IndexCollisions associated with driving at a safe distanceTask analysis - Maintaining a safe distanceSubtasksInformation requiredHuman factors and potential errorsIntelligent transportation systemsAs 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 must deal in the course of his activity, as well as changes in his internal nature during the execution of specific tasks. One of the seemingly simplest tasks in driving is maintaining a safe distance between a vehicle and the one in front. However, there are indications that drivers often fail to perform this task due to factors present on the road or resulting from their human nature (Mazureck & Hattem, 2006). Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Motorists in many cities have to deal with traffic jam problems, especially during morning and evening rush hours. Traffic often causes many drivers to exhibit tailgating, a practice whereby the driver behind gets too close to the driver in front (Song & Wang, 2012). Global recommendations for driving at a safe distance are approximately 3 seconds, while 30 meters is considered the equivalent of one second (Mazureck & Hattem, 2006). The rule changes depending on road conditions, increasing to four seconds in cases where the road is not clear due to conditions such as fog, and to ten seconds for roads contaminated by snow (Mazureck & Hattem, 2006). Regardless, motorists often neglect these recommended distances, especially under traffic pressure. These driving tendencies have multiple motivators, including the perception of delay and the illusion that safe distance space is a waste of time, distractions, or even the desire to demonstrate subtle aggression while driving on the road (Song & Wang , 2012). the work focuses on analyzing human factors that potentially interfere with maintaining safe driving distances. Understanding these factors is critical 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 headway as a serious form of aggressive driving. According to the typical reaction time of a driver, the driver is advised to maintain a distance of more than two seconds between his vehicle and the one in front. Any performance of this task in less than this time, depending on the speed of the moving vehicle, could result in a traffic collision (Sarkar, Martineau, Emami, Khatib, & Wallace, 2000). This is a particularly considerable challenge for road safety, considering that statistics indicate that approximately 18-20% of the global incidence of accidents involves multiple vehicles moving in the same direction, not at an intersection (Mazureck & Hattem , 2006). that occur in this type of driving activity are rear-end collisions. 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 resulted in approximately 2,200 deaths and around 500,000 deaths. accidents every year (National Center for Statistics and Analysis,2010). Although tailgating is only responsible for about 70% of these car collisions, this factor has also been recorded to result in the highest number of fatalities compared to the other rear-end collision factor, inattention. Therefore, safe driving distance is identified as a critical source of rear-end collisions for automobiles, especially in the United States. As the number of vehicles on the road continues to increase and the periods in which roads encounter heavy traffic increase, the safe distance for vehicles on the road becomes a significant task to understand and consider in highway design. Task analysis: maintaining a safe distance Maintaining a safe distance between a vehicle and the one in front is a relatively uncomplicated task. However, there are particular actions that the driver must engage in to successfully maintain his achievement. Sub-Task2-3 second rule: The driver is expected to maintain a constant difference of between 2 and 3 seconds between them and the vehicle in front of them. This aspect requires deliberate visual scanning, so the use of fixed reference points is effective. In this case, the driver should mark the point at which the preceding vehicle passes a reference point, and between that moment and the moment it passes the same reference point there should be a difference of about 3 seconds (Knipling, et al. , 1993). It may be necessary, however, to increase this time when weather conditions are unfavorable to the point of increasing the stopping distance required (Knipling, et al., 1993). Obstacles: The driver must also visually scan the road for potential obstacles both to their driving and to 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 change in speed for the driver in front may force an equal change in speed to maintain a safe driving distance. Distracted drivers may lack the ability to effectively scan the environment, thus failing to identify potential obstacles that could reduce their distance (Adell, Verhelyi, & Dalla Fontana, 2011). Consideration of the characteristics of the vehicle: the characteristics of the vehicle in front of the driver is also fundamental for determining the safety distance to maintain. Vehicle characteristics could 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, stopping distances tend 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 imply faults in the vehicle ahead, such as failure of taillights. In the latter case, the driver must remain conscious enough to scan the traffic lights of the vehicle in front of the immediately following one, which he will use as a basis for adjusting speed and maintaining safety distances (Song & Wang, 2012). Required information The performance of specific secondary tasks by the driver aimed at maintaining a safe distance is based on access to a certain set of information. As with all driving tasks, perception-reaction time is combined with maneuver time to define the visibility distance (Song & Wang, 2012). The driver's ability to process information, therefore, determines his ability to complete the specific task or sub-tasks efficiently. Meaning of the signalsroad signs: some of the critical information the driver requires is understanding the meaning of road symbols. Drivers typically operate in an environment where symbols are the most common forms of communication. Assuming adequate visual ability, the remaining components concern the understanding of the symbols encountered along the road (Adell, Verhelyi and Dalla Fontana, 2011). For example, pedestrian signals will alert the driver to possible changes in road driving conditions, such as speed, and the implications these changes have on current following distancing requirements. The driver also acquires the need to pay attention to pedestrians as they are obstacles that could increase the possibility of a rear-end collision when a safe distance is not maintained. Driver behavior: The driver on the highway also needs information about the behavior and conditions of other drivers on the road. Driver characteristics such as aggression or unnecessary distraction could impair the ability of other drivers to maintain safe distances (Song & Wang, 2012). Information on the level of attention of the driver of the vehicle in front can force the one behind to maintain a greater distance between them. At the same time, the flashing of the rear lights by the driver in front can indicate a certain degree of irritation or indications that he believes the one behind is too close. As a result, the driver has the obligation to constantly evaluate this driver information, using it to constantly monitor and exceed safety distances. Environmental or weather implications: The additional information requested by the driver concerns the current weather or environment. Some weather conditions vary from one region to another, often changing abruptly, such as rain or hail or even snow-covered stretches of roads. Information