Advertisement

Designing the interaction of automated vehicles with other traffic participants: design considerations based on human needs and expectations

  • Anna Schieben
  • Marc Wilbrink
  • Carmen Kettwich
  • Ruth Madigan
  • Tyron Louw
  • Natasha Merat
Original Article

Abstract

Automated vehicles (AV) are expected to be integrated into mixed traffic environments in the near future. As human road users have established elaborated interaction strategies to coordinate their actions among each other, one challenge that human factors experts and vehicle designers are facing today is how to design AVs in a way that they can safely and intuitively interact with other traffic participants. This paper presents design considerations that are intended to support AV designers in reducing the complexity of the design space. The design considerations are based on a literature review of common human–human interaction strategies. Four categories of information are derived for the design considerations: (1) information about vehicle driving mode; (2) information about AVs’ manoeuvres; (3) information about AVs’ perceptions of the environment; and (4) information about AVs’ cooperation capabilities. In this paper, we apply the four categories to analyse existing research studies of traffic participants’ needs during interactions with AVs and results of the CityMobil2 project. From the CityMobil2 project we present central results from face-to-face interviews, an onsite-survey and two focus groups. To further support the AV designers we describe and rate different design options to present the information of the four categories, including the design of the infrastructure, the vehicle shape, the vehicle manoeuvres and the external human–machine interface of the AV.

Keywords

Automated vehicles Interaction with other traffic participants Design considerations Vulnerable road users External HMI 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The research presented in this paper has been partly funded in the CityMobil2 project by the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration under Grant Agreement No 314190.

References

  1. 2getthere (2017a) Masdar City PRT. https://www.2getthere.eu/projects/masdar-prt/. Accessed 15 May 2018
  2. 2getthere (2017b) Rivium GRT. https://www.2getthere.eu/projects/rivium-grt/. Accessed 15 May 2018
  3. Alessandrini A (2016) CityMobil2—experiences and recommendations. Final report of the CityMobil2 project. http://www.citymobil2.eu/en/upload/Deliverables/PU/CityMobil2%20booklet%20web%20final_17%2011%202016.pdf. Accessed 15 May 2018
  4. Alessandrini A, Cattivera A, Holguin C, Stam D (2014) CityMobil2: challenges and opportunities of fully automated mobility. In: Meyer G, Beiker S (eds) Road vehicle automation. Springer International Publishing, ChamGoogle Scholar
  5. Andersson J, Habibovic A, Klingegård M, Englund C, Malmsten-Lundgren V (2017) Hello human—can you read my mind? ERICM News 109:37–38Google Scholar
  6. Ba Y, Zhang W, Reimer B, Yang Y, Salvendy G (2015) The effect of communicational signals on drivers’ subjective appraisal and visual attention during interactive driving scenarios. Behav Inf Technol 34(11):1107–1118.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2015.1056547 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beggiato M, Witzlack C, Krems JF (2017) The gentle automated vehicle. Influence of vehicle speed, daytime and pedestrian’s age on the expected moment of car braking as sign of cooperation. In: Goschke T, Bolte A, Kirschbaum C (eds) TeaP 2017—abstracts of the 59th Conference of Experimental Psychology. Pabst Science Publishers, Lengerich, pp 172–173Google Scholar
  8. Björklund GM, Åberg L (2005) Driver behaviour in intersections: Formal and informal traffic rules. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav 8(3):239–253.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2005.04.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bjørnskau T (2017) The zebra crossing game—using game theory to explain a discrepancy between road user behaviour and traffic rules. Saf Sci 92:298–301.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2015.10.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. BMW (2016) Vision Next 100. https://www.bmwgroup.com/en/next100/brandvisions.html. Accessed 15 May 2018
  11. Böckle M-P, Pernestål Brenden A, Klingegård M, Habibovic A, Bout M (2017) SAV2P—exploring the impact of an interface for shared automated vehicles on pedestrians’ experience. In: Proceedings of the 9th international ACM conference on automotive user interfaces and interactive vehicular applications (AutomotiveUI’17). Association for Computing Machinery, pp 136–140.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3131726.3131765
  12. Braun V, Clarke V (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 3(2):77–101.  https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brown B, Laurier E (2017) The trouble with autopilots: Assisted and autonomous driving on the social road. CHI 2017, May 6–11, 2017, Denver.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025462
  14. Cacciabue PC, Carsten O, Vanderhaegen F (2014) Is there still a need for CTW? Cogn Technol Work 16:311.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-014-0286-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ceunynck T de, Polders E, Daniels S, Hermans E, Brijs T, Wets G (2013) Road Safety differences between priority-controlled intersections and right-hand priority intersections. Transp Res Rec 2365:39–48.  https://doi.org/10.3141/2365-06 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Clamann M, Aubert M, Cummings ML (2016) Evaluation of vehicle-to-pedestrian communication displays for autonomous vehicles. Transp Res BoardGoogle Scholar
  17. Craid J, Hancock P (1994) The perception of arrival time for different oncoming vehicles at an intersection. Ecol Psychol 6(2):83–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Demiroz YI, Onelcin P, Alver Y (2015) Illegal road crossing behavior of pedestrians at overpass locations: factors affecting gap acceptance, crossing times and overpass use. Accid Anal Prev 80:220–228.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2015.04.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dey D, Terken J (2017) Pedestrian interaction with vehicles: roles of explicit and implicit communication. In: Proceedings of the 9th international ACM conference on automotive user interfaces and interactive vehicular applications (AutomotiveUI’17). Association for Computing Machinery.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3131726.3131765
  20. Emmenegger C, Risto M, Bergen B, Norman D, Hollan J (2016) The critical importance of standards for the communication between autonomous vehicles and humans. In: Poster presented at the automated vehicle symposium 2016, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  21. ERTRAC (2017) Automated driving roadmap. Report of the ERTRAC working group “Connectivity and Automated Driving”. http://www.ertrac.org/uploads/images/ERTRAC_Automated_Driving_2017.pdf. Accessed 15 May 2018
  22. Färber B (2016) Communication and communication problems between autonomous vehicles and human drivers. In: Maurer M, Gerdes JC, Lenz B, Winner H (eds) Autonomous driving. Springer, Berlin, pp 125–144Google Scholar
  23. Fink G (2017) Toyota concept-i: more like concept AI. http://www.caranddriver.com/news/toyota-concept-i-photos-and-info-news. Accessed 15 May 2018
  24. Ford (2017) Ford, Virginia Tech go undercover to develop signals that enable autonomous vehicles to communicate with people. https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/news/2017/09/13/ford-virginia-tech-autonomous-vehicle-human-testing.html. Accessed 15 May 2018
