To navigate safely in traffic environments, road users must correctly predict another road users’ intentions. Understanding how road users correctly predict the intent of other road users can help create possible countermeasures for collision avoidance. The aim of this paper is to examine what cues road users (drivers, bicyclists, and pedestrians) use to successfully predict other road user’s intentions and to highlight gaps and outline future research directions. A systematic literature search using the PRISMA method was conducted, and twenty-seven articles were included in the review. Overall, the results from these studies suggest that observers use body language, cues exhibited by the road user, and seek eye contact, when making predictions of intent about another road user. Future research should aim to understand how specific cues impact a road user’s decision-making process and what factors (e.g., point of view or eye contact) modulate a road user’s prediction performance.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BaY.ZhangW.ReimerB.YangY.SalvendyG. (2015). The effect of communicational signals on drivers’ subjective appraisal and visual attention during interactive driving scenarios. Behaviour & Information Technology, 34(11), 1107-1118.
2.
BjorkmanK.FagerlindH.LjungM.LiljegrenE.MorrisA.TalbotR.… VerschragenE. (2008). Building the European Road Safety Observatory. SafetyNet. Deliverable 5.8: In-depth accident causation database and analysis report.
3.
ChenW.ZhuangX.CuiZ.MaG. (2019). Drivers’ recognition of pedestrian road-crossing intentions: Performance and process. Transportation research part F: traffic psychology and behaviour, 64, 552-564.
4.
ClamannM.AubertM.CummingsM. L. (2017). Evaluation of vehicle-to-pedestrian communication displays for autonomous vehicles (No. 17-02119).
5.
Crowley-KochB. J.Van HoutenR.LimE. (2011). Effects of pedestrian prompts on motorist yielding at crosswalks. Journal of applied behavior analysis, 44(1), 121-126.
6.
de ClercqK.DietrichA.Núñez VelascoJ. P.De WinterJ.HappeeR. (2019). External human-machine interfaces on automated vehicles: effects on pedestrian crossing decisions. Human factors, 61(8), 13531370.
7.
DruryC. G.PietraszewskiP. (1979). The motorists’ perception of the bicyclists’ hand signals. Ergonomics, 22(9), 1045-1057.
8.
FawH. W. (2013). To signal or not to signal: That should not be the question. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 59, 374-381.
9.
FuestT.MichalowskiL.TrärisL.BellemH.BenglerK. (2018). Using the driving behavior of an automated vehicle to communicate intentions-a wizard of oz study. In 2018 21st International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC) (pp. 3596-3601). IEEE.
10.
GuéguenN.EyssartierC.MeineriS. (2016). A pedestrian’s smile and drivers’ behavior: When a smile increases careful driving. Journal of safety research, 56, 83-88.
11.
GuéguenN.MeineriS.EyssartierC. (2015). A pedestrian’s stare and drivers’ stopping behavior: A field experiment at the pedestrian crossing. Safety science, 75, 87-89.
12.
HemerenP. E.JohannessonM.LebramM.ErikssonF.EkmanK.VetoP. (2014). The use of visual cues to determine the intent of cyclists in traffic. In 2014 IEEE International Inter-Disciplinary Conference on Cognitive Methods in Situation Awareness and Decision Support (CogSIMA) (pp. 47-51). IEEE.
13.
KauffmannN.WinklerF.NaujoksF.VollrathM. (2018). “What Makes a Cooperative Driver?” Identifying parameters of implicit and explicit forms of communication in a lane change scenario. Transportation research part F: traffic psychology and behaviour, 58, 1031-1042.
14.
KitazakiS.MyhreN. J. (2015). Effects of non-verbal communication cues on decisions and confidence of drivers at an uncontrolled intersection.
15.
KovácsováN.de WinterJ. C.HagenziekerM. P. (2019). What will the car driver do? A video-based questionnaire study on cyclists’ anticipation during safety-critical situations. Journal of safety research, 69, 11-21.
16.
