Challenges and Opportunities for the Intersection of Vulnerable Road Users (VRU) and Automated Vehicles (AVs)

  • Justin M. OwensEmail author
  • Laura Sandt
  • Justin F. Morgan
  • Sudharson Sundararajan
  • Michael Clamann
  • Dinesh Manocha
  • Aaron Steinfeld
  • Tanvi Maheshwari
  • Jill F. Cooper
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Mobility book series (LNMOB)


This chapter presents a summary of AVS 2017 Breakout Session 13, Challenges and Opportunities for the Intersection of Vulnerable Road Users (VRUs) and AVs. This session built upon a brief session in AVS 2016 devoted to reducing conflict between VRUs and automated vehicles [1]. As last year’s brief session resulted in significant engagement and discussion, this year’s session was expanded to a full afternoon to broaden the scope of presentation topics and discussion. Nine speakers presented on a range of issues related to the intersection of VRUs and AVs, ranging from lessons from the real world, to themes in human factors, to simulation and urban planning considerations. The session was organized around two main panel themes, focused on Vulnerable Road User Safety Needs and Concerns and Technology, Infrastructure and Policy Considerations. Significant discussion during and following the formal presentations resulted in identification of a range of research needs, including in the domains of AV design and human factors research, communications, legal and ethical questions, and data requirements.


Automated vehicles Vulnerable road users Human factors Intersections Design Portable devices Perception Behavior 


  1. 1.
    Owens JM, Greene-Roesel R, Habibovic A, Head L, Apricio A (2017) Reducing conflict between vulnerable road users and automated vehicles. In: Meyer G, Beiker S (eds) Road vehicle automation 4. Springer, Cham, pp 69–75Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    NHTSA (2017, February) Traffic safety facts: pedestrians (Report no. DOT HS 812 375). US Department of Transportation, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tyrrell RA, Wood JM, Carberry TP (2004) On-road measures of pedestrians’ estimates of their own nighttime conspicuity. J Saf Res 35(5):483–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wood JM, Tyrrell RA, Marszalek RP, Lacherez PF, Carberry TP, Chu BS, King MJ (2010) Cyclist visibility at night: perceptions of visibility do not necessarily match reality. J Australas College Road Saf 21(3):56–60Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fambro DB, Fitzpatrick K, Koppa RJ (1997) Determination of stopping sight distances (NCHRP Report 400). Transportation Research Board, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sandt L, Owens JM (2017) Discussion Guide for Automated and Connected Vehicles, Pedestrians, and Bicyclists. Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center, Chapel Hill, NCGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    NHTSA (2017) Automated driving systems 2.0: a vision for safety. DOT HS 812 442.
  8. 8.
    Best A, Narang S, Barber D, Manocha D (2017) AutonoVi: autonomous vehicle planning with dynamic maneuvers and traffic constraints. In: Proceedings of IROS 2017Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Suppé A, Navarro-Serment L, Steinfeld A (2010) Semi-autonomous virtual valet parking. In: Proceedings of the second international conference on automotive user interfaces and interactive vehicular applications (AutomotiveUI)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Burgess HJ (2004) Futurama, Autogeddon: imagining the superhighway from Bel Geddes to Ballard. Rhizomes: Cult Stud Emergent Knowl 8:31Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Corbusier L (1967) The radiant city: Elements of a doctrine of urbanism to be used as the basis of our machine-age civilization. Orion PressGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wright FL (1932) Broadacre city: an architect’s visionGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Justin M. Owens
    • 1
    Email author
  • Laura Sandt
    • 2
  • Justin F. Morgan
    • 3
  • Sudharson Sundararajan
    • 4
  • Michael Clamann
    • 5
  • Dinesh Manocha
    • 6
  • Aaron Steinfeld
    • 7
  • Tanvi Maheshwari
    • 8
  • Jill F. Cooper
    • 9
  1. 1.Center for Vulnerable Road User SafetyVirginia Tech Transportation InstituteBlacksburgUSA
  2. 2.Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center, UNC Highway Safety Research Center, University of North CarolinaChapel HillUSA
  3. 3.Forensic Engineering TechnologiesLake MaryUSA
  4. 4.Booz Allen HamiltonMcLeanUSA
  5. 5.Duke University, Humans and Autonomy LabDurhamUSA
  6. 6.Department of Computer ScienceCollege of Arts and Sciences, University of North CarolinaChapel HillUSA
  7. 7.Robotics Institute, Carnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburghUSA
  8. 8.Future Cities LaboratorySingapore ETH CentreSingaporeSingapore
  9. 9.Safe Transportation Research and Education CenterBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations