Journal of Safety Research 72 (2020) 239–247

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Safety Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jsr

Human Factors and Technology Special Issue

Recognition on trigger condition of autonomous emergency braking

system
Yasuhiro Mimura a,⇑, Ryosuke Ando a, Keiichi Higuchi b, Jia Yang a
a
Toyota Transportation Research Institute (TTRI), Japan
b
Daido University, Japan

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Introduction: Automobiles carrying an autonomous emergency braking system (AEBS) are currently pre-
Received 18 February 2019 vailing. While the reduction of traffic accidents is expected because of the widespread use of the system,
Received in revised form 27 August 2019 concerns as regards many drivers using the system without proper understanding of the trigger condi-
Accepted 26 December 2019
tions (TCs) have arisen. This research aims to grasp the degree of recognition of the AEBS TCs by a driver
Available online 15 January 2020
with a vehicle equipped with the system. Method: Using a web research company, we sent a survey sheet
for screening to 9999 monitors randomly selected by gender and age group and confirmed own vehicle
Keywords:
with an autonomous braking system ownership status. The number of answer targets was 200 for each of
Autonomous emergency braking system
Multivariate analysis model
the four groups divided by age and gender. In this research, we developed a multivariate analysis model
Recognition with the degree of understanding the AEBS TCs as the objective variable. The explanatory variables of this
model were ‘‘Driver characteristics” and ‘‘Contact opportunities of information on the AEBS.” Results:
Using PCA’s main component scores as the objective variable, two types of multiple regression models
were constructed according to the AEBS TCs (do not work properly and work accidentally). The model
analysis showed that gender, age, confidence in driving skill, and experience of the AEBS before purchas-
ing are significant variables in both models. The recognition of the conditions of the ‘‘AEBS does not work
properly” was influenced by the information-gathering ability and the degree of reference to various
information. In contrast, the recognition of the conditions of the ‘‘AEBS work accidentally” was influenced
by the interest of automobiles, such as the importance of automobile for self-expression and explanation
taken up in a car magazine. Conclusions: This study clarified the driver characteristics and contact oppor-
tunities of information that have problems in recognizing the AEBS TCs. Practical Applications:
Considering measures, such as public relations, utilizing this result will be meaningful in terms of road
safety in the current stage, which is the transitional period of the AEBS.
Ó 2020 National Safety Council and Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction in various vehicle types. In the ENECE report (UNECE, 2019), a

Automobiles carrying an autonomous emergency braking sys-
tem (AEBS), which is an automobile safety system designed to pre-
vent or reduce the severity of a collision using radar, laser, and
camera to detect an imminent crash, are currently prevailing. In
Japan, more than 40% of the vehicles sold in 2016 are equipped
with the systems shown in Fig. 1 (Ministry of Land,
Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism in Japan).
Accident reduction, effects, and cost benefits of the AEBS have
been verified. The verification conducted by Grover et al. (2008)
showed that the AEBS can be expected to reduce traffic accidents
⇑ Corresponding author at: Toyota Transportation Research Institute, 3-17
Motoshiro, Toyota, Aichi 4710024, Japan.
E-mail address: mimura@ttri.or.jp (Y. Mimura).
study by Euro NCAP and Australasian NCAP concluded that AEBS
leads to a 38% reduction in real-world rear-end crashes at low
speeds. According to the estimates by the European Commission,
the AEBS could save more than 1000 lives every year within the
EU. While the reduction of traffic accidents is expected because
of the widespread use of the system, concerns regarding many dri-
vers using the system without proper understanding of the trigger
conditions (TCs) have arisen.
TCs are conditions that activate the AEBS. The AEBS TCs are
divided into two types: one that does not work properly when
needed, and another that works even if not needed. Grover et al.
(2008) also mentioned the conditions under which the first-
generation AEBS does not operate and the conditions for an erro-
neous operation through literature surveys and interviews with
manufacturers. According to the report, the AEBS malfunction is

