Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Designing the interaction of automated vehicles with other traffic participants: design considerations based on human needs and expectations

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Cognition, Technology & Work Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Automated vehicles (AV) are expected to be integrated into mixed traffic environments in the near future. As human road users have established elaborated interaction strategies to coordinate their actions among each other, one challenge that human factors experts and vehicle designers are facing today is how to design AVs in a way that they can safely and intuitively interact with other traffic participants. This paper presents design considerations that are intended to support AV designers in reducing the complexity of the design space. The design considerations are based on a literature review of common human–human interaction strategies. Four categories of information are derived for the design considerations: (1) information about vehicle driving mode; (2) information about AVs’ manoeuvres; (3) information about AVs’ perceptions of the environment; and (4) information about AVs’ cooperation capabilities. In this paper, we apply the four categories to analyse existing research studies of traffic participants’ needs during interactions with AVs and results of the CityMobil2 project. From the CityMobil2 project we present central results from face-to-face interviews, an onsite-survey and two focus groups. To further support the AV designers we describe and rate different design options to present the information of the four categories, including the design of the infrastructure, the vehicle shape, the vehicle manoeuvres and the external human–machine interface of the AV.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

(source: EU project interACT)

Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 2getthere (2017a) Masdar City PRT. https://www.2getthere.eu/projects/masdar-prt/. Accessed 15 May 2018

  • 2getthere (2017b) Rivium GRT. https://www.2getthere.eu/projects/rivium-grt/. Accessed 15 May 2018

  • Alessandrini A (2016) CityMobil2—experiences and recommendations. Final report of the CityMobil2 project. http://www.citymobil2.eu/en/upload/Deliverables/PU/CityMobil2%20booklet%20web%20final_17%2011%202016.pdf. Accessed 15 May 2018

  • Alessandrini A, Cattivera A, Holguin C, Stam D (2014) CityMobil2: challenges and opportunities of fully automated mobility. In: Meyer G, Beiker S (eds) Road vehicle automation. Springer International Publishing, Cham

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersson J, Habibovic A, Klingegård M, Englund C, Malmsten-Lundgren V (2017) Hello human—can you read my mind? ERICM News 109:37–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Ba Y, Zhang W, Reimer B, Yang Y, Salvendy G (2015) The effect of communicational signals on drivers’ subjective appraisal and visual attention during interactive driving scenarios. Behav Inf Technol 34(11):1107–1118. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2015.1056547

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beggiato M, Witzlack C, Krems JF (2017) The gentle automated vehicle. Influence of vehicle speed, daytime and pedestrian’s age on the expected moment of car braking as sign of cooperation. In: Goschke T, Bolte A, Kirschbaum C (eds) TeaP 2017—abstracts of the 59th Conference of Experimental Psychology. Pabst Science Publishers, Lengerich, pp 172–173

    Google Scholar 

  • Björklund GM, Åberg L (2005) Driver behaviour in intersections: Formal and informal traffic rules. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav 8(3):239–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2005.04.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bjørnskau T (2017) The zebra crossing game—using game theory to explain a discrepancy between road user behaviour and traffic rules. Saf Sci 92:298–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2015.10.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BMW (2016) Vision Next 100. https://www.bmwgroup.com/en/next100/brandvisions.html. Accessed 15 May 2018

  • Böckle M-P, Pernestål Brenden A, Klingegård M, Habibovic A, Bout M (2017) SAV2P—exploring the impact of an interface for shared automated vehicles on pedestrians’ experience. In: Proceedings of the 9th international ACM conference on automotive user interfaces and interactive vehicular applications (AutomotiveUI’17). Association for Computing Machinery, pp 136–140. https://doi.org/10.1145/3131726.3131765

  • Braun V, Clarke V (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 3(2):77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown B, Laurier E (2017) The trouble with autopilots: Assisted and autonomous driving on the social road. CHI 2017, May 6–11, 2017, Denver. https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025462

  • Cacciabue PC, Carsten O, Vanderhaegen F (2014) Is there still a need for CTW? Cogn Technol Work 16:311. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-014-0286-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ceunynck T de, Polders E, Daniels S, Hermans E, Brijs T, Wets G (2013) Road Safety differences between priority-controlled intersections and right-hand priority intersections. Transp Res Rec 2365:39–48. https://doi.org/10.3141/2365-06

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clamann M, Aubert M, Cummings ML (2016) Evaluation of vehicle-to-pedestrian communication displays for autonomous vehicles. Transp Res Board

  • Craid J, Hancock P (1994) The perception of arrival time for different oncoming vehicles at an intersection. Ecol Psychol 6(2):83–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Demiroz YI, Onelcin P, Alver Y (2015) Illegal road crossing behavior of pedestrians at overpass locations: factors affecting gap acceptance, crossing times and overpass use. Accid Anal Prev 80:220–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2015.04.018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dey D, Terken J (2017) Pedestrian interaction with vehicles: roles of explicit and implicit communication. In: Proceedings of the 9th international ACM conference on automotive user interfaces and interactive vehicular applications (AutomotiveUI’17). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3131726.3131765

  • Emmenegger C, Risto M, Bergen B, Norman D, Hollan J (2016) The critical importance of standards for the communication between autonomous vehicles and humans. In: Poster presented at the automated vehicle symposium 2016, San Francisco

  • ERTRAC (2017) Automated driving roadmap. Report of the ERTRAC working group “Connectivity and Automated Driving”. http://www.ertrac.org/uploads/images/ERTRAC_Automated_Driving_2017.pdf. Accessed 15 May 2018

  • Färber B (2016) Communication and communication problems between autonomous vehicles and human drivers. In: Maurer M, Gerdes JC, Lenz B, Winner H (eds) Autonomous driving. Springer, Berlin, pp 125–144

    Google Scholar 

  • Fink G (2017) Toyota concept-i: more like concept AI. http://www.caranddriver.com/news/toyota-concept-i-photos-and-info-news. Accessed 15 May 2018

  • Ford (2017) Ford, Virginia Tech go undercover to develop signals that enable autonomous vehicles to communicate with people. https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/news/2017/09/13/ford-virginia-tech-autonomous-vehicle-human-testing.html. Accessed 15 May 2018

  • GATEway Project (2017) Driver responses to encountering automated vehicles in an urban environment. Project report PPR807. https://gateway-project.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Driver-responses-to-encountering-automated-vehicles-in-an-urban-environment-1.pdf. Accessed 29 Aug 2017

  • Guéguen N, Meineri S, Eyssartier C (2015) A pedestrian’s stare and drivers’ stopping behavior: a field experiment at the pedestrian crossing. Saf Sci 75:87–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2015.01.018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Habibovic A, Andersson J, Nilsson M, Lundgren VM, Nilsson J (2016) Evaluating interactions with non-existing automated vehicles: three Wizard of Oz approaches. In: Proceedings of the intelligent vehicles symposium (IV), Gothenburg, pp 32–37. https://doi.org/10.1109/IVS.2016.7535360

  • Hagenzieker MP, van der Kint L, Vissers LK, van Schagen I, de Bruin J, van Gent P, Commandeur J (2016) Interactions between cyclists and automated vehicles: results of a photo experiment. In: Proceedings of the 5th international cycling safety conference, Bologna

  • Herslund MB, Joergensen NO (2003) Looked-but-failed-to-see-errors in traffic. Accid Anal Prev 35:885–891. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-4575(02)00095-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Houtenbos M, Hagenzieker M, Wieringa P, Hale A (2004) The role of expectations in interaction behaviour between car drivers. In: International conference on traffic and transport psychology. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 303–314

  • Imbsweiler J, Deml B, Palyafári R, Puente León F, Ries F (2017a) Cooperation behavior of road users in t-intersections. In: Goschke T, Bolte A, Kirschbaum C (eds) TeaP 2017—abstracts of the 59th conference of experimental psychology. Pabst Science Publishers, Lengerich

