Advertisement

Naturalistic Observation of Interactions Between Car Drivers and Pedestrians in High Density Urban Settings

  • Dimitris Nathanael
  • Evangelia PortouliEmail author
  • Vassilis Papakostopoulos
  • Kostas Gkikas
  • Angelos Amditis
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 823)

Abstract

Interactions among drivers and pedestrians especially in heavy urban traffic constitute a key issue that needs to be addressed in the future autonomous vehicles. There is little evidence, however, concerning the signals and cues used by the drivers to infer the future intention of a pedestrian and/or a pedestrian’s awareness of the driver’s vehicle. The paper reports preliminary findings of an instrumented observational study of naturally occurring vehicle – pedestrian interaction cases at high density un-signalized urban crossings. Specifically, 21 experienced drivers drove their own car in a predefined course while equipped with an eye-tracker. In total 321driver – pedestrian interaction cases were analysed based on driver’s eye-gaze analysis and video-assisted retrospective commentary. Several types of signals were identified. These were stratified according to their expressiveness/explicitness. A main finding is that cues with a medium level of expressiveness/explicitness (i.e. eye-gaze from pedestrians) seem to resolve a great number of interaction cases, therefore it is important to explicitly consider this type of cues in future autonomous vehicles. The paper ends with a working model depicting the possible states of mutual attentiveness between driver and pedestrian as identified from the observation data.

Keywords

Eye-contact Eye-gaze Crossings Autonomous vehicles 

Notes

Acknowledgement

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.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Recruitment of participants and data collection was conducted in accordance with National Technical University of Athens ethics procedures concerning research involving human participants.

References

  1. 1.
    Wilde GJS (1976) Social interaction patterns in driver behavior: an introductory review. Hum Factors 18(5):477–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mitman M, Ragland D (2007) Crosswalk confusion: more evidence why pedestrian and driver knowledge of the vehicle code should not be assumed. Transp Res Rec: J Transp Res Board 2002:55–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hatfield J, Fernandes R, Job RS, Smith K (2007) Misunderstanding of right-of-way rules at various pedestrian crossing types: observational study and survey. Acc Anal Prev 39(4):833–842CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Yang S (2017) Driver behavior impact on pedestrians’ crossing experience in the conditionally autonomous driving context. Master of Science Thesis, KTH Royal Institute of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Guéguen N, Meineri S, Eyssartier C (2015) A pedestrian’s stare and drivers’ stopping behavior: a field experiment at the pedestrian crossing. Saf Sci 75:87–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    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 137:399–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lagström T, Lundgren VM (2015) AVIP - Autonomous vehicles’ interaction with pedestrians. Master of Science Thesis, Chalmers University of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wu J, Austin R, Chen C-L (2011) Incidence rates of pedestrian and bicyclist crashes by hybrid electric passenger vehicles: An update. DOT HS 811 526. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, DC (2011)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Faria JJ, Krause S, Krause J (2010) Collective behavior in road crossing pedestrians: the role of social information. Behav Ecol 21(6):1236–1242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Šucha M (2014) Road users’ strategies and communication: driver-pedestrian interaction. In: 2014 Proceedings of transport research arena (TRA)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Guéguen N, Eyssartier C, Meineri S (2016) A pedestrian’s smile and drivers’ behavior: when a smile increases careful driving. J Saf Res 56:83–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ericsson KA, Simon HA (1993) Protocol analysis: verbal reports as data. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Portouli E, Nathanael D, Marmaras N (2014) Drivers’ communicative interactions: on-road observations and modelling for integration in future automation systems. Ergonomics 57(12):1795–1805CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dimitris Nathanael
    • 1
  • Evangelia Portouli
    • 2
  • Vassilis Papakostopoulos
    • 3
  • Kostas Gkikas
    • 1
  • Angelos Amditis
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Mechanical EngineeringNational Technical University of AthensZografou, AthensGreece
  2. 2.Institute of Communication and Computer SystemsZografou, AthensGreece
  3. 3.Department of Product and Systems Engineering DesignUniversity of the AegeanHermoupolis, SyrosGreece

Personalised recommendations