ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Research on Takeover Safety of Intelligent Vehicles Based on Accident Scenarios in Real-Vehicle Testing.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
With the increasing emergence of intelligent vehicles, novel accident patterns have gradually emerged. In human-machine cooperative driving (HMCD) states, despite driving automation systems being capable of controlling lateral and longitudinal vehicle motions over extended periods, functional limitations persist in specific scenarios due to insufficient expected functionalities. When combined with risk factors, such as driver distraction, these limitations significantly elevate accident risks. This study investigated takeover safety through real vehicle testing in two typical accident scenarios: large-curvature curves and static obstacles. The key findings include the following: (1) in scenarios involving large curvature curves and static obstacles, vehicles are prone to lane departure and missed target detection, which are typical dangerous scenarios; (2) during the human-machine cooperative driving phase, the design of the driving automation system should focus on enhancing driver engagement in driving tasks, while in the autonomous driving phase, the vehicle's early warning capabilities should be strengthened; (3) the takeover request for longitudinal control requires at least 4.12 s of driver reaction time, while the takeover request for lateral control requires at least 1.87 s. This study provides important theoretical and practical references for safety in designing assisted driving systems and the testing of hazardous scenarios.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.