Would you cross the road? Modelling interactions between the factors influencing pedestrians’ decisions when exposed to automated vehicles
Authors: 
Sachita Shahi, Stewart Birrell, Ashim Debnath, Ben Horan, William PayreAuthors Info & Claims
Article No.: 35, Pages 1 - 6
Abstract
Introduction: The advancement of Automated vehicles (AVs) is an ongoing process. Novel concepts are being tested and validated frequently to improve AVs’ functionality. An expected benefit of AVs is the improvement of vulnerable road users’ safety. While interacting with human-driven vehicles, pedestrians seek out visual cues provided by the driver such as eye contact or hand gestures to make decisions. These communication means may be absent in AVs. In these situations, pedestrians may misinterpret the AVs’ intention, thus causing confusion. Therefore, it is necessary to first analyze the factors considered by pedestrians to understand how they make decisions while interacting with an AV. More insight can be obtained from a study conducted to see the interaction between factors. Research objective: This research focuses on four factors, namely, the urgency of the task, weather conditions, social contagion, and road markings. This research aims to determine which factors have more weight made by the pedestrian while crossing a road. Methodology: The analysis will be conducted based on Anderson's experimental protocol, supported by the information integration theory. Outcomes: The results from this study are expected to quantify which factors affect the decision-making process and the importance of each factor from a pedestrians’ perspective.
References
[1]
James M Anderson, Nidhi Kalra, Karlyn D Stanley, Paul Sorensen, Constantine Samaras, and Oluwatobi A Oluwatola. 2014. Brief history and current state of autonomous vehicles. In Autonomous Vehicle Technology: A Guide for Policymakers. 55–74.
[2]
Norman H Anderson. 1996. A functional theory of cognition. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc, Hillsdale, NJ, US.
[3]
Norman H Anderson. 2008. Unified social cognition. Psychology Press, New York, NY, US.
[4]
Henrik Andersson. 2011. Perception of Own Death Risk: An Assessment of Road-Traffic Mortality Risk. Risk Analysis 31, 7: 1069–1082.
[5]
Thierry Bellet, Sébastien Laurent, Jean Charles Bornard, Isabelle Hoang, and Bertrand Richard. 2022. Interaction between pedestrians and automated vehicles: Perceived safety of yielding behaviors and benefits of an external human–machine interface for elderly people. Frontiers in Psychology 13, November: 1–15.
[6]
Chia-Ming Chang, Koki Toda, Daisuke Sakamoto, and Takeo Igarashi. 2017. Eyes on a Car: An Interface Design for Communication between an Autonomous Car and a Pedestrian. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications, Association for Computing Machinery, 65–73.
[7]
Koen de Clercq, Andre Dietrich, Juan Pablo Núñez Velasco, Joost de Winter, and Riender Happee. 2019. External Human-Machine Interfaces on Automated Vehicles: Effects on Pedestrian Crossing Decisions. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 61, 8: 1353–1370.
[8]
Stéphanie Cœugnet, Béatrice Cahour, and Sami Kraiem. 2019. Risk-taking, emotions and socio-cognitive dynamics of pedestrian street-crossing decision-making in the city. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 65: 141–157.
[9]
Shuchisnigdha Deb, Md Mahmudur Rahman, Lesley J. Strawderman, and Teena M. Garrison. 2018. Pedestrians’ Receptivity Toward Fully Automated Vehicles: Research Review and Roadmap for Future Research. IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems 48, 3: 279–290.
[10]
Shuchisnigdha Deb, Lesley Strawderman, Janice DuBien, Brian Smith, Daniel W. Carruth, and Teena M. Garrison. 2017. Evaluating pedestrian behavior at crosswalks: Validation of a pedestrian behavior questionnaire for the U.S. population. Accident Analysis and Prevention 106, May: 191–201.
[11]
Maxime Delmas, Valérie Camps, and Céline Lemercier. 2022. Effects of environmental, vehicle and human factors on comfort in partially automated driving: A scenario-based study. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 86, June 2021: 392–401.
[12]
Debargha Dey, Marieke Martens, Berry Eggen, and Jacques Terken. 2019. Pedestrian road-crossing willingness as a function of vehicle automation, external appearance, and driving behaviour. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 65: 191–205.
[13]
Roja Ezzati Amini, Christos Katrakazas, and Constantinos Antoniou. 2019. Negotiation and Decision-Making for a Pedestrian Roadway Crossing: A Literature Review. Sustainability 11, 23: 6713.
[14]
Joeri Hofmans and Etienne Mullet. 2013. Towards unveiling individual differences in different stages of information processing: A clustering-based approach. Quality and Quantity 47, 1: 455–464.
[15]
Kai Holländer, Philipp Wintersberger, and Andreas Butz. 2019. Overtrust in External Cues of Automated Vehicles. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications, ACM, 211–221.
[16]
Debbie Hopkins and Tim Schwanen. 2021. Talking about automated vehicles: What do levels of automation do? Technology in Society 64, October 2020: 101488.
[17]
Lynn M. Hulse. 2023. Pedestrians’ perceived vulnerability and observed behaviours relating to crossing and passing interactions with autonomous vehicles. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 93, December 2022: 34–54.
[18]
Suresh Kumaar Jayaraman, Chandler Creech, Dawn M. Tilbury, 2019. Pedestrian Trust in Automated Vehicles: Role of Traffic Signal and AV Driving Behavior. Frontiers in Robotics and AI 6, November.
