Table of contentsCollision associated with driving at a safe distanceTask analysis - Maintaining a safe distanceSubtasksRequired informationHuman factors and potential errorsIntelligent transportation systemsAlthough people engage in driving as a daily task, it involves complex information processing processes and imposes heavy cognitive demands due to its dynamic nature. Dynamism occurs due to the change in environmental conditions with which the driver has to deal in the course of his activity, as well as variations in their internal nature during the performance of specific tasks. One of the seemingly simplest tasks of driving is maintaining a safe distance between a vehicle and the one in front. However, there is some evidence that drivers often fail to perform this task due to road factors or factors emanating from their human nature (Mazureck & Hattem, 2006). Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay Drivers in many cities face traffic jam problems, especially during morning and evening rush hours. Traffic often leads many drivers to tailgating, a practice in which the driver behind drives too close to the driver in front (Song and Wang, 2012). Global recommendations for a safe driving distance are approximately 3 seconds, with 30 meters considered the equivalent of 1 second (Mazureck & Hattem, 2006). The rule changes depending on road conditions, increasing to four seconds in cases where the road is unclear due to conditions such as fog, and ten seconds for snow-covered roads (Mazureck & Hattem, 2006). Regardless, drivers often neglect these recommended distances, especially under traffic pressure. These driving tendencies have multiple motivations, including the perception of delay and the illusion that following a safe distance is a waste of time, distractions, or even the desire to display subtle aggression while driving on the road (Song et Wang, 2012). The article focuses on analyzing human factors that could interfere with maintaining safe driving distances. Understanding these factors is essential to understanding how rear-end collisions can be mitigated on highways. Collisions associated with driving at a safe distance Sarkar et al (2000) classify following a vehicle with insufficient lead as a serious form of aggressive driving. Based on a driver's typical reaction time, it is recommended that they maintain a distance of more than two seconds between their vehicle and the vehicle in front. Any execution of this task in less than this time, depending on the speed of the moving vehicle, is likely to result in a traffic collision (Sarkar, Martineau, Emami, Khatib, & Wallace, 2000). This is a particularly daunting challenge for road safety, considering statistics which indicate that approximately 18 to 20 percent of the global incidence of crashes involve multiple vehicles traveling in the same direction, rather than at an intersection (Mazureck & Hattem, 2006). The most common accident that occurs during this type of driving task is a rear-end collision. According to data from the National Center for Statistics and Analysis (NCSA, 2010), rear-end collisions accounted for more than 30% of the 5.9 million crashes that occurred in the United States between 2006 and 2008. These crashes caused approximately2,200 dead and around 500,000 people. injuries each year (National Center for Statistics and Analysis, 2010). Although tailgating is only responsible for about 70% of these automobile collisions, this factor has also been recorded as leading to the most fatalities compared to the other rear-end collision factor: inattention. Thus, safe driving distance is identified as a critical source of rear-end collisions for automobiles, particularly in the United States. As the number of vehicles on the roads continues to increase and during periods when roads experience heavy traffic, the following distance of vehicles on the road becomes an important task to understand and consider in highway design. . Task Analysis - Keeping a Safe Distance Maintaining a safe distance between a vehicle and the vehicle in front is a relatively simple task. Nevertheless, there are particular actions that the driver must engage in in order to successfully maintain completion.Subtasks2-3 Second Rule: The driver is expected to maintain a constant difference between 2 and 3 seconds between himself and the vehicle which precedes it. them. This aspect requires deliberate visual scanning, whereby the use of fixed landmarks is effective. In this case, the driver must mark the point at which the preceding vehicle passes a landmark, and between that time and the time it passes the same landmark there should be a difference of approximately 3 seconds (Knipling and al., 1993). However, it may be necessary to increase this time when weather conditions are unfavorable, to the point of increasing the required stopping distance (Knipling, et al., 1993). Obstacles: The driver must also visually scan the road for potential obstacles. both in their driving and in the driving of the vehicle in front of them. Potential obstacles include possible pedestrians, debris, or upcoming intersections that may force the driver in front to slow down (Adell, Verhelyi, & Dalla Fontana, 2011). In these cases, a gear change for the driver in front may force an equal gear change in order to maintain the safe driving distance. Distracted drivers may lack the ability to effectively scan the environment, thus failing to identify potential obstacles that could ultimately reduce their distance (Adell, Verhelyi, & Dalla Fontana, 2011). Taking into account the characteristics of the vehicle: