Safety Assessment of the Interaction Between an Automated Vehicle and a Cyclist: A Controlled Field Test

Abstract

The operation of automated vehicles (AVs) on shared roads requires attention concerning their interactions with vulnerable road users (VRUs), such as cyclists. This study investigates the safety of cyclists when they interact with an AV and compares it with their interaction with a conventional vehicle. Overall, 29 cyclists participated in a controlled field experiment consisting of interaction scenarios in which a vehicle approached the cyclist from behind. Four interaction scenarios were included: manual and automated following and manual and automated overtaking of the cyclist. The vehicle operated in all scenarios in a manual mode for safety reasons. However, before each ride, participants received information about the vehicle’s operation mode (automated or manual). The following attributes were considered: overtaking speed, overtaking lateral distance, following distance, and roadside objects. The objective and the subjective risks were evaluated in each scenario. The objective risk was assessed using the probabilistic driving risk field, and the subjective risk was assessed based on the cyclists’ self-reported risk values, cycling behavior, and their trust in AVs. The results show that automated and manual following have similar objective and subjective risks, while automated overtaking has a higher level of objective and subjective risks than manual overtaking. The results also show that a longer interaction time leads to an increase in cycling speed and a decrease in the lateral distance of the cyclist to the curb. Thus, we conclude that automated following is a safer option for short traveling distances, while for longer traveling distances, manual overtaking is preferred. Additionally, a short lateral distance from the cyclist when overtaking increases the subjective and objective risks.

Keywords

pedestrians bicycles human factors safety advanced driver assistance systems modeling and forecasting

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Habibovic

Lundgren

V. M.

Andersson

Klingegård

Lagström

Sirkka

Fagerlönn

, et al. Communicating Intent of Automated Vehicles to Pedestrians. Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 9, 2018, p. 1336. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01336.

I-AT. I AT-Mission System Architecture Description and Safety Report. 2019, p. 61.

Heesch

K. C.

Sahlqvist

Garrard

Cyclists’ Experiences of Harassment From Motorists: Findings From a Survey of Cyclists in Queensland, Australia. Preventive Medicine (Baltim), Vol. 53, No. 6, 2016, pp. 417–420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2011.09.015.

Lagstrom

Lundgren

V. M.

AVIP-Autonomous Vehicles’Ínteraction With Pedestrians. Chalmers, 2015. http://publications.lib.chalmers.se/records/fulltext/238401/238401.pdf.

Rodriguez Palmeiro

Van der Kint

Vissers

Farah

de Winter

Hagenzieker

Interaction Between Pedestrians and Wizard of Oz Automated Vehicles. Proc., Road Safety and Simulation Conference - RSS2017, The Hague, The Netherlands, 2017.

Böckle

M.-P.

Brenden

A. P.

Klingegård

Habibovic

Bout

SAV2P: Exploring the Impact of an Interface for Shared Automated Vehicles on Pedestrians’ Experience. Proc., 9th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications Adjunct - AutomotiveUI ‘17, Oldenburg, Germany, 2017, pp. 136–140. https://doi.org/10.1145/3131726.3131765.

Merat

Madigan

Nordhoff

Human Factors, User Requirements, and User Acceptance of Ride-Sharing in Automated Vehicles. International Transport Forum, February, 2017, pp. 1–30. https://www.itf-oecd.org/human-factors-user-requirements-and-user-acceptance-ride-sharing-automated-vehicles.

Oxley

J. A.

Ihsen

Fildes

B. N.

Charlton

J. L.

Day

R. H.

Crossing Roads Safely: An Experimental Study of Age Differences in Gap Selection by Pedestrians. Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol. 37, No. 5, 2005, pp. 962–971. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2005.04.017.

Yannis

Papadimitriou

Theofilatos

Pedestrian Gap Acceptance for Mid-Block Street Crossing. Transportation Planning and Technology, Vol. 36, No. 5, 2013, pp. 450–462. https://doi.org/10.1080/03081060.2013.818274.

10.

Rodríguez Palmeiro

van der Kint

Vissers

Farah

de Winter

J. C. F.

Hagenzieker

Interaction Between Pedestrians and Automated Vehicles: A Wizard of Oz Experiment. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, Vol. 58, 2018, pp. 1005–1020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2018.07.020.

11.

