Citation

Boer ER. Transp. Res. F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 1999; 2(4): 201-206.

Copyright

(Copyright © 1999, Elsevier Publishing)

DOI

10.1016/S1369-8478(00)00007-3

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

In this commentary, it is argued that the car following models discussed in Brackstone, M., and McDonald, M. (Transportation Research - Part F (2000), pp. 181-196) ignore one or more of the following issues that characterize to observed driver behavior. These include: (i) car following is only one of many tasks that drivers perform simultaneously and receives therefore only intermittent attention and control (task scheduling/attention management), (ii) drivers are satisfied with a range of conditions that extend beyond the boundaries imposed by perceptual and control limitation (satisficing instead of optimal performance evaluation), and (iii) in each driving task drivers use a set of highly informative perceptual variables to guide decision making and control (perceptual rather than Newtonian input). To elucidate these issues, a general driver modeling framework is presented in which the car-following task is highlighted (Boer, E. R., and Hoedemaeker, M. (1998). In Proceedings of the XVIIth European Annual Conference on Human Decision making and Manual Control December 14-16. France: Valenciennes; Boer, E. R., Hildreth, E. C., and Goodrich, M. A. (1998). In Proceedings of the XVIIth European Annual Conference on Human Decision making and Manual Control December 14-16. France: Valenciennes).