Abstract
Cooperative automated vehicles (CAV) are not able to drive automated in all situations. Each vehicle has or is going to have its own operational design domain (ODD), which exactly specifies which situations can be handled, and which cannot. Vehicles of higher levels of automation according to SAE J3016 will try to take the driver back into the control loop if the vehicle approaches the border of its ODD by issuing a transition of control (ToC). If the driver is not responding, the vehicle will perform a minimum risk maneuver (MRM), where the CAV is stopping. Instead of looking at the internal HMI of single CAVs, the H2020 project TransAID focusses on the effects of automation limitations on traffic efficiency and safety. Besides helping the CAV to reduce negative impacts of such situations by infrastructure measures, also informing the surrounding vehicles about a CAV’s current issues and about its plans to solve them will most likely improve such situations. To approach this assumption, DLR conducted a first virtual reality study, where e.g. a 360° externally mounted LED light-band as external HMI (eHMI) of a CAV and specific vehicle movements as dynamic HMI (dHMI) are used in case it needs to perform an MRM. In the study, ten participants tested different variants and combinations. Preliminary results show that the use of an eHMI is a useful and informative approach.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Habibovic, A., et al.: Communicating intent of automated vehicles to pedestrians. Front. Psychol. 9, 1336 (2018). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01336
Society of Automotive Engineers: Taxonomy and definitions for terms related to driving automation systems for on-road motor vehicles. SAE, Michigan (J3016_201806) (2018)
Maerivoet, S., et al.: TransAID deliverable 4.2 - preliminary simulation and assessment of enhanced traffic management measures (2019)
Schieben, A., Wilbrink, M., Kettwich, C., Madigan, R., Louw, T., Merat, N.: Designing the interaction of automated vehicles with other traffic participants: design considerations based on human needs and expectations. Cogn. Technol. Work 21(1), 69–85 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-018-0521-z
Bengler, K., Rettenmaier, M., Fritz, N., Feierle, A.: From HMI to HMIs: towards an HMI framework for automated driving. Information 11(2), 61 (2020). https://doi.org/10.3390/info11020061
Schieben, A., et al.: Testing external HMI designs for automated vehicles - an overview on user study results from the EU project interACT, vol. 9. Tagung Automatisiertes Fahren, Munich, Germany (2019)
Bazilinskyy, P., Dodou, D., de Winter, J.: Survey on eHMI concepts: the effect of text, color, and perspective. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 67, 175–194 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2019.10.013
Clamann, M., Aubert, M., Cummings, M.L.: Evaluation of vehicle-to-pedestrian communication displays for autonomous vehicles. In: 96th Annual Research Board Meeting, Washington, D.C., pp. 6–12 (2017)
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, Antibes, France (2018)
Sorokin, L., Chadowitz, R., Kauffmann, N.: A change of perspective. In: Brewster, F., et al. (ed.) Proceedings of the CHI Conference 2019, pp. 1–8, Glasgow, Scottland (2019)
Habibovic, A., Andersson, J., Nilsson, M., Lundgren, V.M., Nilsson, J.: Evaluating interactions with non-existing automated vehicles: three Wizard of Oz approaches. In: IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium, pp. 32–37 (2016)
Beggiato, M., Hartwich, F., Schleinitz, K., Krems, J., Othersen, I., Petermann-Stock, I.: What would drivers like to know during automated driving? Information needs at different levels of automation. In: 7th Conference on Driver assistance, Munich, Germany (2017)
Kauffmann, N., Winkler, F., Naujoks, F., Vollrath, M.: “What makes a cooperative driver?” Identifying parameters of implicit and explicit forms of communication in a lane change scenario. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 58, 1031–1042 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2018.07.019
Van der Laan, J.D., Heino, A., De Waard, D.: A simple procedure for the assessment of acceptance of advanced transport telematics. Transp. Res. Part C 5(1), 1–10 (1997)
Laugwitz, B., Held, T., Schrepp, M.: Construction and evaluation of a user experience questionnaire. In: Holzinger, A. (ed.) USAB 2008. LNCS, vol. 5298, pp. 63–76. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-89350-9_6
Acknowledgements
The TransAID project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 723390.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Schindler, J., Herbig, D.L., Lau, M., Oehl, M. (2020). Communicating Issues in Automated Driving to Surrounding Traffic - How should an Automated Vehicle Communicate a Minimum Risk Maneuver via eHMI and/or dHMI?. In: Stephanidis, C., Antona, M., Ntoa, S. (eds) HCI International 2020 – Late Breaking Posters. HCII 2020. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 1294. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-60703-6_79
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-60703-6_79
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-60702-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-60703-6
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)