  25. GATEway Project (2017) Driver responses to encountering automated vehicles in an urban environment. Project report PPR807. https://gateway-project.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Driver-responses-to-encountering-automated-vehicles-in-an-urban-environment-1.pdf. Accessed 29 Aug 2017
  26. Guéguen N, Meineri S, Eyssartier C (2015) A pedestrian’s stare and drivers’ stopping behavior: a field experiment at the pedestrian crossing. Saf Sci 75:87–89.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2015.01.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Habibovic A, Andersson J, Nilsson M, Lundgren VM, Nilsson J (2016) Evaluating interactions with non-existing automated vehicles: three Wizard of Oz approaches. In: Proceedings of the intelligent vehicles symposium (IV), Gothenburg, pp 32–37.  https://doi.org/10.1109/IVS.2016.7535360
  28. Hagenzieker MP, van der Kint L, Vissers LK, van Schagen I, de Bruin J, van Gent P, Commandeur J (2016) Interactions between cyclists and automated vehicles: results of a photo experiment. In: Proceedings of the 5th international cycling safety conference, BolognaGoogle Scholar
  29. Herslund MB, Joergensen NO (2003) Looked-but-failed-to-see-errors in traffic. Accid Anal Prev 35:885–891.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-4575(02)00095-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Houtenbos M, Hagenzieker M, Wieringa P, Hale A (2004) The role of expectations in interaction behaviour between car drivers. In: International conference on traffic and transport psychology. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 303–314Google Scholar
  31. Imbsweiler J, Deml B, Palyafári R, Puente León F, Ries F (2017a) Cooperation behavior of road users in t-intersections. In: Goschke T, Bolte A, Kirschbaum C (eds) TeaP 2017—abstracts of the 59th conference of experimental psychology. Pabst Science Publishers, LengerichGoogle Scholar
  32. Imbsweiler J, Palyafári R, Puente León F, Deml B (2017b) Untersuchung des Entscheidungsverhaltens in kooperativen Verkehrssituationen am Beispiel einer Engstelle. [Investigation of decision-making behaviorin cooperative traffic situations using the example of a narrow passage]. Automatisierungstechnik 65(7):477–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kitazaki S, Myhre NJ (2015) Effects of non-verbal communication cues on decisions and confidence of drivers at an uncontrolled intersection. In: Public Policy Center (ed) Proceedings of the 8th international driving symposium on human factors in driver assessment, training and vehicle designGoogle Scholar
  34. Klatt WK, Chesham A, Lobmaier JS (2016) Putting up a big front: car design and size affect road-crossing behaviour. PLoS One 11(7):e0159455.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0159455 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lagström T, Malmsten Lundgren V (2015) AVIP—autonomous vehicles interaction with pedestrians: an investigation of pedestrian-driver communication and development of a vehicle external interface. Master Thesis. Chalmers University of Technology, GöteborgGoogle Scholar
  36. Madigan R, Louw T, Dziennus M, Graindorge T, Ortega E, Graindorge M, Merat N (2016) Acceptance of automated road transport systems (ARTS): an adaptation of the UTAUT model. Transp Res Procedia 14:2217–2226.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2016.05.237 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Madigan R, Louw T, Wilbrink M, Schieben A, Merat N (2017) What influences the decision to use automated public transport? Using UTAUT to understand public acceptance of automated road transport systems. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav 50:55–64.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2017.07.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Malmsten Lundgren V, Habibovic A, Andersson J, Lagström, Nilsson M, Sirkka A, Fagerlönn J, Fredriksson C, Krupenia S, Saluäär D (2016) Will there be new communication needs when introducing automated vehicles to the urban context? In: Stanton NA, Landry S, Di Bucchianico G, Vallicelli A (eds) Advances in human aspects of transportation: proceedings of the AHFE 2016 international conference on human factors in transportation, FloridaGoogle Scholar
  39. Mathieu J, Bootsma RJ, Berthelon C, Montagne G (2017) Judging arrival times of incoming traffic vehicles is not a prerequisite for safely crossing an intersection: differential effects of vehicle size and type in passive judgment and active driving tasks. Acta Psychol (Amst) 173:1–12.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2016.11.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Merat N, Louw T, Madigan R, Dziennus M, Schieben A (2018) Communication between VRUs and fully automated road transport systems: what’s important? Accident Anal Prev.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2018.03.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mercedes Benz F015 (2017) Mercedes Benz F015—luxury in motion. https://www.mercedes-benz.com/en/mercedes-benz/innovation/research-vehicle-f-015-luxury-in-motion/. Accessed 15 May 2018
  42. Millard-Ball A (2017) Pedestrians, autonomous vehicles, and cities. J Plan Educ Res 82(2):0739456X1667567.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X16675674 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mitsubishi Electric (2015) Mitsubishi Electric introduces road-illuminating directional indicators. http://www.mitsubishielectric.com/news/2015/1023.html. Accessed 29 Aug 2017
