Cyclists' Crossing Intentions When Interacting with Automated Vehicles: A Virtual Reality Study

Most of cyclists’ fatalities originate from collisions with motorized vehicles. It is expected that automated vehicles (AV) will be safer than human-driven vehicles, but this depends on the nature of interactions between non-automated road users, among them cyclists. Little research on the interactions between cyclists and AVs exists. This study aims to determine the main factors influencing cyclists’ crossing intentions when interacting with an automated vehicle as compared to a conventional vehicle (CV) using a 360° video-based virtual reality (VR) method. The considered factors in this study included vehicle type, gap size between cyclist and vehicle, vehicle speed, and right of way. Each factor had two levels. In addition, cyclist’s self-reported behavior and trust in automated vehicles were also measured. Forty-seven participants experienced 16 different crossing scenarios in a repeated measures study using VR. These scenarios are the result of combinations of the studied factors at different levels. In total, the experiment lasted 60 min. The results show that the gap size and the right of way were the primary factors affecting the crossing intentions of the individuals. The vehicle type and vehicle speed did not have a significant effect on the crossing intentions. Finally, the 360° video-based VR method scored relatively high as a research method and comparable with the results of a previous study investigating pedestrians’ crossing intentions confirming its suitability as a research methodology to study cyclists’ crossing intentions.

[1]  J. Rucklidge,et al.  Road-Crossing Safety in Virtual Reality: A Comparison of Adolescents With and Without ADHD , 2006, Journal of clinical child and adolescent psychology : the official journal for the Society of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, American Psychological Association, Division 53.

[2]  I. M. Bernhoft,et al.  Preferences and behaviour of pedestrians and cyclists by age and gender , 2008 .

[3]  Haneen Farah,et al.  Studying pedestrians’ crossing behavior when interacting with automated vehicles using virtual reality , 2019, Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour.

[4]  Ross H Day,et al.  Crossing roads safely: an experimental study of age differences in gap selection by pedestrians. , 2005, Accident; analysis and prevention.

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

[6]  Marjan P. Hagenzieker,et al.  Interactions between cyclists and automated vehicles: Results of a photo experiment* , 2019, Journal of Transportation Safety & Security.

[7]  Bonnie Cuthbert Video Analysis , 2009, Encyclopedia of Database Systems.

[8]  Judith D. Singer,et al.  Using SAS PROC MIXED to Fit Multilevel Models, Hierarchical Models, and Individual Growth Models , 1998 .

[9]  Willem Vlakveld,et al.  to yield for automated , 2020 .

[10]  Jodie M Plumert,et al.  Children's perception of gap affordances: bicycling across traffic-filled intersections in an immersive virtual environment. , 2004, Child development.

[11]  Michael J. Singer,et al.  The Factor Structure of the Presence Questionnaire , 2005, Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments.

[12]  Nicolas Guéguen,et al.  A pedestrian’s stare and drivers’ stopping behavior: A field experiment at the pedestrian crossing , 2015 .

[13]  Marie-Axelle Granié,et al.  Developing a self-reporting method to measure pedestrian behaviors at all ages. , 2013, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[14]  D. Sutherland,et al.  On the road. , 1996, Nursing times.

[15]  Sarah Schmidt,et al.  Pedestrians at the kerb – Recognising the action intentions of humans , 2009 .

[16]  Natasha Merat,et al.  Understanding interactions between Automated Road Transport Systems and other road users: A video analysis , 2019, Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour.

[17]  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.

[18]  Jelte E. Bos,et al.  Motion in images is essential to cause motion sickness symptoms, but not to increase postural sway , 2015, Displays.

[19]  Y. I. Demiroz,et al.  Illegal road crossing behavior of pedestrians at overpass locations: Factors affecting gap acceptance, crossing times and overpass use. , 2015, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[20]  Sophie Chen,et al.  How Big is a Big Odds Ratio? Interpreting the Magnitudes of Odds Ratios in Epidemiological Studies , 2010, Commun. Stat. Simul. Comput..

[21]  Jelte E. Bos,et al.  Internal and external fields of view affect cybersickness , 2011, Displays.

[22]  Tom Brijs,et al.  Can Automated Vehicles Improve Cyclist Safety in Urban Areas? , 2019, Safety.

[23]  Jelte E. Bos,et al.  A theory on visually induced motion sickness , 2008, Displays.

[24]  Lucy Johnston,et al.  An investigation of road crossing in a virtual environment. , 2003, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[25]  W. Horrey,et al.  The effect of conformity tendency on pedestrians' road-crossing intentions in China: an application of the theory of planned behavior. , 2009, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[26]  Marjan Hagenzieker,et al.  Safe interaction between cyclists, pedestrians and automated vehicles. What do we know and what do we need to know? , 2016 .

[27]  C. G. Keller,et al.  Will the Pedestrian Cross? A Study on Pedestrian Path Prediction , 2014, IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems.

[28]  Pravin Varaiya,et al.  Making intersections safer with I2V communication , 2018, Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies.

[29]  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.

[30]  Lesley Strawderman,et al.  Efficacy of virtual reality in pedestrian safety research. , 2017, Applied ergonomics.

[31]  S. Nahavandi,et al.  Cyclist Intent Prediction using 3D LIDAR Sensors for Fully Automated Vehicles , 2019, 2019 IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Conference (ITSC).

[32]  J. Pucher,et al.  Cycling towards a more sustainable transport future , 2017 .