Matthias Beggiato
ABSTRACT
Informal communication plays a crucial role for negotiation processes in transport and thus, needs to be implemented in automated vehicles. Slowing down to encourage pedestrians to cross is one example of informal communication. To implement naturally-looking automated slowdown, a first step is to examine expected moments of braking from a pedestrian's perspective. Gap Acceptance and Time-To-Arrival (TTA) estimates can provide these timings. The present experimental study assessed the effects of vehicle size, speed and participant's age on expected braking initiation. Pre-recorded real-world videos of approaching cars (truck/smart) with various speed (10 to 40 km/h) on a parking area were presented to 42 participants from 18 to 75 years. Results showed more risky estimations/decisions with increasing speed. Older participants showed more conservative gap acceptance. Vehicle size only influenced TTA estimations (size-arrival-effect) but not gap acceptance. Thus, applying one simple time gap value does not fit human/pedestrians perception and expectations.
- Alexander, J., Barham, P., and Black, I. 2002. Factors influencing the probability of an incident at a junction: results from an interactive driving simulator. Accident Analysis & Prevention 34, 6, 779--792.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Banks, V.A., and Stanton, N.A. 2016. Keep the driver in control: Automating automobiles of the future. Applied Ergonomics, 53, 389--395.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Beggiato, M. 2014. Changes in motivational and higher level cognitive processes when interacting with in-vehicle automation. Dissertation, TU Chemnitz. Retrieved April 25, 2017 from http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bsz:ch1-qucosa-167333.Google Scholar
- Caird, J.K., and Hancock, P.A. 1994. The Perception of Arrival Time for Different Oncoming Vehicles at an Intersection. Ecological Psychology 6, 2, 83--109.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Clark, H.E., Perrone, J.A., and Isler, R.B. 2013. An illusory size--speed bias and railway crossing collisions. Accident Analysis & Prevention 55, 226--231. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457513000869.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Delucia, P.R. 1999. Size-arrival effects: The potential roles of conflicts between monocular and binocular time-to-contact information, and of computer aliasing. Perception & Psychophysics 61, 6, 1168--1177.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Färber, B. 2016. Communication and Communication Problems Between Autonomous Vehicles and Human Drivers. In Autonomous Driving, M. Maurer, J. C. Gerdes, B. Lenz and H. Winner, Eds. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 125--144.Google Scholar
- Fuest, T., Sorokin, L., Bellem, H., and Bengler, K. 2017. Taxonomy of Traffic Situations for the Interaction between Automated Vehicles and Human Road Users. In Advances in Human Aspects of Transportation. Proceedings of the AHFE 2017 Conference on Human Factors in Transportation, July 17--21, 2017, Los Angeles, California, USA, N. A. Stanton, Ed. Springer Verlag, 708--719.Google Scholar
- Hölzel, A. 2008. Unterscheidung von formeller und informeller Kommunikation im Straßenverkehr. Diplomarbeit, Wien.Google Scholar
- Lagström, T., and Lundgren, V.M. 2015. AVIP - Autonomous vehicles' interaction with pedestrians. Master of Science Thesis, Chalmers University of Technology.Google Scholar
- Leibowitz, H.W. 1985. Grade crossing accidents and human factors engineering. American Scientist, Vol. 73, 1985, p. 558--562.Google Scholar
- Liu, Y.C., and Tung, Y.C. 2014. Risk analysis of pedestrians' road-crossing decisions: Effects of age, time gap, time of day, and vehicle speed. Safety Science 63, 77--82.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Lobjois, R., Benguigui, N., and Cavallo, V. 2013. The effects of age and traffic density on street-crossing behavior. Accident Analysis & Prevention 53, 166--175.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Meyer, G., and Deix, S. 2014. Research and innovation for automated driving in Germany and Europe. In Road Vehicle Automation, G. Meyer and S. Beiker, Eds. Springer International Publishing, Cham, s.l, 71--84.Google Scholar
