Car following: Comparing distance-oriented vs. inertia-oriented driving techniques

The rationale behind most car-following (CF) models is the possibility to appraise and formalize how drivers naturally follow each other. Characterizing and parametrizing Normative Driving Behavior (NDB) became major goals, especially during the last 25 years. Most CF models assumed driver propensit...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Transport policy 2018-09, Vol.67, p.13-22
Main Authors: Blanch Micó, Mª Teresa, Lucas Alba, Antonio, Bellés Rivera, Teresa, Ferruz Gracia, Ana Mª, Melchor Galán, Óscar M., Delgado Pastor, Luis C., Ruíz Jiménez, Francisco, Chóliz Montañés, Mariano
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Car-following models
Driver behavior
Driving techniques
Psychological paradigms
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The rationale behind most car-following (CF) models is the possibility to appraise and formalize how drivers naturally follow each other. Characterizing and parametrizing Normative Driving Behavior (NDB) became major goals, especially during the last 25 years. Most CF models assumed driver propensity for constant, safe distance is axiomatic. This paper challenges the idea of safety distance as the main parameter defining a unique (or natural) NDB. Instead, it states drivers can adapt to reactive and proactive car following. Drawing on recent CF models close to the Nagoya paradigm and on other phenomena (e.g., wave movement in Nature), we conceived car following by Driving to keep Inertia (DI) as an alternative to Driving to keep Distance (DD). On a driving simulator, three studies (N = 113) based on a repeated-measures experimental design explored the efficiency of these elementary techniques by measuring individual driver performance (e.g., accelerations, decelerations, average speed, distance to leader). Drivers easily grasped and applied either technique and easily switched back and forth between the two. As an overall indicator, all the studies revealed DI trips use about 20% less fuel than DD trips do. •Psychological paradigms suggest car-following can be proactive, not just reactive.•Three studies compared two techniques: drive to keep distance (DD) vs inertia (DI).•Drivers car-follow consistently, either reactively (DD) or proactively (DI).•Overall DI proved more efficient (speed dispersion, fuel consumption) than DD.•Proactive DI drivers may help smoothing traffic flows, hence alleviating congestion.
ISSN:0967-070X
1879-310X
DOI:10.1016/j.tranpol.2017.05.008