interACT studies current human‐machine interactions in mixed traffic and will increase the chances of
safe deployment of AVs by developing novel software and HMI hardware components for reliable and
user‐centric communication among an AV, its on‐board user and other road users. It is expected that
by reaching its goals, this project will facilitate the gradual integration of AVs in future transport
networks.
The present document is the D1.1 “Definition of interACT scenarios” which is prepared as the first
document within WP1 of the interACT project. The document presents the selection process for
scenarios, a framework for the use case description and the selected interACT use cases and example
scenarios.
Use cases are a functional description of the behaviour of the AV in a traffic situation (see 3.3).
Scenarios are a description of sequences of actions and events performed by different actors over a
certain amount of time (see 3.2).
As the natural traffic environment consists of a manifold variety of traffic scenes, it is essential for the
interACT technical project work to reduce the complexity of the traffic environment to a manageable
number of relevant use cases and scenarios that an AV could be confronted with. Therefore, WP1
started with an agreement on and definition of relevant interACT use cases and scenarios among all
industrial and academic consortium members. The interACT use cases and scenarios have been
selected using a step‐wise process of intensive discussions within the consortium. Starting with some
open brain‐storming discussions the use cases were aggregated and rated by the partners against
several criteria (such as relevance for safety, need for interaction behavior etc.) to agree on the most
relevant ones.
The present document illustrates the selection process of the addressed use cases, including the
results of a workshop and the consortium ratings. Moreover, a method for describing and
documenting of use cases is presented in the deliverable. This method is meant to structure the
discussion within the consortium but is also a very promising tool for fostering the exchange of
knowledge with stakeholders of the interACT consortium, such as academic and industrial partners
(Chapter 5). In the main part of the document the selected use cases and example scenarios are
described. The consortium defined four “must‐have” use cases that are of highest relevance. These
use cases are to be covered by research and technical developments in all technical WPs and
evaluated and demonstrated in the interACT demonstrator vehicles and simulators at the end of the
project. These are the following “must‐have” use cases:
interACT D1.1 Definition of interACT scenarios Version 1.0 Date 31/08/17 Page | 8
React to crossing non‐motorised traffic participants (TP) at crossings without traffic light
React to an ambiguous situation at an unsignalised intersection
React to non‐motorised TP at a parking space
React to vehicles at a parking space
In addition, two “optional” use cases were selected:
React to vehicles in turning situations
React to crossing non‐motorised TP at signalised crossings
The “optional” use cases aim to inspire further research within the project and the exchange of
knowledge with international research partners to foster for example cross‐cultural comparisons.
This deliverable sets the basis for all further work in WP1 and all other technical WPs of the interACT
project.
[1]
Thierry Hermitte,et al.
Intersection Road Accident Causation: A European View
,
2009
.
[2]
Michael P. Clamann,et al.
Evaluation of Vehicle-to-Pedestrian Communication Displays for Autonomous Vehicles
,
2017
.
[3]
Wassim G. Najm,et al.
Pre-Crash Scenario Typology for Crash Avoidance Research
,
2007
.
[4]
Berthold Färber,et al.
Communication and Communication Problems Between Autonomous Vehicles and Human Drivers
,
2016
.
[5]
Alex Fridman,et al.
To Walk or Not to Walk: Crowdsourced Assessment of External Vehicle-to-Pedestrian Displays
,
2017,
ArXiv.
[6]
Nicolas Marmaras,et al.
Drivers' communicative interactions: on-road observations and modelling for integration in future automation systems
,
2014,
Ergonomics.
[7]
Martin Winkelbauer,et al.
Interactions with vulnerable road users
,
2017
.
[8]
Natasha Merat,et al.
Communication Between VRUs and Fully Automated Road Transport Systems: What's important?
,
2016
.
[9]
Fabian Schuldt,et al.
Defining and Substantiating the Terms Scene, Situation, and Scenario for Automated Driving
,
2015,
2015 IEEE 18th International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems.
[10]
Taxonomy and definitions for terms related to driving automation systems for on-road motor vehicles
,
2022
.
[11]
Wendy Ju,et al.
Ghost driver: A field study investigating the interaction between pedestrians and driverless vehicles
,
2016,
2016 25th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN).
[12]
Klaus Bengler,et al.
Taxonomy of Traffic Situations for the Interaction between Automated Vehicles and Human Road Users
,
2017
.