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2019.12.018
0022-4375/Ó 2020 National Safety Council and Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
240 Y. Mimura et al. / Journal of Safety Research 72 (2020) 239–247
Fig. 1. Trend of the prevailing AEBS in Japan (Ministry of Land, Infrastructure,
Transport and Tourism in Japan).
the most important issue for manufacturers, but detailed informa-
tion on this is disclosed very little or not at all.
A driver’s ambiguous recognition of the AEBS TCs can also have
serious adverse effects, such as promotion of dangerous driving.
Several studies on automated systems have been conducted to date
(e.g., (Bekiaris et al., 1996; Howard & Dai, 2014; Kyriakidis,
Happee, & Winter, 2015). These studies clarified the public’s accep-
tance, concern, willingness, and popularization forecast regarding
automation systems. Several studies have also pointed out the
importance of a driver’s proper recognition of the driving automa-
tion content. Liu, Zhou, Itoh, and Kitazaki (2018) conducted an
experiment using a driving simulator (DS) that focused on whether
or not traffic scenes, where the driving automation system could
not detect risks, would affect driver intervention. As a result, in
the case of a driver who has received an explanation about a traffic
scene in which a risk cannot be detected, the possibility of being
able to cope with it appropriately increases even if the automation
fails.
Larsson, Kircher, and Hultgren (2014) examined whether or not
the response time to dangerous events when using active cruise
control (ACC) is affected by the driver’s experience with ACC using
a DS. A comparison of 21 ACC experienced groups and 10 ACC non-
experienced groups showed that the response time during the ACC
operation increased in both the ACC experienced and non-
experienced groups. However, the increase was significantly lower
in the ACC experienced group.
However, only a few studies have investigated on how satisfac-
torily the public comprehends the functionality and limitations of
automated systems. Shimazaki, Ito, Fujii, and Ishida (2018) focused
on the rapidly spreading technology of automated braking to clar-
ify the general public’s understanding of the AEBS. A total of 210
Japanese people responded to a questionnaire on how automatic
brakes are operated, how they work, when they disengage, and
so on. The result showed that the proportion of those who misun-
derstood the operation of the system is not especially high, but a
certain percentage of people had misconceptions (e.g., some
believed that the AEBS could detect pedestrians or bicycles). This
study provides much knowledge on the public’s understanding of
the AEBS limitation; however, we thought that focusing on people
who already own/drive a car with an AEBS is more important
because for safety, they should properly understand the AEBS TCs
while driving.
This research aims to grasp the degree of recognition of the
AEBS TCs by a driver with a vehicle equipped with the system.
The influence factors on that recognition are shown.
2. Method
2.1. Data collection
This analysis was conducted on a characteristic group with an
autonomous braking system. Therefore, we collected the data
through a web research company (Rakuten Insight) with a large
population that can be screened. The population of this survey
was 1.22 million people holding cars. We sent a survey sheet for
screening to 9999 monitors randomly selected by gender and age
group for this population and confirmed own vehicle with an
autonomous braking system ownership status. Subsequently, the
main questionnaire was sent to the respondents who passed the
screening. The survey was finished at the stage of obtaining
answers of the target number by gender/age group. The number
of answer targets was 200 for each of the four groups divided by
elderly/non-elderly and gender (male and female).
2.2. Analysis framework
Fig. 2 shows our analysis framework. In this research, we devel-
oped a multivariate analysis model with the degree of understand-
ing the AEBS TCs as the objective variable. The explanatory
variables of this model were ‘‘Driver characteristics” and ‘‘Contact
opportunities of information on the AEBS.” The ‘‘Driver character-
istics” variable is composed of age, gender, ability of daily living,
vehicle type usually driven, driving frequency, and driving style.
The ‘‘Contact opportunities of information on the AEBS” variable
is composed of ‘‘experience of the AEBS before/after purchasing”
and ‘‘reference level of information about AEBS provided by vari-
ous mediums,” such as TV commercials and magazines.
2.3. Driver characteristics
2.3.1. Ability of daily living
We used the Japan Science and Technology Agency Index of
Competence (JST-IC) (Iwasa et al., 2018, 2015) to obtain the data
of ability of daily living. Table 1 presents the index. The respon-
dents answered 16 questions with yes (=1 point) or no (=0 point).
The score was calculated by the sum of the answers with four
categories.
2.3.2. Vehicle type usually driven and driving frequency
The types of vehicles that the respondents normally use were
then investigated. The target vehicles were classified into three
types: light car (displacement less than 660 cc), small car (660–
2000 cc), and regular car (2000 cc or more), which are commonly
used in Japan. When using multiple vehicles, we asked them to
answer the type of vehicle they use the most.
Regarding the driving frequency, the number of days of driving
per week was answered.
2.3.3. Driving style
We used the Driving Style Questionnaire (DSQ) developed by
the Research Institute of Human Engineering for Quality Life
(Ishibashi, Okuwa, Doi, & Akamatsu, 2007) to obtain the data on
the driving style. DSQ has eight scales composed of 18 questions
(Fig. 3). The respondents answered each question with four levels
(from ‘‘quite applicable” to ‘‘not at all”). The score of each scale
was calculated by the average of each answer.
2.4. Contact opportunities of information on the AEBS
2.4.1. Experience of the AEBS before/after purchasing
Some organizations, including auto manufactures and the local
governments in Japan, offer seminars where people can experience
AEBS activation with a safer condition. We asked herein if they had
used AEBS in advance by using these services before changing to an
AEBS-equipped vehicle. We also asked if they experienced AEBS
operation after switching to an AEBS-equipped vehicle.
 Y. Mimura et al. / Journal of Safety Research 72 (2020) 239–247 241

Fig. 2. Analysis framework.

Table 1
Ability of daily living.

Use of new equipment Can you use a mobile phone?

Can you use ATM?
Can you operate video or DVD player?
Can you mail a mobile phone or a personal computer?
Information gathering Are you interested in foreign news and events?
Can you judge the authenticity of health information?
Do you sometimes appreciate art objects, movies, music?
Do you watch educational programs?
Life management Are you taking measures to avoid suffering from fraud, snatching, burglar, etc.?
Do you have a bit of ingenuity in your life?
Can you take care of a sick person?
Are you looking after your family or acquaintances?
Social participation Are you participating in regional festivals and events?
Are you participating/active in the neighborhood association?
Can you take care of the local residents’ association or undertake a board member of that?
Are you doing any volunteer activities?

2.4.2. Reference level of information about the AEBS provided by

various mediums
We asked what information they referred to when switching to
an AEBS-equipped vehicle and how much they referred to it. Eight
types of information can be referenced, including explanations at
dealers, vehicle catalogs, maker commercials, etc. We also asked
about the degree of reference to each information in four stages,
from ‘‘very reference” to ‘‘not at all.”

2.5. Recognition of the AEBS TCs

As we mentioned earlier, the AEBS TCs were divided into almost

two types: one that does not work properly when needed, and
another that works even if not needed.
The nature of the risks created by both is different. The risk that
an AEBS will not properly operate is the result of the changes in the
driver’s level of risk, as pointed out by Wilde (1982). As shown in a
study by Strand, Nilssona, MariAnne Karlsson, and Nilsson (2014),
advances in driving automation are known to reduce a driver’s
driving performance. In other words, the level of risk perceived
by the driver is lowered by installing an automation system, such
as AEBS, on the vehicle, and the risk that was perceived when driv- Fig. 3. Example of DSQ (www.cit.nihon-u.ac.jp).
242 Y. Mimura et al. / Journal of Safety Research 72 (2020) 239–247

ing a vehicle without AEBS is not perceived. The driver must recog-
nize the condition that the AEBS does not operate properly in terms
of suppressing the decrease in the level of risk because of driving
automation.
In contrast, the risk of an accidental operation of the AEBS is
newly created by the installation of AEBS. This risk arises in situa-
tions that cannot be assumed during normal driving. The driver
must recognize the conditions under which the AEBS is erro-
neously operated such that he/she can raise the level of risk during
driving to deal with the new risks caused by the AEBS installation.
Based on the abovementioned differences, the analysis herein
was divided into the ‘‘recognition of conditions that AEBS does
not work properly” and the ‘‘recognition of conditions that work
accidentally.”
The AEBS TCs used in this research were collected through the
manufacturer’s websites. Table 2 shows the 17 collected AEBS
TCs, which are generally the same; hence, some types of vehicle
do not match up in this case. However, we think that this is big
problem in terms of understanding general trends about the recog-
nition of AEBS TCs.
gender and age in each style, except for Hesitation for driving.
The strong tendency among the elderly was Confidence in driving
ability and Methodological driving.
The frequency of driving was significantly lower (p < 0.001) in
older people, indicating that the tendency was stronger in females.
3.2. Contact opportunities of information on AEBS
3.2.1. Experience with the AEBS before/after purchasing
Fig. 4 shows the experience with AEBS activation before pur-
chasing the car with the system. Accordingly, 20% of the respon-
dents experienced AEBS through seminars, etc. before purchasing
vehicles. No difference was found among gender and age groups.
Fig. 5 shows the experience with AEBS activation after purchas-
ing the car with the system. In this case, a significant difference
was observed among gender and age groups by Pearson’s Chi-
squared test (P < 0.05). Males who are 18–64 years old have fre-
quent experiences with the AEBS after purchase. In contrast,
females who are 65 years old and up have lesser experience.