LeeY. M.MadiganR.GilesO.Garach-MorcilloL.MarkkulaG.FoxC.… MeratN. (2021). Road users rarely use explicit communication when interacting in today’s traffic: implications for automated vehicles. Cognition, Technology & Work, 23(2), 367-380.
17.
LeeY. M.SheppardE. (2016). The effect of motion and signalling on drivers’ ability to predict intentions of other road users. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 95, 202-208.
18.
MadiganR.NordhoffS.FoxC.AminiR. E.LouwT.WilbrinkM.… MeratN. (2019). Understanding interactions between automated road transport systems and other road users: a video analysis. Transportation research part F: traffic psychology and behaviour, 66, 196-213.
19.
MarkkulaG.MadiganR.NathanaelD.PortouliE.LeeY. M.DietrichA.… MeratN. (2020). Defining interactions: A conceptual framework for understanding interactive behaviour in human and automated road traffic. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 21(6), 728-752.
20.
MirnigN.PertererN.StollnbergerG.TscheligiM. (2017). Three strategies for autonomous car-to-pedestrian communication: A survival guide. In Proceedings of the companion of the 2017 ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction (pp. 209-210).
21.
MoherD.LiberatiA.TetzlaffJ.AltmanD. G. (2010). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Int J Surg, 8(5), 336-341.
22.
MühlK.StollT.BaumannM. (2020). Look ahead: understanding cognitive anticipatory processes based on situational characteristics in dynamic traffic situations. IET Intelligent Transport Systems, 14(4), 233-240.
23.
MuhrerE.VollrathM. (2010). Expectations while car following—The consequences for driving behaviour in a simulated driving task. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 42(6), 2158-2164.
24.
National Center for Statistics and Analysis. (2021). Bicyclists and other cyclists: 2019 data (Traffic Safety Facts. Report No. DOT HS 813 197). National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
25.
PortouliE.NathanaelD.MarmarasN. (2014). Drivers’ communicative interactions: on-road observations and modelling for integration in future automation systems. Ergonomics, 57(12), 1795-1805.
26.
RengeK. (2000). Effect of driving experience on drivers’ decoding process of roadway interpersonal communication. Ergonomics, 43(1), 27-39.
27.
RistoM.EmmeneggerC.VinkhuyzenE.CefkinM.HollanJ. (2017). Human-vehicle interfaces: the power of vehicle movement gestures in human road user coordination.
28.
SchmidtS.FärberB. (2009). Pedestrians at the kerb–Recognising the action intentions of humans. Transportation research part F: traffic psychology and behaviour, 12(4), 300-310.
29.
SchneemannF.GohlI. (2016). Analyzing driver-pedestrian interaction at crosswalks: A contribution to autonomous driving in urban environments. In 2016 IEEE intelligent vehicles symposium (IV) (pp. 38-43). IEEE.
30.
ŠuchaM. (2014). Road users’ strategies and communication: driver-pedestrian interaction. Transport Research Arena (TRA).
31.
ŠuchaM.DostalD.RisserR. (2017). Pedestrian-driver communication and decision strategies at marked crossings. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 102, 41-50.
32.
UttleyJ.LeeY. M.MadiganR.MeratN. (2020). Road user interactions in a shared space setting: priority and communication in a UK car park. Transportation research part F: traffic psychology and behaviour, 72, 32-46.
33.
VarhelyiA. (1998). Drivers’ speed behaviour at a zebra crossing: a case study. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 30(6), 731-743.
34.
WalkerI. (2005). Signals are informative but slow down responses when drivers meet bicyclists at road junctions. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 37(6), 1074-1085.
35.
WalkerI.BrosnanM. (2007). Drivers’ gaze fixations during judgements about a bicyclist’s intentions. Transportation research part F: traffic psychology and behaviour, 10(2), 90-98.
36.
WesterhuisF.De WaardD. (2017). Reading cyclist intentions: Can a lead cyclist’s behaviour be predicted?. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 105, 146-155.
37.
World Health Organization. (2018). Global status report on road safety 2018: Summary (No. WHO/NMH/NVI/18.20). World Health Organization.
