Autonomous vehicles are expected on roads in the near future and need to interact safely with external road users, such as manual motor drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians. The particular needs of the external road users, such as children, adults, older adults, and individuals with visual, auditory, and/or cognitive impairments, will vary greatly and must be considered in order to design effective inclusive interfaces for all users. Current interface designs lack effective communication between an autonomous vehicle and external road users with regard to conveying and understanding the mobility intent of each party. The goal is to provide inclusive design guidance for an external human-vehicle interface that enables effective communication between autonomous vehicles and external road users. Factors related to communicating intent, the external road users, and environmental constraints, were used to inform the design guidance.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdlerG.RottundaS. (2006). Older Adults’ Perspectives on Driving Cessation. Journal of Aging Studies, vol. 20, 227-235, DOI: 10.1016/j.jaging.2005.09.003.
2.
AshmeadD.GuthD.EmersonR. S. W.LongR. G.PonchilliaP. E. (2005). Street Crossing by Sighted and Blind Pedestrians at a Modern Roundabout. Journal of Transportation Engineering, vol. 131, 812-821, DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-947X(2005)131:11(812).
3.
AtchleyP.ShiJ.YamamotoT. (2014). Cultural Foundations of Safety Culture: A Comparison of Traffic Safety Culture in China, Japan and the United States. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behavior, vol. 26, 317-325, DOI: 10.1016/j.trf.2014.01.004.
4.
BaldockM. R. J.MathiasA. J.McLeanA. J.BerndtA. (2006). Self- Regulation of Driving and its Relationship to Driving Ability Among Older Adults. Accident Analysis & Prevention, vol. 38(5), 1038-1045, DOI: 10.1016/j.aap.2006.04.016.
5.
BenderiusO.BergerC.LundgrenV. M. (2016). The Best Rated Human-Machine Interface Design for Autonomous Vehicles in the 2016 Grand Cooperative Driving Challenge. IEEE Transactions of Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 19(4), 1302-1307, DOI: 10.1109/TITS.2017.2749970.
6.
BowmanB. L.VecellioR. L. (1994). Pedestrian Walking Speeds and Conflicts at Urban Median Locations. Transportation Research Board, (1438), 67-73, ISBN: 0309055199.
7.
ClamannM.MilesA.CummingsM. L. (2017). Evaluation of Vehicle- to-Pedestrian Communication Displays for Autonomous Vehicles, Transportation Research Board 96th Annual Meeting, 2017.
8.
CoffinA.MorrallJ. (1995). Walking Speeds of Elderly Pedestrians at Crosswalks. Transportation Research Board, (1487), 63-67, ISBN: 0309061504.
9.
CornellE. H.HethC. D. (2006). Home Range and the Development of Children’s Way Finding. Advances in Child Development and Behavior, vol. 34, 173-206, DOI: 10.1016/S0065-2407(06)80007-8.
10.
CoughlinJ. (2006). Transportation and Older Persons: Perceptions and Preferences. Advances in Child Development and Behavior. Washington, DC: AARP.
11.
DebS.StrawdermanL. J.CarruthD. W. (2018). Investigating Pedestrian Suggestions for External Features on Fully Autonomous Vehicles: A Virtual Reality Experiment. Transportation Research Part F. vol. 59, 135-149, DOI: 10.1016/j.trf.2018.08.016.
12.
DeeryH. A. (1999). Hazard and Risk Perception Among Young Novice Drivers. Journal of Safety Research. vol. 30(4), 225-236, DOI: 10.1016/S0022-4375(99)00018-3.
13.
Driggs-CampbellK.BajcsyR. (2016). Communicating Intent on the Road Through Human-Inspired Control Schemes, 2016 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2016.
14.
EubanksJ. J. (1999). Pedestrian Accident Reconstruction and Litigation. Tucson, Arizona: Lawyers and Judges Publishing Company.
15.
FlahautB. (2004). Impact of Infrastructure and Local Environment on Road Safety: Logistic Modeling with Spatial Autocorrelation. Accident Analysis & Prevention, vol. 36(6), 1055-1066, DOI: 10.1016/j.aap.2003.12.003.
16.
FridmanA.MehlerB.XiaL.YangY.FacusseL.Y.ReimerB. (2017). To Walk or Not to Walk: Crowdsourced Assessment of External Vehicle-to-Pedestrian Displays. ArXiv, abs/1707.02698.
17.
FuggerT. F.RandlesB. C.SteinA. C.WhitingW. C.GallagherB. (2000). Analysis of Pedestrian Gait and Perception-Reaction at Signal- Controlled Crosswalk Intersections. Transportation Research Record, vol. 1705(1), 20–25. DOI: 10.3141/1705-04.
18.
GolledgeR. G.MarstonJ. R.CostanzoC. M. (1997). Attitudes of Visually Impaired Persons Toward the Use of Public Transportation. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, vol. 91(5), 446–459.
19.
HabibovicA.LundgrenV. M.AnderssonJ.KlingegårdM.LagströmT.SirkkaA.FagerlönnJ.EdgrenC.FredrikssonR.KrupeniaS.SaluäärD.LarssonP. (2018). Communicating Intent of Automated Vehicles to Pedestrians. Frontiers of Psychology. vol. 9(1336), 1-17, DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01336.
20.
HicksonL.WoodJ.ChaparroA.LacherezP.MarszalekR. (2010). Hearing Impairment Affects Older People’s Ability to Drive in the Presence of Distracters. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. vol. 58(6), 1097-1103, DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2010.02880.x.
21.
JayaramanS. K.CreechC.TilburyD.M.YangX. J.PradhanA. K.TsuiK. M.RobertL. P.Jr. (2019). Pedestrian Trust in Automated Vehicles: Role of Traffic Signal and AV Driving Behavior. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, Vol, 6(117). DOI: 10.3389/frobt.2019.00117.
22.
LangfordJ.KoppelS. (2006). Epidemiology of Older Driver Crashes – Identifying Older Driver Risk Factors and Exposure Patterns. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behavior. vol. 9(5), 309-321, DOI: 10.1016/j.trf.2006.03.005.
23.
LiuY. C.TungY. C. (2014). Risk Analysis of Pedestrians’ Road- Crossing Decisions: Effects of Age, Time Gap, Time of Day, and Vehicle Speed. Safety Science. vol. 63, 77-82, DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2013.11.002.
24.
MahadevanK.SomanathS.SharlinE. (2018). Communicating Awareness and Intent in Autonomous Vehicle-Pedestrian Interaction, Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2018.
25.
MatthewsM.ChowdharyG.KiesonE. (2017). Intent Communication between Autonomous Vehicles and Pedestrians. ArXiv, abs/1708.07123.
26.
MeratN.LouwT.MadiganR.WilbrinkM.SchiebenA. (2018). What Externally Presented Information do VRUs Require when Interacting with Fully Autonomous Road Transport Systems in Shared Space?Accident Analysis and Prevention. vol. 118, 244-252, DOI: 10.1016/j.aap.2018.03.018.
27.
ProctorR. W.Van ZandtT. (2008). Human Factors in Simple and Complex Systems. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
28.
ReynoldsC. C.HarrisM. A.TeschkeK.CriptonP. A.WintersM. (2009). The Impact of Transportation Infrastructure on Bicycling Injuries and Crashes: A Review of the Literature. Environmental Health: A Global Access Science Source, vol. 8(47), 1-19. DOI:10.1186/1476-069X-8-47.
29.
RistoM.EmmeneggerC.VinkhuyzenE.CefkinM.HollanJ., Human-Vehicle Interfaces: The Power of Vehicle Movement Gestures in Human Road User Coordination, Proceedings of the Ninth International Driving Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training and Vehicle Design, 2017.
30.
SallisJ. F. (1993). Epidemiology of Physical Activity and Fitness in Children and Adolescents. Food Science and Nutrition. Vol. 33(4), 403-408, DOI: 10.1080/10408399309527639.
31.
SmithS. F.RubinsteinZ. B.KamalanathsharmaR.SarkhiliS.DiasB.BahramS. (2018). Connecting Pedestrians with Disabilities to Adaptive Signal Control for Safe Intersection Crossing and Enhanced Mobility: Concept of Operations (Report No. FHWA-JPO-18-683). Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University.
32.
WarnerH. W.ÖzkanT.LajunenT.TzamaloukaG. (2011). Cross-Cultural Comparison of Drivers’ Tendency to Commit Different Aberrant Driving Behaviors. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behavior. vol. 14(5), 390-399, DOI: 10.1016/j.trf.2011.04.006.
33.
ZeuwtsL. H. R. HVansteenkisteP.DeconinckF. J. A.CardonG.LenoirM. (2017). Hazard Perception in Young Cyclists and Adult Cyclists. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Vol. 105, (64-71), DOI: 10.1016/j.aap.2016.04.034