- Oxley, J.A., Ihsen, E., Fildes, B.N., Charlton, J.L., and Day, R.H. 2005. Crossing roads safely: An experimental study of age differences in gap selection by pedestrians. Accident Analysis & Prevention 37, 5, 962--971.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Petzoldt, T. 2016. Size speed bias or size arrival effect---How judgments of vehicles' approach speed and time to arrival are influenced by the vehicles' size. Accident Analysis & Prevention 95, 132--137.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Petzoldt, T. 2014. On the relationship between pedestrian gap acceptance and time to arrival estimates. Accident Analysis & Prevention 72, 127--133.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Recarte, M.Á., Conchillo, Á., and Nunes, L.M. 2005. Estimation of arrival time in vehicle and video. Psicothema 17, 1, 112--117.Google Scholar
- Riener, A., Boll S., and Kun A.L. 2016. Automotive User Interfaces in the Age of Automation (Dagstuhl Seminar 16262). Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik; Dagstuhl Reports, Volume 6, Issue 6.Google Scholar
- Schiff, W., and Oldak, R. 1990. Accuracy of judging time to arrival: Effects of modality, trajectory, and gender. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 16, 2, 303--316.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Schleinitz, K., Petzoldt, T., Krems, J., Kühn, M., and Gehlert, T. 2015. Geschwindigkeitswahrnehmung von einspurigen Fahrzeugen. Forschungsbericht 33. Gesamtverband der Deutschen Versicherungswirtschaft, Berlin.Google Scholar
- Sheehy, G. 1996. New passages. Mapping your life across time. Random House, New York.Google Scholar
- Sun, R., Zhuang, X., Wu, C., Zhao, G., and Zhang, K. 2015. The estimation of vehicle speed and stopping distance by pedestrians crossing streets in a naturalistic traffic environment. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 30, 97--106.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Tresilian, J.R. 1995. Perceptual and cognitive processes in time-to-contact estimation: Analysis of prediction-motion and relative judgment tasks. Perception & Psychophysics 57, 2, 231--245.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Witzlack, C., Beggiato, M., and Krems, J. 2016. Interaktionssequenzen zwischen Fahrzeugen und Fußgängern im Parkplatzszenario als Grundlage für kooperativ interagierende Automatisierung. In Fahrerassistenz und automatisiertes Fahren, VDI, Ed. VDI-Verlag, Düsseldorf, 323--336.Google Scholar
- Yan, X., Radwan, E., and Guo, D. 2007. Effects of major-road vehicle speed and driver age and gender on left-turn gap acceptance. Accident Analysis & Prevention 39, 4, 843--852.Google ScholarCross Ref
Index Terms
- Gap Acceptance and Time-To-Arrival Estimates as Basis for Informal Communication between Pedestrians and Vehicles
Recommendations
Comparison of Pedestrians’ Gap Acceptance Behavior Towards Automated and Human-Driven Vehicles
Engineering Psychology and Cognitive Ergonomics. Cognition and DesignAbstractTo protect pedestrian safety, automated vehicles can adopt a conservative strategy by yielding to pedestrians in all interactions and external human-machine interface was suggested to convey vehicle intentions to pedestrians. However, automated ...
Feeling-of-Safety Slider: Measuring Pedestrian Willingness to Cross Roads in Field Interactions with Vehicles
CHI EA '19: Extended Abstracts of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing SystemsCan interactions between automated vehicles and pedestrians be evaluated in a quantifiable and standardized way? In order to answer this, we designed an input device in the form of a continuous slider that enables pedestrians to indicate their ...
The Roles of Perceived Risk and Expectancy Performance in Passenger's Acceptance of Automated Vehicles
Cross-Cultural DesignAbstractThe purpose of this study was to investigate the factors that affect passengers riding level 4 autonomous vehicles. By expanding the old TAM model, we propose a theoretical acceptance model: the effects of expected performance and perceived risk ...
Comments