3.3. Reference level of information about the AEBS provided by various

3. Result mediums

3.1. Driver characteristics
Table 3 shows the results of the driver characteristics. Each ten-
dency is organized by gender and age (elderly/non-elderly), which
are basic characteristics.
First, the ability of daily activities is described. Of the four abil-
ities, use of new equipment ability is high, and social participation
ability is low. As a result of a one-way analysis of variance, a signif-
icant difference (p < 0.001) was found in each of the activities of
daily living by gender and age. The use of new equipment ability
is low in the elderly group of females. The information-gathering
ability is low in the non-age group. The life management ability
is low in the male group. Lastly, the social participation ability is
low in the non-age group.
Second, the types of vehicles normally used are described. Over-
all, the proportion of people using small cars is high. By personal
attribute, a high percentage of non-aged females use light cars.
Third, the driving style is described. Overall, we observe a
strong tendency for Methodological driving and a weak tendency
for Moodiness driving. As a result of the one-way analysis of vari-
ance, a significant difference (p < 0.01) was found depending on
Fig. 6 shows the reference level of information about the AEBS
provided by various mediums. Explanations by the car dealer and
manufacturer catalogs are being more referred to by all groups.
Focusing on gender and age groups, a significant difference was
found in all the mediums without the manufacturer’s CM. Explana-
tions by the car dealer, in manufacturer catalogs, newspapers and
magazines, and TV programs are more referred to by elderly
drivers.
3.4. Recognition of the AEBS TCs
Table 4 shows the recognition of the AEBS TCs. The highest rate
of recognition is TC1 ‘‘Your car’s speed is too slow or too fast” by
male (79%). The lowest rate of recognition is TC17 ‘‘In case of going
by an oncoming vehicle at a curve section” by the female group and
those 65 or older (25%). Overall, each rate of recognition on the
AEBS trigger conditions is not very high, presenting only half of
the respondents that could answer ‘‘Yes, I knew the AEBS TCs.”
Focusing on the difference among the groups, females and 65 or
older were lower on many AEBS TCs.

Table 2
AEBS TCs using this study.

Contents of trigger conditions

Do not work properly
Work accidentally
TC1 Your car’s speed is too slow or too fast
TC2 Velocity difference between collision target and your car is extremely large
TC3 The pedestrian’s height is very small or very large
TC4 Pedestrians are moving in groups
TC5 A part of the pedestrian (head, limbs, etc.) is hidden by luggage etc.
TC6 Pedestrian is not in a walking position, such as crouching or crouching posture
TC7 Weather is bad such as heavy rain, thick fog, snow, sandstorm
TC8 Water, snow, dirt, and so on are rolled up from the vehicle in front
TC9 A vehicle suddenly comes in front of your car, or a person comes out
TC10 The surroundings are dark such as in the nighttime and in the tunnel
TC11 The object to be collided is the side part of the vehicle, the oncoming vehicle, the vehicle that comes back
TC12 The collision object is a fence or a wall
TC13 The object of collision is a special vehicle such as a low floor trailer with a low loading platform
TC14 During automatic brake operation, you operated the accelerator, brake, steering wheel
TC15 When there is a vehicle, a pedestrian, a structure beside the road at the entrance of the curve
TC16 When driving in a place with a structure such as a tunnel with a low ceiling or a road sign above the road
TC17 In case of passing by oncoming vehicle at a curve
 Y. Mimura et al. / Journal of Safety Research 72 (2020) 239–247 243

Table 3
Result of the driver characteristics.

Male, 18– Male, 65 or Female, 18– Female, 65 or Significance

64 more 64 more level
The number of respondents n 200 200 200 200 –
Ability of daily living Use of new equipment Avg. 3.96 3.94 3.94 3.81 ***
(max = 4, min = 1) SD 0.22 0.34 0.36 0.52
Information gathering Avg. 2.77 3.16 2.76 3.19 ***
SD 1.30 1.05 1.27 1.02
Life management Avg. 2.40 2.78 2.94 3.07 ***
SD 1.35 1.20 1.14 1.04
Social participation Avg. 1.25 1.95 1.29 1.82 ***
SD 1.40 1.54 1.41 1.44
Vehicle type that usually Light car (660 cc) n 32 42 93 56 –
drive Small car (660–2000 cc) n 104 116 44 101 –
Regular car (2000 cc or more) n 64 38 63 42 –
Others n 0 4 0 1 –
Driving style Confidence in driving skill Avg. 2.78 2.94 2.31 2.41 ***
(max = 4, min = 1) SD 0.62 0.65 0.65 0.63

Hesitation for driving Avg. 1.94 2.01 1.94 2.08

SD 0.67 0.61 0.61 0.73

Impatience in driving Avg. 2.34 2.13 2.05 1.96 ***

SD 0.61 0.61 0.65 0.56

Methodical driving Avg. 2.74 3.09 2.85 2.94 ***

SD 0.75 0.78 0.81 0.89

Preparatory maneuvers at traffic signals Avg. 2.52 2.62 2.29 2.19 ***
SD 0.69 0.69 0.61 0.68

Importance of automobile for self- Avg. 2.67 2.44 2.42 2.29 ***
expression SD 0.69 0.69 0.70 0.66

Moodiness in driving Avg. 1.80 1.48 1.76 1.51 ***

SD 0.67 0.56 0.64 0.58

Anxiety about traffic accident Avg. 2.13 2.04 2.28 2.05 **

SD 0.76 0.80 0.76 0.77

Driving frequency Avg. 4.53 3.98 5.18 3.75 ***

(days per week) SD 2.64 2.33 2.44 2.55

Significant difference (**P < 0.001; **P < 0.01) by ANOVA.

Fig. 4. Experience with AEBS activation before purchasing the car with the system
through seminars, etc.
Fig. 5. Experience with AEBS activation after purchasing the car with the system.
*Significant difference (P < 0.05) by Pearson’s Chi-squared test.

3.5. Making a comprehensive index for the recognition of the trigger
conditions
A principal component analysis (PCA) was used to make a com-
prehensive index for the recognition of the TCs of AEBS. Tables 5
and 6 show the PCA results of both AEBS TCs (do not work properly
and work accidentally). The overall trend of the model is generally
revealed at the first principal component (PC1). In the ‘‘AEBS do not
work properly” model (Table 5), the standard deviation of PC1 was
2.99, and the proportion of variance was 0.64. In contrast, in the
244 Y. Mimura et al. / Journal of Safety Research 72 (2020) 239–247

Fig. 6. Reference level of information about the AEBS provided by various mediums. Significant difference (**P < 0.01; *P < 0.05) by Pearson’s Chi-squared test.

Table 4
Recognition of the trigger conditions.

*Depth of color of the shaded part refers to the height of value.

 Y. Mimura et al. / Journal of Safety Research 72 (2020) 239–247 245

Table 5
Making a comprehensive index for the recognition of the trigger conditions through PCA (do not work properly).

Characteristic vectors
PC1 PC2 PC3
TC1 Your car’s speed is too slow or too fast 0.21 0.44 0.53
TC2 Velocity difference between collision target and your car is extremely large 0.25 0.16 0.44
TC3 The pedestrian’s height is very small or very large 0.26 0.07 0.38
TC4 Pedestrians are moving in groups 0.27 0.36 0.12
TC5 A part of the pedestrian (head, limbs, etc.) is hidden by luggage etc. 0.28 0.37 0.08
TC6 Pedestrian is not in a walking position, such as crouching or crouching posture 0.28 0.26 0.15
TC7 Weather is bad such as heavy rain, thick fog, snow, sandstorm 0.25 0.47 0.20
TC8 Water, snow, dirt and so on are rolled up from the vehicle in front 0.27 0.35 0.29
TC9 A vehicle suddenly comes in front of your car, or a person comes out 0.28 0.11 0.15
TC10 The surroundings are dark such as in the nighttime and in the tunnel 0.28 0.13 0.26
TC11 The object to be collided is the side part of the vehicle, the oncoming vehicle, the vehicle that comes back 0.28 0.11 0.23
TC12 The collision object is a fence or a wall 0.27 0.12 0.16
TC13 The object of collision is a special vehicle such as a low floor trailer with a low loading platform 0.29 0.17 0.16
TC14 During automatic brake operation, you operated the accelerator, brake, steering wheel 0.27 0.05 0.10
Standard deviation 2.99 0.96 0.89
Proportion of Variance 0.64 0.07 0.06

Table 6
Making a comprehensive index for recognition of the trigger conditions through PCA (work accidentally).

Characteristic vectors
PC1 PC2 PC3
TC15 When there is a vehicle, a pedestrian, a structure beside the road at the entrance of the curve 0.58 0.29 0.76
TC16 When driving in a place with a structure such as a tunnel with a low ceiling or a road sign above the road 0.58 0.51 0.64
TC17 In case of passing by oncoming vehicle at a curve 0.57 0.81 0.13
Standard deviation 1.63 0.43 0.39
Proportion of variance 0.89 0.06 0.05

‘‘AEBS work accidentally” model (Table 6), the standard deviation
of PC1 was 1.63, and the proportion of variance was 0.89. In addi-
tion, we used all the characteristic vectors of both model’s PC1 as
the comprehensive index of AEBS TCs because they showed posi-
tive values.
3.6. Identification of the influence factors regarding the recognitions of
the AEBS TCs
Multiple regression models were constructed using both PC1’s
main component scores as the objective variable. The variable
selection using the stepwise method by AIC was then performed.
We implemented the methods of increasing and decreasing the
variables, decreasing the variables, and increasing the variables
and adopted the results of method of increasing and decreasing
the variables, which had the lowest AIC. Tables 7 (do not work
properly) and 8 (work accidentally) show the obtained models.
Even the adjusted R-squared in this model was not very high
(0.2291 and 0.1866). We think that these models are sufficient to
realize what the effective factors related to the recognition of the
AEBS TCs are.
In the ‘‘AEBS do not work properly” model (Table 7), males
(P < 0.001), the ability of information gathering (P < 0.05), confi-
dence in driving skill (P < 0.001), having experienced AEBS before
purchasing (P < 0.001), referring to catalogs of automobile manu-
facturers (P < 0.05), newspapers and magazines (P < 0.001), and

Table 7
Identification of the influence factors regarding the recognitions of the AEBS TCs (do not work properly).

Estimate Std. t- Significance

error Value level
(Intercept) 1.73 1.03 1.69
Driver characteristics Age 65–69 years old 0.51 0.21 2.39 *
70 years old or more 1.11 0.28 3.95 ***
Gender Men (dummy) 0.97 0.20 4.81 ***
Ability of daily living Use of new equipment 0.44 0.26 1.71
Information gathering 0.22 0.09 2.55 *
Social participation 0.10 0.07 1.46
Driving style Confidence in driving skill 0.61 0.15 4.15 ***
Contact opportunities of Experience of the AEBS before purchasing 1.82 0.24 7.73 ***
information on AEBS Reference level of information about AEBS Explanation in the manufacturer’s 0.57 0.23 2.44 *
provided by various mediums catalog
Introduction by manufacturer’s CM 0.64 0.23 2.76 **
Explanations taken up in newspapers 0.94 0.26 3.68 ***
and general magazines
Results of performance evaluation in 0.63 0.26 2.39 *
public agencies

Adjusted R-squared = 0.2291. Significant difference: ***P < 0.001, **P < 0.01, and *P < 0.05.
246 Y. Mimura et al. / Journal of Safety Research 72 (2020) 239–247

Table 8
Identification of the influence factors regarding the recognitions of the AEBS TCs (work accidentally).

Estimate Std. t- Significance

error Value level
(Intercept) 0.98 0.61 1.62
Driver characteristics Age 65–69 years old 0.25 0.12 2.06 *
70 years old or older 0.47 0.16 2.99 **
Gender Men (dummy) 0.48 0.12 4.06 ***
Ability of daily living Use of new equipment 0.25 0.14 1.74
Information gathering 0.10 0.05 1.86
Life management 0.10 0.05 2.07 *
Driving style Confidence in driving skill 0.19 0.09 2.18 *
Methodical driving 0.15 0.07 2.12 *
Preparatory maneuvers at traffic 0.13 0.09 1.45
signals
Importance of automobile for self- 0.22 0.08 2.76 **
expression
Contact opportunities of Experience of the AEBS before purchasing 0.88 0.13 6.64 ***
information on AEBS Reference level of information about AEBS Explanation in the manufacturer’s 0.24 0.13 1.86
provided by various mediums catalog
Introduction by manufacturer’s CM 0.23 0.13 1.78
Explanation taken up in a car magazine 0.40 0.17 2.40 *
Explanations taken up in newspapers 0.27 0.16 1.67
and general magazines

Adjusted R-squared = 0.1866. Significant difference: ***P < 0.001, **P < 0.01, and *P < 0.05

