Prioritizing Safety or Traffic Flow? Qualitative Study on Highly Automated Vehicles’ Potential to Prevent Pedestrian Crashes with Two Different Ambitions

Interaction between drivers and pedestrians enables pedestrians to cross the street without conflicts. When highly automated vehicles (HAVs) become prevalent, interaction will change. Although HAVs manage to identify pedestrians, they may not be able to assess pedestrians’ intentions. This study discusses two different ambitions: Prioritizing pedestrian safety and prioritizing efficient traffic flow; and how these two affect the possibilities to avoid fatal crashes between pedestrians and passenger cars. HAVs’ hypothetical possibilities to avoid different crash scenarios are evaluated based on 40 in-depth investigated fatal pedestrian crashes, which occurred with manually-driven cars in Finland in 2014–2016. When HAVs prioritize pedestrian safety, they decrease speed near pedestrians as a precaution which affects traffic flow due to frequent decelerations. When HAVs prioritize efficient traffic flow, they only decelerate, when pedestrians are in a collision course. The study shows that neither of these approaches can be applied in all traffic environments, and all of the studied crashes would not likely be avoidable with HAVs even when prioritizing pedestrian safety. The high expectations of HAVs’ safety benefits may not be realized, and in addition to safety and traffic flow, there are many other objectives in traffic which need to be considered.

[1]  Michael P. Clamann,et al.  Automated Vehicles and Pedestrian Safety: Exploring the Promise and Limits of Pedestrian Detection. , 2019, American journal of preventive medicine.

[2]  Natasha Merat,et al.  What externally presented information do VRUs require when interacting with fully Automated Road Transport Systems in shared space? , 2018, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[3]  Qian Lei,et al.  Research on Longitudinal Active Collision Avoidance of Autonomous Emergency Braking Pedestrian System (AEB-P) , 2019, Sensors.

[4]  Motao Zhu,et al.  An investigation of driver, pedestrian, and environmental characteristics and resulting pedestrian injury , 2019, Traffic injury prevention.

[5]  D. Dai Identifying clusters and risk factors of injuries in pedestrian-vehicle crashes in a GIS environment , 2012 .

[6]  Mohammed Quddus,et al.  Evaluating the safety impact of connected and autonomous vehicles on motorways. , 2019, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[7]  Ulrich Sander,et al.  Pedestrian fatality risk as a function of car impact speed. , 2009, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[8]  Alan Tapp,et al.  Support and compliance with 20 mph speed limits in Great Britain , 2015 .

[9]  Meleckidzedeck Khayesi,et al.  Time to prioritise safe walking , 2013, International journal of injury control and safety promotion.

[10]  Andrew Mondschein,et al.  Planning for walking and cycling in an autonomous-vehicle future , 2019, Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives.

[11]  John K. Tsotsos,et al.  Autonomous Vehicles That Interact With Pedestrians: A Survey of Theory and Practice , 2018, IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems.

[12]  Matthias Beggiato,et al.  An experimental study to investigate design and assessment criteria: What is important for communication between pedestrians and automated vehicles? , 2019, Applied ergonomics.

[13]  Rikard Fredriksson,et al.  Will There Be New Communication Needs When Introducing Automated Vehicles to the Urban Context , 2017 .

[14]  Yalcin Alver,et al.  The crossing speed and safety margin of pedestrians at signalized intersections , 2017 .

[15]  Adam Millard-Ball,et al.  Pedestrians, Autonomous Vehicles, and Cities , 2016 .

[16]  Satish Chandra,et al.  Design Implications of Walking Speed for Pedestrian Facilities , 2011 .

[17]  Patrick Lin Why Ethics Matters for Autonomous Cars , 2016 .

[18]  William J. Horrey,et al.  Automated driving: Safety blind spots , 2018 .

[19]  Daniel J. Fagnant,et al.  Preparing a Nation for Autonomous Vehicles: Opportunities, Barriers and Policy Recommendations , 2015 .

[20]  Joost C. F. de Winter,et al.  Interaction between pedestrians and automated vehicles: A Wizard of Oz experiment , 2018, Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour.