{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02386451116243264, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005388760585065435, 'mean_word_length': 5.341463414634147, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Cooperative Adaptive Cruise Control and Driver Merge Type

This study explored human factors issues associated with cooperative adaptive cruise control (CACC); specifically entering and exiting vehicle platoons. Participants were asked to complete one of three different types of merges in a driving simulator: (1) manual left entrance merge, (2) merge into the middle of a CACC platoon vehicles without speed assistance, and (3) merge into the middle of a CACC platoon vehicles with speed assistance. Drivers’ perceived workload was significantly less for both groups that drove with the CACC system engaged than for the group that manually maintained speed. Perhaps surprisingly, participant condition did not significantly affect physiological arousal as assessed by galvanic skin response (GSR). However, across all groups, GSR was significantly greater during the merges than during cruising/straight highway driving time periods. The two groups that had to manually adjust speed during the merge experienced collisions in 24 (18 percent) of the merges. A possible explanation, supported by participant feedback, is that drivers expect others to act in a courteous manner and to create larger gaps for entrance on to a freeway – something that may not be possible in real world CACC deployment.