Advertisement

Implicit Communication of Automated Vehicles in Urban Scenarios: Effects of Pitch and Deceleration on Pedestrian Crossing Behavior

  • André DietrichEmail author
  • Philipp Maruhn
  • Lasse Schwarze
  • Klaus Bengler
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 1026)

Abstract

This Study analyzed the effects of AV’s approach trajectories and the role of the vehicle’s pitch on pedestrian’s crossing behavior. 30 participants experienced an urban traffic scenario in the virtual reality simulator with vehicle convoys driving at 30 km/h. The decelerating vehicle approached the waiting pedestrian using three different kinematic trajectories, which were accompanied by four pitch conditions. The effect of an early or stronger vehicle pitch on the pedestrian crossing behavior was stronger when coupled with a defensive deceleration strategy. Overall, hard initial braking reduces the time, pedestrians need to understand an approaching vehicle’s yielding intention. Active pitching might increase this effect, but requires further evaluation, as pedestrians link the vehicle’s pitch to the perceived kinematics.

Keywords

Vulnerable road users Automated vehicles Implicit communication Pedestrian simulator Interaction 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work is a part of the interACT project. interACT has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research & innovation programme under grant agreement no 723395. Content reflects only the authors’ view and European Commission is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains.

References

  1. 1.
    Fridman, L., Mehler, B., Xia, L., Yang, Y., Facusse, L., Reimer, B.: To walk or not to walk: crowdsourced assessment of external vehicle-to-pedestrian displays. ArXiv:1707.02698 (2017)
  2. 2.
    Dietrich, A., Willrodt, J.-H., Wagner, K., Bengler, K.: Projection-based external human machine interfaces – enabling interaction between automated vehicles and pedestrians. In: Proceedings of the DSC 2018 Europe VR, Driving Simulation and Virtual Reality Conference and Exhibition, pp. 43–50 (2018)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Schneemann, F., Gohl, I.: Analyzing driver-pedestrian interaction at crosswalks: a contribution to autonomous driving in urban environments. In: 2016 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV), Gothenburg, pp. 38–43 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1109/ivs.2016.7535361
  4. 4.
    Rothenbücher, D., Li, J., Sirkin, D., Mok, B., Ju, W.: Ghost driver: a field study investigating the interaction between pedestrians and driverless vehicles. In: 2016 25th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), New York, NY, pp. 795–802 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1109/roman.2016.7745210
  5. 5.
    Markkula, G., Romano, R., Madigan, R., Fox, C.W., Giles, O.T., Merat, N.: Models of human decision-making as tools for estimating and optimizing impacts of vehicle automation. Transp. Res. Rec. 2672(37), 153–163 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198118792131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Daamen, W., Hoogendoorn, S.P.: Free speed distributions—based on empirical data in different traffic conditions. In: Waldau, N., Gattermann, P., Knoflacher, H., Schreckenberg, M. (eds) Pedestrian and Evacuation Dynamics. Springer, Berlin (2007).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-47064-9_2

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • André Dietrich
    • 1
    Email author
  • Philipp Maruhn
    • 1
  • Lasse Schwarze
    • 1
  • Klaus Bengler
    • 1
  1. 1.Chair of Ergonomics, Department of Mechanical EngineeringTechnical University of MunichGarchingGermany

Personalised recommendations