to drivers about weather conditions on the road is crucial, as sudden changes in weather will always force them to change the required safety distance between vehicles. Constant monitoring of slippery roads will also guide choices about when to vary speed and the resulting implications on safety distance (Mazureck & Hattem, 2006). Current speeds: Driving on multiple types of roads tends to have different characteristics, especially where speeds are concerned. Drivers on highways may drive at higher speeds than those on small-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 about the total stopping distance and, consequently, the required safe distance between them (Knipling, et al., 1993). Indications have been that high-speed driving requires more reaction time from drivers, even when perception time may 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). Awareness of the current speed of vehicles on the road, therefore, is fundamental information to guide the determination of the safe distance between the vehicle and the one in front. Human Factors and Potential Errors Driver actions can be subject to errors, which will often result in either serious consequences or near-miss accident reports. According to the Indiana Tri-State Level study, indications were that human factors account for about 93 percent of on-road driving errors, with environmental and vehicular factors influencing only about 34 percent, and13% of these errors respectively (Treat, Tumbas, & McDonald, 1979). Considering the factors in their individuality, without overlapping causes, human factors represent approximately 57% of errors resulting from road accidents (Treat, Tumbas, & McDonald, 1979). Human factors are divided into cognition, vision and motor function. Their expression determines the driver's perception, decision-making and reaction time. Various vision-related aspects can impair the driver's ability to maintain a safe driving distance. Evidence indicates that errors in distance maintenance arise from problems arising in the visual processing of dynamic information (Song & Wang, 2012). For example, the driver's ability to deeply judge the central movement, as in the judgment of slowing vehicles, can compromise his ability to maintain safe distances. The driver's visual acuity may also be impaired, making it difficult for them to read traffic signs while in motion (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 2010). The result is that the driver ends up changing speed later than necessary, seriously compromising the distance between vehicles. Another cause of errors in the execution of maintaining a safe distance is autonomycognitive influences. Cognition, in this context, can vary to include inattention and divided attention, alertness, and memory (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 2010). Divided attention means the driver is monitoring multiple activities at the same time, such as eating while driving. Although eating may be a trivial task, evidence has indicated that such task intervals tend to interfere with driving activity by approximately 350 milliseconds (Levy, Pashler, & Boer, 2006). As a result, if a driver is busy eating while driving, he or she may not be able to slow down in time to maintain a safe distance when the vehicle in front breaks down, even if not suddenly. At the same time, alertness and memory are fundamental on a cognitive level. factors that determine the occurrence of errors in maintaining safety distances. When a driver has been on the road for a long time, the attention he devotes to the driving task is limited (Fuller, 2005). This driver may be drowsy and not realize when he or she gets too close to the vehicle in front. Memory, both long and short term, also serves as the basis for errors. Drivers taking familiar routes can anticipate things such as road maps, and where they do not remember, the breakdown of vehicles ahead could compromise safe distancing (Fuller, 2005). Errors in maintaining a safe distance can also occur due to impaired motor skills. Common evidence indicates that motor skills become impaired with age, decreasing an individual's simple reaction time (Dewar, Olson, & Alexander, 2007). Therefore, when an older driver is required to adjust their speed in response to an unexpected event to maintain a safe distance, they will often fail to perform this task due to slower motor reflexes. The result will often be, even if only momentarily, that the driver will end up chasing vehicles in front of him or even cause a collision. Mistakes that occur on the road regarding maintaining a safe distance arise from relying on drivers' judgment to determine a safe distance. adequacy of progress. However, there are specific engineering and road construction solutions that could avoid or reduce the occurrence of these errors and resulting accidentscollision. One possible countermeasure is the installation of warning signs warning or advising against tailgating. The signs remind you of the correct distance to maintain, reducing the incidence of deviations among motorists. In a 1983 study in Ascot, Berkshire, the installation of an automatic warning sign helped reduce the incidence of drivers using the 1 second gap by around a third (Helliar-Symons, Wheeler and Scott, 1984) . The signal was automatically activated when vehicles on site 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 have also included a permanent, mechanical sign reminding drivers to avoid tailgating. This sign, as applied in Tennessee, Memphis, featured a manual warning not to tailgape. It produced a 13% increase in compliance (Hutchinson, 2008). Therefore, drivers who would otherwise be distracted, for example those who are eating while driving, will be forced to consciously perceive the expected change in following 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 speeds on a given road. Assuming that vehicles are traveling at 60 miles per hour and that points are spaced approximately 80 feet apart, it will be possible for drivers to generate mental patterns to maintain adequate progress. In this case, the requirement would be that while each driver is on a given chevron, they can see two others between them to imply a distance of 180 feet. Consequently, considering the speed, the progress 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 safe distance challenges. Testing of the same in the UK and on French motorways has successfully improved drivers' understanding of the correct headway vehicles should maintain (Hutchinson, 2008). On the other hand, there has been controversy regarding the challenges that Chevrons might impose. In some cases, they can act as a distraction for 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 arrows facilitate the correct measurement of vehicle progress. Intelligent Transport SystemsHutchison (2008) proposes the use of intelligent transport systems as an approach to counteract queuing errors by unaware drivers. These systems could include advanced collision warning and cruise control systems to act as cost-effective measures against rear-end collisions. Several experiments have been implemented, such as the Following Distance Warning system, but these have yet to be introduced on the road (Hutchinson, 2008). Such systems are installed on the vehicle, allowing the following driver to receive warnings when he or she gets too close to the vehicle in front. However, transferring such systems to real-world application can prove difficult. For example, drivers may be irritated by multiple warnings, especially when their behavior is considered normal. Distances that they may have perceived as safe may be highlighted as tailgating, which may affect the cognitive processes of other drivers on the road (Song & Wang, 2012). At the same time.