A critique of the SAE conditional driving automation definition, and analyses of options for improvement
Name
10111_2018_Article_471.pdf
Size
943.47 KB
Format
Adobe PDF
Checksum (MD5)
15b968f7a0ac962a2f87c5e2fd0c5438
Author(s)
Sheridan, Thomas B
Date Issued
February 2018
Journal
Cognition, Technology & Work
Publisher
Springer London
Citation
Inagaki, Toshiyuki and Thomas B. Sheridan. “A Critique of the SAE Conditional Driving Automation Definition, and Analyses of Options for Improvement.” Cognition, Technology & Work (February 2018): 1-10 © 2018 The Author(s)
Version
Final published version
Abstract
The Society of Automotive Engineers defines five levels of driving automation (LoDA) (plus a “no-automation” level 0). Among them, the third level, called “conditional driving automation,” here denoted LoDA 3, performs the complete dynamic driving task (DDT) within a limited operational domain. Although the driver is free from any driving task while the automation is engaged, she is expected to be receptive to an automation-issued request to intervene (RTI) and is also expected to perform DDT fallback in a timely manner. This paper gives a method to derive an optimal design for RTI and proves that LoDA 3 coupled with the optimal RTI should never be simply called “conditional driving automation.” This means that the definition of LoDA 3 is not complete and that at least one important level is missing in the list for LoDAs. This paper provides two ways to resolve the problem. Keywords: Automated driving; Levels of driving automation; Request to intervene; Levels of automation; Trading of authority; Shared control
MIT Department
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Mechanical Engineering
Terms of Use
Creative Commons Attribution
Persistent DSpace Link
DOI of Published Version
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-018-0471-5