[19]
Yee Mun Lee, Jim Uttley, Albert Solernou, 2020. Investigating Pedestrians’ Crossing Behaviour During Car Deceleration Using Wireless Head Mounted Display: An Application Towards the Evaluation of eHMI of Automated Vehicles. 252–258.
[20]
Noé Monsaingeon, Loïc Caroux, Sabine Langlois, Yovan Hurgobin, and Céline Lemercier. 2020. Driver Compliance With Automation Reliability Information Regarding Hazardous Environmental Circumstances. Travail Humain 83, 4: 343–360.
[21]
Darsh Parekh, Nishi Poddar, Aakash Rajpurkar, 2022. A Review on Autonomous Vehicles: Progress, Methods and Challenges. Electronics 11, 14: 2162.
[22]
Pelé, Deneubourg, and Sueur. 2019. Decision-Making Processes Underlying Pedestrian Behaviors at Signalized Crossings: Part 2. Do Pedestrians Show Cultural Herding Behavior? Safety 5, 4: 82.
[23]
Manon Predhumeau, Anne Spalanzani, and Julie Dugdale. 2023. Pedestrian Behavior in Shared Spaces With Autonomous Vehicles: An Integrated Framework and Review. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles 8, 1: 438–457.
[24]
Aïsha Sahaï, Elodie Labeye, Loïc Caroux, and Céline Lemercier. 2022. Crossing the street in front of an autonomous vehicle: An investigation of eye contact between drivengers and vulnerable road users. Frontiers in Psychology 13, October: 1–17.
[25]
Hatice Şahin, Sebastian Hemesath, and Susanne Boll. 2022. Deviant Behavior of Pedestrians: A Risk Gamble or Just Against Automated Vehicles? How About Social Control? Frontiers in Robotics and AI 9, July: 1–19.
[26]
Francisco Soares, Emanuel Silva, Frederico Pereira, Carlos Silva, Emanuel Sousa, and Elisabete Freitas. 2021. To cross or not to cross: Impact of visual and auditory cues on pedestrians’ crossing decision-making. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 82, December 2020: 202–220.
[27]
Rouxian Sun, Xiangling Zhuang, Changxu Wu, Guozhen Zhao, and Kan Zhang. 2015. The estimation of vehicle speed and stopping distance by pedestrians crossing streets in a naturalistic traffic environment. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 30: 97–106.
[28]
Shulei Sun, Ziqiang Zhang, Zhiqi Zhang, Pengyi Deng, Kai Tian, and Chongfeng Wei. 2022. How Do Human-Driven Vehicles Avoid Pedestrians in Interactive Environments? A Naturalistic Driving Study. Sensors 22, 20: 7860.
[29]
Ward Vanlaar and George Yannis. 2006. Perception of road accident causes. Accident Analysis and Prevention 38, 1: 155–161.
[30]
Roger Woodman, Ke Lu, Matthew D. Higgins, Simon Brewerton, Paul A. Jennings, and Stewart Birrell. 2019. Gap acceptance study of pedestrians crossing between platooning autonomous vehicles in a virtual environment. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 67: 1–14.
[31]
Xiaoyuan Zhao, Xiaomeng Li, Andry Rakotonirainy, Samira Bourgeois-Bougrine, and Patricia Delhomme. 2022. Predicting pedestrians’ intention to cross the road in front of automated vehicles in risky situations. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 90, April: 524–536.
[32]
2021. J3016_202104: Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for On-Road Motor Vehicles - SAE International. Retrieved February 8, 2023 from https://www.sae.org/standards/content/j3016_202104/.
Index Terms
- Would you cross the road? Modelling interactions between the factors influencing pedestrians’ decisions when exposed to automated vehicles
Recommendations
Parametric-based path generation for automated vehicles at roundabouts
This paper shows simulated/real experiments with automated vehicles in roundabouts.Real-time planning considering two-lane roundabout, taking different exits.G1 path continuity, highly reduced curvature steps and comfort considerations. Urban ...
Road users rarely use explicit communication when interacting in today’s traffic: implications for automated vehicles
AbstractTo be successful, automated vehicles (AVs) need to be able to manoeuvre in mixed traffic in a way that will be accepted by road users, and maximises traffic safety and efficiency. A likely prerequisite for this success is for AVs to be able to ...
Are automated vehicles safer than manually driven cars?
AbstractAre automated vehicles really safer than manually driven vehicles? If so, how would we know? Answering this question has spurred a contentious debate. Unfortunately, several issues make answering this question difficult for the foreseeable future. ...
Comments
Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
July 2023
426 pages
ISBN:9798400707346
DOI:10.1145/3597512
Copyright © 2023 Owner/Author.
Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 11 July 2023
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Extended-abstract
- Research
- Refereed limited
Conference
TAS '23
TAS '23: First International Symposium on Trustworthy Autonomous Systems
July 11 - 12, 2023
Edinburgh, United Kingdom
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 75Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)39
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)5
Reflects downloads up to 19 Dec 2024
Other Metrics
Citations
Cited By
View allView Options
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign inFull Access
View options
View or Download as a PDF file.
PDFeReader
View online with eReader.
eReaderHTML Format
View this article in HTML Format.
HTML Format