What externally presented information do VRUs require when interacting with fully Automated Road Transport Systems in shared space?

As the desire for deploying automated ("driverless") vehicles increases, there is a need to understand how they might communicate with other road users in a mixed traffic, urban, setting. In the absence of an active and responsible human controller in the driving seat, who might currently communicate with other road users in uncertain/conflicting situations, in the future, understanding a driverless car's behaviour and intentions will need to be relayed via easily comprehensible, intuitive and universally intelligible means, perhaps presented externally via new vehicle interfaces. This paper reports on the results of a questionnaire-based study, delivered to 664 participants, recruited during live demonstrations of an Automated Road Transport Systems (ARTS; SAE Level 4), in three European cities. The questionnaire sought the views of pedestrians and cyclists, focussing on whether respondents felt safe interacting with ARTS in shared space, and also what externally presented travel behaviour information from the ARTS was important to them. Results showed that most pedestrians felt safer when the ARTS were travelling in designated lanes, rather than in shared space, and the majority believed they had priority over the ARTS, in the absence of such infrastructure. Regardless of lane demarcations, all respondents highlighted the importance of receiving some communication information about the behaviour of the ARTS, with acknowledgement of their detection by the vehicle being the most important message. There were no clear patterns across the respondents, regarding preference of modality for these external messages, with cultural and infrastructural differences thought to govern responses. Generally, however, conventional signals (lights and beeps) were preferred to text-based messages and spoken words. The results suggest that until these driverless vehicles are able to provide universally comprehensible externally presented information or messages during interaction with other road users, they are likely to contribute to confusing and conflicting interactions between these actors, especially in a shared space setting, which may, therefore, reduce efficient traffic flow.

[1]  Viswanath Venkatesh,et al.  Determinants of Perceived Ease of Use: Integrating Control, Intrinsic Motivation, and Emotion into the Technology Acceptance Model , 2000, Inf. Syst. Res..

[2]  Paolo Delle Site,et al.  Evaluation of Eight Automated Road Transport System City Studies , 2015 .

[3]  Matthew G. Karlaftis,et al.  AN INTERNATIONAL COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SELF-REPORTED DRIVER BEHAVIOR , 2001 .

[4]  L. Steg,et al.  Explaining differences in acceptability before and acceptance after the implementation of a congestion charge in Stockholm , 2010 .

[5]  Fred D. Davis Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology , 1989, MIS Q..

[6]  Quinn McNemar Correction to a correction , 1974 .

[7]  Natasha Merat,et al.  What influences the decision to use automated public transport? Using UTAUT to understand public acceptance of automated road transport systems , 2017 .

[8]  Michael P. Clamann,et al.  Evaluation of Vehicle-to-Pedestrian Communication Displays for Autonomous Vehicles , 2017 .

[9]  Oecd Indicators Health at a Glance 2015 , 2015 .

[10]  Graham Currie,et al.  Causes of Youth Licensing Decline: A Synthesis of Evidence , 2013 .

[11]  Ioannis Kaparias,et al.  Analysing the perceptions of pedestrians and drivers to shared space , 2012 .

[12]  B. Hamilton-Baillie Shared Space: Reconciling People, Places and Traffic , 2008 .

[13]  Carlos Holguin,et al.  Automated Road Transport Systems (ARTS)—The Safe Way to Integrate Automated Road Transport in Urban Areas , 2015 .

[14]  A. L. Edwards Note on the “correction for continuity” in testing the significance of the difference between correlated proportions , 1948, Psychometrika.

[15]  Wendy Ju,et al.  Ghost driver: a platform for investigating interactions between pedestrians and driverless vehicles , 2015, AutomotiveUI.

[16]  Katherine F. Turnbull Towards Road Transport Automation: Opportunities in Public–Private Collaboration. Summary of the Third EU-U.S. Transportation Research Symposium , 2015 .

[17]  Jonas Andersson,et al.  Evaluating interactions with non-existing automated vehicles: three Wizard of Oz approaches , 2016, 2016 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV).

[18]  Natasha Merat,et al.  Acceptance of Automated Road Transport Systems (ARTS): An adaptation of the UTAUT model , 2016 .

[19]  William Whittaker,et al.  Autonomous driving in urban environments: Boss and the Urban Challenge , 2008, J. Field Robotics.

[20]  Natasha Merat,et al.  Preface to the Special Section on Human Factors and Automation in Vehicles , 2012, Hum. Factors.

[21]  Natasha Merat,et al.  Designing the interaction of automated vehicles with other traffic participants: A design framework based on human needs and expectations , 2018 .

[22]  Michel Parent,et al.  Cybercars : Past, Present and Future of the Technology , 2005, ArXiv.