Velasco

J. P. N.

Farah

van Arem

Hagenzieker

M. P.

Studying Pedestrians’ Crossing Behavior When Interacting With Automated Vehicles Using Virtual Reality. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, Vol. 66, 2019, pp. 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2019.08.015.

12.

Llorca

Angel-Domenech

Agustin-Gomez

Garcia

Motor Vehicles Overtaking Cyclists on Two-Lane Rural Roads: Analysis on Speed and Lateral Clearance. Safety Science, Vol. 92, 2017, pp. 302–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2015.11.005.

13.

Hagenzieker

M. P.

van der Kint

Vissers

van Schagen

I. N.

de Bruin

van Gent

Commandeur

J. J.

Interactions Between Cyclists and Automated Vehicles: Results of a Photo Experiment*. Journal of Transportation Safety & Security, Vol. 12, No. 1, 2020, pp. 94–115. https://doi.org/10.1080/19439962.2019.1591556.

14.

Nuñez Velasco

J. P.

De Vries

Farah

VanArem

Hagenzieker

M. P.

Cyclists’ Crossing Intentions When Interacting With Automated Vehicles: A Virtual Reality Study. Information, Vol. 12, No. 1, 2020, p. 7.

15.

Rubie

Haworth

Twisk

Yamamoto

Influences on Lateral Passing Distance When Motor Vehicles Overtake Bicycles: A Systematic Literature Review. Transport Reviews, Vol. 40, No. 6, 2020, pp. 754–773. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2020.1768174.

16.

Beck

Chong

Olivier

Perkins

Tsay

Rushford

Cameron

Fry

Johnson

How Much Space Do Drivers Provide When Passing Cyclists? Understanding the Impact of Motor Vehicle and Infrastructure Characteristics on Passing Distance. Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol. 128, 2019, pp. 253–260.

17.

Rasch

Moll

López

García

Dozza

Drivers’ and Cyclists’ Safety Perceptions in Overtaking Maneuvers. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, Vol. 84, 2022, pp. 165–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2021.11.014.

18.

Chuang

K. H.

Hsu

C. C.

Lai

C. H.

Doong

J. L.

Jeng

M. C.

The Use of a Quasi-Naturalistic Riding Method to Investigate Bicyclists’ Behaviors When Motorists Pass. Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol. 56, 2013, pp. 32–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2013.03.029.

19.

Walker

Drivers Overtaking Bicyclists: Objective Data on the Effects of Riding Position, Helmet Use, Vehicle Type and Apparent Gender. Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol. 39, No. 2, 2007, pp. 417–425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2006.08.010.

20.

Körber

Theoretical Considerations and Development of a Questionnaire to Measure Trust in Automation. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, Vol. 823, 2019, pp. 13–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96074-6_2.

21.

Mullakkal-Babu

F. A.

Wang

van Arem

Happee

Probabilistic Field Approach for Motorway Driving Risk Assessment. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, Vol. 118, 2020, p. 102716. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2020.102716.

22.

Hoff

K. A.

Bashir

Trust in Automation: Integrating Empirical Evidence on Factors That Influence Trust. Human Factors, Vol. 57, No. 3, 2015, pp. 407–434. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720814547570.

23.

Mayer

R. C.

Davis

Schoorman

An Integrative Model of Organisational Trust. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 3, No. 3, 1995, pp. 709–734.

24.

West

B. T.

Analyzing Longitudinal Data With the Linear Mixed Models Procedure in SPSS. Evaluation & the Health Professions, Vol. 32, No. 3, 2009, pp. 207–228. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163278709338554.

25.

Dickey

D. A.

SAS Global Forum 2010 Statistics and Data Analysis Ideas and Examples in Generalized Linear Mixed Models, No. 4. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, 2010, pp. 1–12.

26.

Allen

Bennett

Heritage

SPSS Statistics Version 22: A Practical Guide. Cengage Learning, Australia, Sydney, the state of New South Wales, 2014.

27.

Starkweather

Linear Mixed Effects Modeling Using R. University of North Texas, Denton, Texas, 2005.

28.

Lee

J. D.

See

K. A.

Trust in Automation: Designing for Appropriate Reliance. Human Factors, Vol. 46, No. 1, 2004, pp. 50–80.

29.

Moll

López

Rasch

Dozza

García

Modelling Duration of Car-Bicycles Overtaking Manoeuvres on Two-Lane Rural Roads Using Naturalistic Data. Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol. 160, 2021, p. 106317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2021.106317.