Driving Style Recognition Based on Naturalistic Driving: Volatilities, Decision-Making, and Safety Performances

Author(s):  
Chen Chai ◽  
Xiupeng Shi ◽  
Ziyao Zhou ◽  
Xianming Zeng ◽  
Weiru Yin ◽  
...  
Author(s):  
Shams Tanvir ◽  
H. Christopher Frey ◽  
Nagui M. Rouphail

Eco-driving involves alterations to driving style to improve energy efficiency. The observed driving style reflects the combined effects of roadway, traffic, driver, and vehicle performance. Although the effect of roadway and traffic characteristics can be inferred from microscale driving activity data, the effect of vehicle performance on driving style is not properly understood. This paper addresses two questions: (1) how different is an individual driver’s driving style when operating vehicles with differences in performance?; and (2) how dissimilar are the driving styles of different drivers when operating vehicles that have similar performance? To answer these questions, we have gathered microscale vehicle activity measurements from 17 controlled real-world driving schedules and two years of naturalistic driving data from five drivers. We also developed a metric for driving style termed “envelope deviation,” which is a distribution of gaps between microscale activity (1 Hz) and fleet average envelope. We found that there is significant inter-driver heterogeneity in driving styles when controlling for vehicle performance. However, no significant inter-vehicle heterogeneity was present in driving styles while controlling for the driver. Findings from this study imply that the choice of vehicle does not significantly alter the natural driving style of a driver.


Ergonomics ◽  
1993 ◽  
Vol 36 (6) ◽  
pp. 627-644 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. J. FRENCH ◽  
R. J. WEST ◽  
J. ELANDER ◽  
J. M. WILDING

2018 ◽  
Vol 41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick Simen ◽  
Fuat Balcı

AbstractRahnev & Denison (R&D) argue against normative theories and in favor of a more descriptive “standard observer model” of perceptual decision making. We agree with the authors in many respects, but we argue that optimality (specifically, reward-rate maximization) has proved demonstrably useful as a hypothesis, contrary to the authors’ claims.


2018 ◽  
Vol 41 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Danks

AbstractThe target article uses a mathematical framework derived from Bayesian decision making to demonstrate suboptimal decision making but then attributes psychological reality to the framework components. Rahnev & Denison's (R&D) positive proposal thus risks ignoring plausible psychological theories that could implement complex perceptual decision making. We must be careful not to slide from success with an analytical tool to the reality of the tool components.


2018 ◽  
Vol 41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin Arceneaux

AbstractIntuitions guide decision-making, and looking to the evolutionary history of humans illuminates why some behavioral responses are more intuitive than others. Yet a place remains for cognitive processes to second-guess intuitive responses – that is, to be reflective – and individual differences abound in automatic, intuitive processing as well.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document