the characteristics of the vehicle in front of the driver is also crucial in determining the safety distance to maintain. Vehicle characteristics may include heavy vehicles such as lorises, or different forms of automobiles such as motorcycles on the same roads (Knipling et al., 1993). For heavy vehicles, the stopping distance tends to be longer. At the same time, some lorises are equipped with instant brakes, in which case these will often be indicated on the back. Vehicle characteristics may also involve defects in the vehicle in front, such as brake lights that do not work. In the latter case, the driver must remain sufficiently aware to scan the brake lights of the vehicle in front of the immediate vehicle, which he will use as a basis for adjusting speeds and maintaining safety distances (Song & Wang, 2012).Information requiredThe execution of specific subtasks by the driver to ensure the maintenance of a safe distance relies on access to a given set of information. As with all driving tasks, perception-reaction time combines with maneuvering time to define the visibility distance (Song & Wang, 2012). The driver's ability toprocessing information therefore determines one's ability to effectively complete the specific task or subtasks. Meaning of Road Signs: Some of the critical information the driver needs is understanding the meaning of road symbols. Drivers typically operate in an environment in which symbols are the most common form of communication. Assuming adequate visual ability, the remaining elements concern understanding the symbols they encounter along the road (Adell, Verhelyi, & Dalla Fontana, 2011). For example, pedestrian signs will alert the driver to a possible change in driving conditions on the road, such as speed, and the implications these changes have on current safety distancing requirements. The driver also feels the need to pay attention to pedestrians, who constitute obstacles likely to increase the risk of a rear-end collision when the safety distance is not respected. Driver behavior: The driver on the highway also needs information about the behavior and condition of other drivers on the road. Driver characteristics such as aggression or unnecessary distraction could compromise the ability of the rest of the drivers to maintain safe distances (Song and Wang, 2012). Information about the driver's level of attention to the vehicle in front may force the vehicle behind to maintain greater distances between them. At the same time, the flashing taillights of the driver in front may indicate a degree of irritation or indications that he feels the one behind him is too close. Therefore, the driver has an obligation to constantly evaluate this information, using it to monitor and negotiate constant safety distances. Environmental or Weather Implications: Additional information required by the driver relates to the current weather or environment. Some weather conditions vary by region, often changing abruptly, such as rain or hail or even snow-covered sections of roads. Informing the driver about the weather on the road is crucial, as sudden changes in weather will always require changes to the required safety distance between vehicles. Constant monitoring of slippery roads will also guide choices about when to vary speed and the resulting implications for safe distance (Mazureck & Hattem, 2006). Current speeds: Driving on multiple road types tends to have different characteristics, especially when speeds are different. concerned. Drivers on highways may drive at higher speeds than on smaller-scale roads, which determines the perception of safe distances that drivers should maintain (National Center for Statistics and Analysis, 2010). Understanding the current speed allows the driver to make mental calculations of the total stopping distance and, therefore, the required safe distance between them (Knipling et al., 1993). It appears that high-speed driving requires longer reaction times from drivers, even when perceptual time does not change. For example, while the average reaction time is only about 0.75 seconds, the reaction time at 80 mPh is about 1.5 seconds (Knipling et al., 1993). Knowing the current speed of vehicles on the road is therefore essential information to guide the determination of the safety distance between the vehicle and the one in front. Human factors and potential errors Driver actions may beprone to errors, which will often have either serious consequences or reports of near misses. According to the Indiana Tri-State Level study, it appears that human factors account for approximately 93% of road driving errors, with environmental and automobile factors only influencing approximately 34% and 13% of these incidences, respectively (Treat, Tumbas and McDonald, 1979). Taking into account the factors of their individuality, without overlapping causes, human factors account for approximately 57% of errors resulting from road accidents (Treat, Tumbas and McDonald, 1979). Human factors are divided into cognition, vision and motor function. Their expression determines the driver's perception, decision-making and reaction time. Multiple aspects related to vision can impair a driver's ability to maintain a safe driving distance. Evidence indicates that errors in maintaining distance arise from problems emanating from the visual processing of dynamic information (Song and Wang, 2012). For example, the driver's ability to thoroughly judge central movement – ​​as in the case of slowing vehicles – may compromise their ability to maintain safe distances. The driver's visual acuity may also be compromised, making it difficult to read road signs while in motion (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 2010). The result is that the driver ends up changing gears later than they should, seriously compromising the distance between vehicles. Another cause of errors in maintaining a safe distance is speed range.cognitive influences. Cognition, in this context, can vary to include inattention and divided attention, vigilance, and memory (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 2010). Divided attention involves the driver monitoring multiple tasks at the same time, such as eating while driving. Although eating may be a trivial task, evidence has indicated that such tasks tend to interfere with driving activity by approximately 350 milliseconds (Levy, Pashler, & Boer, 2006). Therefore, when a driver is eating while driving, they may not slow down in time to maintain the safe distance when the vehicle in front of them breaks down, even if not suddenly. At the same time, alertness and memory are essential cognitive factors. factors that determine the occurrence of errors in maintaining safety distances. When a driver has been on the road for some time, the attention they devote to the driving task is limited (Fuller, 2005). This driver may be drowsy and not notice that they are getting too close to the vehicle in front of them. Memory, long term and short term, also serves as a basis for error. Drivers traveling on familiar routes can anticipate things such as road maps, and if they do not remember the braking of vehicles in front of them, they can compromise the safe distance (Fuller, 2005). Errors in maintaining a safe distance can also occur due to compromised motor skills. Current evidence indicates that motor skills are compromised with age, decreasing an individual's simple reaction time (Dewar, Olson, & Alexander, 2007). Therefore, when an older driver must adjust their speed in response to an unexpected event in order to maintain a safe distance, they will often fail to accomplish this task due to slower motor reflexes. The result will often be, even if only momentarily, that the driver ends up tailgating vehicles in front of him or even causing a collision.collision. Mistakes that occur on the road when it comes to maintaining a safe distance come from relying on drivers' judgment to determine the safe distance. adequacy of progress. However, there are specific road engineering and construction solutions that could prevent or reduce the occurrence of these errors and resulting collision incidents. One possible countermeasure is the installation of warning signs that warn or discourage tailgating. The signs remind people of the appropriate distance to maintain, thereby reducing the incidence of deviation among drivers. In a 1983 study in Ascot, Berkshire, the installation of an automatic warning sign helped reduce the number of drivers using the one-second interval by around a third (Helliar-Symons, Wheeler and Scott, 1984). The sign was automatically triggered when vehicles present at that location had a gap of less than 0.7 seconds, but over time this gap was increased to between 1 second and 2 seconds (Hutchinson, 2008). Alternative interventions also included a mechanical and permanent panel. , which reminds drivers to avoid tailgating. This sign, as applied in Tennessee at Memphis, involved a portable sign advising against tailgating. This resulted in an increase in compliance of 13 percent (Hutchinson, 2008). Therefore, drivers who would otherwise be distracted, such as one who eats while driving, will be forced to consciously perceive the expected change in safety distance. Another countermeasure applicable in this situation is the presence of dots or chevrons on the road surface. These chevrons are installed at regular intervals, reflecting the ideal distance between vehicles at average speed on the given road. Assuming vehicles traveling at 60 miles per hour and points spaced approximately 80 feet apart, it will be possible for drivers to generate mental patterns that allow them to maintain an adequate lead. In this case, the requirement would be that while each conductor is on a given rafter, they can see two others between them, implying a distance of 180 feet. Therefore, taking into account the speed, the advance would be approximately 1.8 seconds (Hutchinson, 2008). Studies have supported the use of dots or chevrons as a countermeasure to road errors resulting from safety distancing issues. Testing the same on British and French motorways successfully improved drivers' understanding of the correct distance vehicles should maintain (Hutchinson, 2008). On the other hand, there was controversy over the challenges that rafters might impose. In some cases, they can distract drivers. In other cases, their permanence hinders the flexibility that should accompany changes in speed and the resulting variation in progress (Song & Wang, 2012). Regardless, where these challenges are overlooked, dots or chevrons facilitate correct measurement of the distance traveled by vehicles. Intelligent Transportation SystemsHutchison (2008) proposes the use of intelligent transportation systems as an approach to counter tailgating errors made by unconscious drivers. These systems could include advanced collision warning systems as well as cruise control which would be cost-effective measures against rear-end collisions. Several trials have been implemented, such as the Follow Distance Warning system, but these have yet to be introduced on the road (Hutchinson, 2008). Such systems are installed on the vehicle, allowing the driver behind to receive.