Quantification of safety improvements and human-machine tradeoffs in the transition to automated driving.

The assumption of reduced human error-related crashes with increasing levels of automation in pursuing Level 5 automation lacks empirical evidence. As automation levels rise, human error-induced safety hazards are anticipated to decrease, while machine error-induced hazards will increase. However, a quantitative index capturing this tradeoff is absent. Additionally, theoretical modeling of safety improvements during the transition to automated driving remains unexplored, particularly concerning reducing human error-related hazards. These limitations impede the understanding of safety from human and machine perspectives for Automated Vehicle (AV) specialists and manufacturers. This research addresses these gaps by investigating safety performance associations between human and machine factors using the "Human-Machine conflict reduction ratio" (H/M ratio), a novel metric. The study aims to establish safety improvements related to human errors under various automation levels. Sixty participants completed driving tasks on a driving simulator at Levels 0, 4, 3, and 2. Safety performance measures, including conflict frequency and severity, were computed. As a result, Level 4 exhibits the largest decrease (93.3%) compared to manual driving, followed by Level 2 (70.7%) and Level 3 (40.5%). The H/M ratio measures the tradeoff between reducing human and machine error-induced hazards, with Level 2 demonstrating the highest ratio, followed by Levels 4 and 3. Safety performance is evaluated by considering all possible types of human errors at each automation level. Theoretical models from a human factor's perspective are employed to estimate safety improvements at each level. This research contributes to a comprehensive understanding of safety in the "human-machine cooperative driving" phase, offering insights to AV industry practitioners and stakeholders.