[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/ skip to main content
10.1145/3568294.3580093acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageshriConference Proceedingsconference-collections
short-paper
Open access

When Do Drivers Intervene In Autonomous Driving?

Published: 13 March 2023 Publication History

Abstract

Autonomous vehicles (AVs) are expected to handle traffic scenarios more safely and efficiently than human drivers. However, it needs to be better understood which AV decisions are perceived to be unsafe or risky by drivers. To investigate drivers' perceived risk, we conducted a driving simulator experiment where participants are driven around by two types of AVs---car and sidewalk mobility---with a driving style that matches the participant's driving style. We developed a computational model that allows us to examine drivers' perceived risk of scenarios when interacting with an AV based on the drivers' interventions. The model allows us to quantify and compare the relative perceived risk of different scenarios for the two mobility types. Our results indicate that 1) drivers perceived higher risk in scenarios where the AV attempts to match the driver's preferred driving style, and 2) different scenarios were perceived as having higher risk across the two mobility types. The ability to quantify the perceived risk of scenarios and an understanding of how perceived risk differs across mobility types will provide critical insights for the design of human-aware mobility.

References

[1]
Rajeev Bhattacharya, Timothy M Devinney, and Madan M Pillutla. 1998. A formal model of trust based on outcomes. Academy of management review, Vol. 23, 3 (1998), 459--472.
[2]
Samuel G Charlton, Nicola J Starkey, John A Perrone, and Robert B Isler. 2014. What's the risk? A comparison of actual and perceived driving risk. Transportation research part F: traffic psychology and Behaviour, Vol. 25 (2014), 50--64.
[3]
Jolene A Cox, Vanessa Beanland, and Ashleigh J Filtness. 2017. Risk and safety perception on urban and rural roads: Effects of environmental features, driver age and risk sensitivity. Traffic injury prevention, Vol. 18, 7 (2017), 703--710.
[4]
Fredrick Ekman, Mikael Johansson, Lars-Ola Bligård, MariAnne Karlsson, and Helena Strömberg. 2019. Exploring automated vehicle driving styles as a source of trust information. Transportation research part F: traffic psychology and behaviour, Vol. 65 (2019), 268--279.
[5]
Epic Games. 2019. Unreal Engine 4. https://www.unrealengine.com/.
[6]
Jean-Paul Fox. 2010. Bayesian item response modeling: Theory and applications. Springer Science & Business Media.
[7]
Stefan Griesche, Eric Nicolay, Dirk Assmann, Mandy Dotzauer, and David Käthner. 2016. Should my car drive as I do? What kind of driving style do drivers prefer for the design of automated driving functions. In Braunschweiger Symposium, Vol. 10. 185--204.
[8]
Xiaolin He, Jork Stapel, Meng Wang, and Riender Happee. 2022. Modelling perceived risk and trust in driving automation reacting to merging and braking vehicles. Transportation research part F: traffic psychology and behaviour, Vol. 86 (2022), 178--195.
[9]
Rebecca Ivers, Teresa Senserrick, Soufiane Boufous, Mark Stevenson, Huei-Yang Chen, Mark Woodward, and Robyn Norton. 2009. Novice drivers' risky driving behavior, risk perception, and crash risk: findings from the DRIVE study. American journal of public health, Vol. 99, 9 (2009), 1638--1644.
[10]
Raynard Kington, David Reuben, Jeannette Rogowski, and Lee Lillard. 1994. Sociodemographic and health factors in driving patterns after 50 years of age. American journal of public health, Vol. 84, 8 (1994), 1327--1329.
[11]
John D Lee and Katrina A See. 2004. Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human factors, Vol. 46, 1 (2004), 50--80.
[12]
Christian Lehsing, Lukas Jünger, and Klaus Bengler. 2019. Don't drive me my way: Subjective perception of autonomous braking trajectories for pedestrian crossings. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Symposium on Information and Communication Technology. 291--297.
[13]
Zheng Ma and Yiqi Zhang. 2020. Investigating the effects of automated driving styles and driver's driving styles on driver trust, acceptance, and take over behaviors. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, Vol. 64. SAGE Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA, 2001--2005.
[14]
José Luis Machado-León, Juan de O na, Rocío de O na, Laura Eboli, and Gabriella Mazzulla. 2016. Socio-economic and driving experience factors affecting drivers' perceptions of traffic crash risk. Transportation research part F: traffic psychology and behaviour, Vol. 37 (2016), 41--51.
[15]
Roger C Mayer, James H Davis, and F David Schoorman. 1995. An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of management review, Vol. 20, 3 (1995), 709--734.
[16]
Shashank Mehrotra, Jacob Hunter, Matthew Konishi, Kumar Akash, Zhaobo Zhang, Teruhisa Misu, Anil Kumar, Tahira Reid, and Neera Jain. 2023. Trust in shared automated vehicles - Study on two mobility platforms. In 102nd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board (TRB). Transportation Research Board.
[17]
Manisha Natarajan, Kumar Akash, and Teruhisa Misu. 2022. Toward Adaptive Driving Styles for Automated Driving with Users' Trust and Preferences. In 2022 17th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). IEEE, 940--944.
[18]
Georg Rasch. 1993. Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. ERIC.
[19]
Shital Shah, Debadeepta Dey, Chris Lovett, and Ashish Kapoor. 2018. Airsim: High-fidelity visual and physical simulation for autonomous vehicles. In Field and service robotics. Springer, 621--635.
[20]
Lennart Sjöberg. 2003. Distal factors in risk perception. Journal of Risk Research, Vol. 6, 3 (2003), 187--211. https://doi.org/10.1080/1366987032000088847
[21]
Stan Development Team. 2020. RStan: the R interface to Stan. http://mc-stan.org/ R package version 2.21.2.
[22]
Adam Stocker and Susan Shaheen. 2017. Shared automated vehicles: Review of business models. International Transport Forum Discussion Paper 2017-09. Paris. http://hdl.handle.net/10419/194044
[23]
Wim J van der Linden and Ronald K Hambleton. 2013. Handbook of modern item response theory. Springer Science & Business Media.
[24]
P. Wang, S. Sibi, B. Mok, and W. Ju. 2017. Marionette: Enabling On -Road Wizard -of-Oz Autonomous Driving Studies. In 2017 12th ACM /IEEE International Conference on Human -Robot Interaction. 234--243.

Recommendations

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
HRI '23: Companion of the 2023 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction
March 2023
612 pages
ISBN:9781450399708
DOI:10.1145/3568294
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution International 4.0 License.

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 13 March 2023

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. autonomous vehicles
  2. car mobility
  3. perceived risk
  4. sidewalk mobility
  5. trust

Qualifiers

  • Short-paper

Conference

HRI '23
Sponsor:

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 268 of 1,124 submissions, 24%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • 0
    Total Citations
  • 385
    Total Downloads
  • Downloads (Last 12 months)155
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)12
Reflects downloads up to 14 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Login options

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media