results of the performance evaluation in public agencies (P < 0.05)
were positively related to the recognition of the AEBS TCs. Mean-
while, those 65–69 years old (P < 0.05), 70 years old or older
(P < 0.001), and referring to the Introduction by the manufacturer’s
CM (P < 0.01) were negatively related to the recognition of the
AEBS TCs.
In the ‘‘AEBS work accidentally” model (Table 8), males
(P < 0.001), the ability of life management (P < 0.05), confidence
in driving skill (P < 0.05), importance of automobile for self-
expression (P < 0.01), having experienced AEBS before purchasing
(P < 0.001), and explanation taken up in a car magazine (P < 0.05)
were positively related to the recognition of the AEBS TCs. In con-
trast, those 65–69 years old (P < 0.05), 70 years old or older
(P < 0.01), and methodical driving (P < 0.01) were negatively
related to the recognition of the AEBS TCs.
Gender, age, confidence in driving skill, and experience of the
AEBS before purchasing are significant variables in both models.
The recognition of the conditions of the ‘‘AEBS does not work prop-
erly” model was influenced by the information-gathering ability
and degree of reference to various information. Meanwhile, the
recognition of the conditions of the ‘‘AEBS work accidentally”
model is influenced by the interest of automobiles, such as the
importance of automobile for self-expression and explanation
taken up in a car magazine.
4. Discussion
As mentioned in the Introduction section, concerns regarding
some drivers using the system without proper understanding of
the AEBS TCs have arisen because it may pose serious adverse
effects, such as promotion of dangerous driving. Table 4 shows that
some parts of the recognition of the AEBS TCs are not very high.
The low recognition of pedestrian detection is particularly similar
to the results of Shimazaki et al. (2018). Shimazaki et al. (2018)
did not find any difference by personal attribute for this recogni-
tion, but the present study found a difference by age and gender.
In fact, 93.8% of the respondents to the Shimazaki et al. (2018)) sur-
vey did not have AEBS-equipped vehicles. As shown in Fig. 6, the
respondents of the present study referred to a variety of informa-
tion when possessing a vehicle equipped with an AEBS, and gender
and age differences existed in the references. The information ref-
erence process related to the AEBS, which differs depending on the
personal attribute, may have produced this difference.
Regarding the difference in the models of ‘‘AEBS TCs do not
work properly” and ‘‘AEBS TCs work accidentally,” the latter is gen-
erally more severe for safety because accidents are possible in this
case even if they drive their vehicles properly. However, looking at
Table 4 and comparing the recognition rates between the two
models, the latter has a lower rate. This result shows the same ten-
dency as the result of Shimazaki et al. (2018). The ‘‘work acciden-
tally problem” belongs to the vehicle technology side rather than
the driver side. Therefore, first, it is important not only for the
manufacturer to improve the technology, but also for public rela-
tions activities to raise the level of risk to drivers.
As to the uniqueness of this research, influence factors regard-
ing the recognitions of both AEBS TCs were revealed through driver
characteristics and contact opportunities on information of the
AEBS. From the driver characteristics, the recognition rate of both
AEBS TCs is also high when confidence in driving skill is high. In
addition, the recognition rates of both AEBS TCs of females and
the elderly are low. Females and the elderly are particularly easy
to target; hence, the promotion of public relations to raise aware-
ness of the AEBS TCs toward them is expected to be effective.
In addition, we focused on the contact opportunities on infor-
mation of AEBS. Contact opportunities on the information gener-
ally have two types: active and passive ways. For example,
explanations taken up in newspapers and general magazines can-
not provide information unless the driver tries to actively read
newspapers and magazines themselves. In contrast, the introduc-
tion by manufacturer’s CM is only passively acquired through tele-
vision, radio, etc. Referring to this result, when collecting
information by an active approach, the recognition rate of the AEBS
TCs is high. When information is collected by a passive approach,
the recognition rate of the AEBS TCs is low. This result is similar
to the experiences of the AEBS. If you have experienced AEBS
through seminars, etc. before purchasing a vehicle, which is
regarded as an active approach, the recognition rate of the AEBS
TCs becomes higher, but the experience of AEBS after vehicle pur-
chase is not affected. Regarding the contact opportunities on infor-
mation, it is up to the individual to prefer being active or passive.
The question is how to deal with those who prefer the passive
approach. To handle this, for example, one must focus on the con-
tents of the CM, dealer explanations, and so on.
 Y. Mimura et al. / Journal of Safety Research 72 (2020) 239–247
Finally, in the Contact opportunities of information, the condi-
tions of the ‘‘AEBS work accidentally” had fewer variables that
were more significant than those of the conditions ‘‘AEBS do not
work properly” (do not work properly = 5 variables vs work acci-
dentally = 2 variables). As Grover et al. (2008) pointed out, the
information related to the ‘‘work accidentally” problem is only
available in certain sources, such as automotive journals. Thus,
strengthening efforts to inform users of the condition of ‘‘AEBS
work accidentally” through various opportunities may be
important.
5. Conclusion
We obtained important results in this research. The highest
recognition rate of the AEBS TCs is related to ‘‘Your car’s speed is
too slow or too fast” by male. The lowest rate of the recognition
is ‘‘In case of going by an oncoming vehicle at a curve section” by
female and 65 or older. Overall, each rate of recognition on the
AEBS TCs was not very high, presenting only half of the respon-
dents that could answer ‘‘Yes, I knew the AEBS TCs.” Focusing on
the difference among the groups, female and 65 or older were
lower on many AEBS TCs.
Using PCA’s main component scores as the objective variable,
two types of multiple regression models were constructed accord-
ing to the AEBS TCs. The model analysis showed that gender, age,
confidence in driving skill, and experience of the AEBS before pur-
chasing are significant variables in both models. The recognition of
the conditions ‘‘AEBS does not work properly” was influenced by
the information-gathering ability and the degree of reference to
various information. In contrast, the recognition of the conditions
‘‘AEBS work accidentally” was influenced by the interest of auto-
mobiles, such as the importance of automobile for self-
expression and explanation taken up in a car magazine.
The AEBS TCs are expected to be a problem that will be solved
by technological improvements in the future. However, at this
stage, a driver must correctly understand that the AEBS may not
work properly for certain dangerous situations because the reduc-
tion of the driver’s level of risk can be mitigated or even increased.
This study clarified the driver characteristics and contact opportu-
nities of information that have problems in recognizing the AEBS
TCs. Considering measures, such as public relations, using this
result will be meaningful in terms of road safety in the current
stage, which is the transitional period of the AEBS.
We will focus on the following in future works:
– the difference of the driving behaviors of people with less
recognition for the AEBS TCs between before/after owning a
car with an AEBS (i.e., become more careless or not); and
– the extent of reliance on the AEBS by people with less recogni-
tion (i.e., excessive or not).
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Wel-
fare Foundation and Japan Safe Driving Center. The authors would
247
like to thank Enago (www.enago.jp) for the English language
review.
References
Bekiaris, E., Petica, S., Vicens, V., Portouli, V., Papakonstantinou, C., Peters, B., Artaud,
P., et al. (1996). SAVE system for effective assessment of the driver state and
vehicle control in emergency situations – Driver needs and public acceptance of
emergency control aids. SAVE Consortium, 1–278.
Grover, C., Knight, I., Okoro, F., Simmons, I., Couper, G., Massie, P., Smith, B., et al.
(2008). Automated emergency brake systems: Technical requirements, costs
and benefits. TRL Published Project Report 227.
Howard, D., & Dai, D. (2014). Public perceptions of self-driving cars: The case of
Berkeley, California Paper presented at the 93rd Annual Meeting TRB,
Washington, DC.
http://www.cit.nihon-u.ac.jp/kouendata/No.38/1_kikai/1-029.pdf (in Japanese)
Ishibashi, M., Okuwa, M., Doi, S., & Akamatsu, M. (2007). Indices for characterizing
driving style and their relevance to car following behavior. SICE Annual
Conference.
Iwasa, H., Masui, Y., Inagaki, H., Yoshida, Y., Shimada, H., Otsuka, R., et al. (2018).
Assessing competence at a higher level among older adults: Development of the
Japan Science and Technology Agency Index of Competence (JST-IC). Aging
Clinical and Experimental Research, 30(4), 383–393.
Iwasa, H., Masui, Y., Inagaki, H., Yoshida, Y., Shimada, H., Otsuka, R., Kikuchi, K.,
Nonaka, K., Yoshida, H., Yoshida, H., & Suzuki, T. (2015). Development of the
Japan Science and Technology Agency Index of Competence (JST-IC) to assess
functional capacity in older adults: Conceptual definitions and preliminary
items. Gerontology and Geriatric Medicine, 1.
Kyriakidis, M., Happee, R., & Winter, J. (2015). Public opinion on automated driving:
Results of an international questionnaire among 5000 respondents.
Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 32, 127–140.
Larsson, A. F. L., Kircher, K., & Hultgren, J. A. (2014). Learning from experience:
Familiarity with ACC and responding to a cut-in situation in automated driving.
Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 27(Part B),
229–237.
Liu, T., Zhou, H., Itoh, M., & Kitazaki, S. (2018). The impact of explanation on
possibility of hazard detection failure on driver intervention under partial
driving automation. 2018 IEEE intelligent vehicles symposium (IV).
Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism in Japan (2016).
Payre, W., Cestac, J., & Delhomme, P. (2014). Intention to use a fully automated car:
Attitudes and a priori acceptability. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic
Psychology and Behaviour, 27, 252–263.
Shimazaki, K., Ito, T., Fujii, A., & Ishida, T. (2018). The public’s understanding of the
functionality and limitations of automatic braking in Japan. IATSS Research, 42
(4), 163–284.
Strand, N., Nilssona, J., MariAnne Karlsson, I. C., & Nilsson, L. (2014). Semi-
automated versus highly automated driving in critical situations caused by
automation failures. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and
Behaviour, 27(Part B), 218–228.
UNECE, UN Regulation on Advanced Emergency Braking Systems for cars to
significantly reduce crashes, Press Releases, Published: 12 February 2019,
http://www.unece.org/?id=51189.
Wilde, G. J. S. (1982). The theory of risk homeostasis: implications for safety and
health. Risk Analysis, 2(4), 209–225.
Dr. Yasuhiro Mimura was received the Dr. Eng. degrees in Fukui University, Japan.
He is now a principle researcher of TTRI. His research interest includes Trans-
portation planning.
Dr. Ryosuke Ando was received the Dr. Eng. degrees in Nagoya University, Japan.
He is now a director of research division of TTRI. His research interest includes
Traffic engineering.
Dr. Keiichi Higuchi was received the Dr. Eng. degrees in Nihon University, Japan.
He is now a lecturer of Dido university. His research interest includes Transporta-
tion planning.
Dr. Jia Yang was received the Dr. Eng. degrees in Nagoya University, Japan. He is
now a senior researcher of TTRI. His research interest includes Traffic engineering.