  44. Nissan IDS Concept (2017) Nissan’s vision for the future of EVs and autonomous driving. http://nissannews.com/en-US/nissan/usa/releases/nissan-ids-concept-nissan-s-vision-for-the-future-of-evs-and-autonomous-driving. Accessed 15 May 2018
  45. Nordfjærn T, Şimşekoğlu Ö, Rundmo T (2014) Culture related to road traffic safety: a comparison of eight countries using two conceptualizations of culture. Accident Anal Prev 62:319–328.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2013.10.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Parkin J, Clark B, Clayton W, Ricci M, Parkhurst G (2017) Understanding interactions between autonomous vehicles and other road users: a literature review. Technical University of the West of England. http://eprints.uwe.ac.uk/29153. Accessed 15 May 2018
  47. Portouli E, Nathanael D, Marmaras N (2014) Drivers’ communicative interactions: on-road observations and modelling for integration in future automation systems. Ergonomics 57(12):1795–1805.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2014.952349 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rasouli A, Kotseruba I, Tsotsos JK (2017) Agreeing to cross: How drivers and pedestrians communicate. In: Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE intelligent vehicles symposium (IV), pp 264–269Google Scholar
  49. Ren Z, Jiang X, Wang W (2016) Analysis of the influence of pedestrians’ eye contact on drivers’ comfort boundary during the crossing conflict. Procedia Eng 137:399–406.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2016.01.274 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Risto M, Emmenegger C, Vinkhuyzen E, Cefkin M, Hollan J (2017) Human–vehicle interface: the power of vehicle movement gestures in human road user coordination. In: University of Iowa (ed) Proceedings of the 9th international driving symposium on human factors in driver assessment, training and vehicle designGoogle Scholar
  51. Rodriguez P (2017) Safety of pedestrians and cyclists when interacting with automated vehicles—a case study of the WEpods. Master thesis, TU EindhovenGoogle Scholar
  52. Rothenbücher D, Li J, Sirkin D, Mok B, Ju W (2016) Ghost driver: a field study investigating the interaction between pedestrians and driverless vehicles. In: Proceedings of the 25th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN), pp 795–802Google Scholar
  53. Sadigh D, Sastry S, Seshia SA, Dragan AD (2016) Planning for autonomous cars that leverages effects on human actions. In: Proceedings of the robotics: science and systems conference.  https://doi.org/10.15607/RSS.2016.XII.029
  54. Saunders S (2017) Local motors and Deutsche Bahn Launch six-month self-driving Olli Vehicle Pilot Program on Euref Campus in Berlin. https://3dprint.com/161739/deutsche-bahn-olli-pilot-program/. Accessed 15 May 2018
  55. Savigny EV (1995) Autofahrerzeichen: Funktion, Systeme, Autonomie [Signs of drivers: function, systems, autonomy]. Z Semiot 17(1–2):105–128Google Scholar
  56. Schneemann F, Gohl I (2016) Analyzing driver-pedestrian interaction at crosswalks: a contribution to autonomous driving in urban environments. In: 2016 IEEE intelligent vehicles symposium (IV), pp 38–43Google Scholar
  57. Semcon (2017) Who sees you when the car drives itself? https://semcon.com/smilingcar/. Accessed 15 May 2018
  58. Shor RE (1964) Shared patterns of nonverbal normative expectations in automobile driving. J Soc Psychol 62(1):155–163.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1964.9919512 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) (2016) Taxonomy and definitions for terms related to driving automation systems for on-road motor vehicles (standard no. J3016_201609). SAE International, MichiganGoogle Scholar
  60. Sucha M, Dostal D, Risser R (2017) Pedestrian-driver communication and decision strategies at marked crossings. Accident Anal Prev 102:41–50.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2017.02.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Urmson C, Mahon I, Dolgov D, Zhu J (2015) Pedestrian Notification (US9196164B1)Google Scholar
  62. Vanderhaegen F, Chalmé S, Anceaux F, Millot P (2006) Principles of cooperation and competition—application to car driver behavior analysis. Cogn Technol Work 8:183–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Várhelyi A (1998) Drivers’ speed behaviour at a zebra crossing: a case study. Accident Anal Prev 30(6):731–743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Vissers LK, van der Kint L, van Schagen I, Hagenzieker MP (2016) Safe interaction between cyclists, pedestrians and automated vehicles: what do we know and what do we need to know? Report of the SWOV Institute for Road Safety Research, The Hague. https://www.swov.nl/publicatie/safe-interaction-between-cyclists-pedestrians-and-automated-vehicles. Accessed 15 May 2018
  65. Waymo (2017) Say hello to Waymo: what’s next for Google’s self-driving car project. https://medium.com/waymo/say-hello-to-waymo-whats-next-for-google-s-self-driving-car-project-b854578b24ee Accessed 15 May 2018
  66. Zito GA, Cazzoli D, Scheffler L, Jäger M, Müri RM, Mosimann UP, Nyffeler T, Mast FW, Nef T (2015) Street crossing behavior in younger and older pedestrians: an eye- and head-tracking study. BMC Geriatr 15:176.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-015-0175-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.German Aerospace Center (DLR e.V.)Institute of Transportation SystemsBrunswickGermany
  2. 2.Institute for Transport StudiesUniversity of LeedsLeedsUK

Personalised recommendations