A: Systems and Humans · doi:10.1109/3468.844354 · Cited by 4,195 · cited 1×
“Whether drivers view the collision warning system as automation that triggers a response or as automation that redirects attention can have important implications for design (Parasuraman et al., 2000).”
Background
Research works printed but not linked: 22
- 10.1109/3468.485752 · DOI
- 10.3141/1724-03 · DOI
- 10.1518/001872001775898250 · DOI
- Burgett, A. L., 1998, A collision warning algorithm for rear-end collisions
- 10.1518/001872097778543930 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.2307/1416145 · DOI · Paper page
- Hirst, S., 1997, Ergonomics and safety of intelligent driver interfaces, 203
- 10.1016/0001-4575(96)00005-X · DOI
- Kiefer, R., 1999, Development and validation of functional definitions and evaluation procedures for collision warning/avoidance systems
- Knipling, R. R., 1993, Assessment of IVHS countermeasures for collision avoidance: Rear-end crashes
- 10.1080/001401399185306 · doi:10.1080/001401399185306
- 10.1518/001872001775870340 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1207/sthf0104_6 · DOI
- 10.1080/00140139208967392 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1006/ijhc.1994.1007 · DOI · Paper page
- Lerner, N., 1991, Multiple attribute evaluation of auditory warning signals for in-vehicle crash warning systems
- McGehee, D. V., 1998, Examination of drivers' collision avoidance behavior in a lead vehicle stopped scenario using a front-to-rear-end collision warning system
- Mollenhauer, M. A., 1997, Ergonomics and safety of intelligent driver interfaces, 23
- National Safety Council., 1996, Accident facts.
- 10.1201/9781482272390 · DOI
- 10.1518/001872096778701944 · DOI · Paper page
- Tijerina, L., 1998, Haptic display research for collision avoidance systems: Rear-end collision avoidance.
Cited by
Threaded cognition: An integrated theory of concurrent multitasking.
Salvucci, D. D., & Taatgen, N. A. (2008) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.115.1.101 · Cited by 667
May, J. F., & Baldwin, C. L. (2009) · Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour · doi:10.1016/j.trf.2008.11.005 · Cited by 466
Effects of Cognitive Load on Driving Performance: The Cognitive Control Hypothesis
Engström, J., Markkula, G., Victor, T., & Merat, N. (2017) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1177/0018720817690639 · Cited by 299
Shechtman, O., Classen, S., Awadzi, K., & Mann, W. (2009) · Traffic Injury Prevention · doi:10.1080/15389580902894989 · Cited by 255
Multisensory In-Car Warning Signals for Collision Avoidance
Ho, C., Reed, N., & Spence, C. (2007) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1518/001872007x249965 · Cited by 235
Metadata
- Authors
- Lee, J. D., McGehee, D. V., Brown, T. L., & Reyes, M. L.
- Venue
- Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2002-06
- Volume
- 44
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 314-334
- ISSN
- 0018-7208 (ISSN-L)
- 1547-8181
- OpenAlex
- W1989805652
- Cited by
- 570
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 13.52
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Collision Warning Timing, Driver Distraction, and Driver Response to Imminent Rear-End Collisions in a High-Fidelity Driving Simulator. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1518/0018720024497844
- The paper
- 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. https://doi.org/10.1518/0018720024497844
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.