    Google Scholar 

  • Imbsweiler J, Palyafári R, Puente León F, Deml B (2017b) Untersuchung des Entscheidungsverhaltens in kooperativen Verkehrssituationen am Beispiel einer Engstelle. [Investigation of decision-making behaviorin cooperative traffic situations using the example of a narrow passage]. Automatisierungstechnik 65(7):477–488

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kitazaki S, Myhre NJ (2015) Effects of non-verbal communication cues on decisions and confidence of drivers at an uncontrolled intersection. In: Public Policy Center (ed) Proceedings of the 8th international driving symposium on human factors in driver assessment, training and vehicle design

  • Klatt WK, Chesham A, Lobmaier JS (2016) Putting up a big front: car design and size affect road-crossing behaviour. PLoS One 11(7):e0159455. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0159455

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lagström T, Malmsten Lundgren V (2015) AVIP—autonomous vehicles interaction with pedestrians: an investigation of pedestrian-driver communication and development of a vehicle external interface. Master Thesis. Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg

    Google Scholar 

  • Madigan R, Louw T, Dziennus M, Graindorge T, Ortega E, Graindorge M, Merat N (2016) Acceptance of automated road transport systems (ARTS): an adaptation of the UTAUT model. Transp Res Procedia 14:2217–2226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2016.05.237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Madigan R, Louw T, Wilbrink M, Schieben A, Merat N (2017) What influences the decision to use automated public transport? Using UTAUT to understand public acceptance of automated road transport systems. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav 50:55–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2017.07.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malmsten Lundgren V, Habibovic A, Andersson J, Lagström, Nilsson M, Sirkka A, Fagerlönn J, Fredriksson C, Krupenia S, Saluäär D (2016) Will there be new communication needs when introducing automated vehicles to the urban context? In: Stanton NA, Landry S, Di Bucchianico G, Vallicelli A (eds) Advances in human aspects of transportation: proceedings of the AHFE 2016 international conference on human factors in transportation, Florida

  • Mathieu J, Bootsma RJ, Berthelon C, Montagne G (2017) Judging arrival times of incoming traffic vehicles is not a prerequisite for safely crossing an intersection: differential effects of vehicle size and type in passive judgment and active driving tasks. Acta Psychol (Amst) 173:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2016.11.014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merat N, Louw T, Madigan R, Dziennus M, Schieben A (2018) Communication between VRUs and fully automated road transport systems: what’s important? Accident Anal Prev. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2018.03.018

    Google Scholar 

  • Mercedes Benz F015 (2017) Mercedes Benz F015—luxury in motion. https://www.mercedes-benz.com/en/mercedes-benz/innovation/research-vehicle-f-015-luxury-in-motion/. Accessed 15 May 2018

  • Millard-Ball A (2017) Pedestrians, autonomous vehicles, and cities. J Plan Educ Res 82(2):0739456X1667567. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X16675674

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitsubishi Electric (2015) Mitsubishi Electric introduces road-illuminating directional indicators. http://www.mitsubishielectric.com/news/2015/1023.html. Accessed 29 Aug 2017

  • Nissan IDS Concept (2017) Nissan’s vision for the future of EVs and autonomous driving. http://nissannews.com/en-US/nissan/usa/releases/nissan-ids-concept-nissan-s-vision-for-the-future-of-evs-and-autonomous-driving. Accessed 15 May 2018

  • Nordfjærn T, Şimşekoğlu Ö, Rundmo T (2014) Culture related to road traffic safety: a comparison of eight countries using two conceptualizations of culture. Accident Anal Prev 62:319–328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2013.10.018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parkin J, Clark B, Clayton W, Ricci M, Parkhurst G (2017) Understanding interactions between autonomous vehicles and other road users: a literature review. Technical University of the West of England. http://eprints.uwe.ac.uk/29153. Accessed 15 May 2018

  • Portouli E, Nathanael D, Marmaras N (2014) Drivers’ communicative interactions: on-road observations and modelling for integration in future automation systems. Ergonomics 57(12):1795–1805. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2014.952349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rasouli A, Kotseruba I, Tsotsos JK (2017) Agreeing to cross: How drivers and pedestrians communicate. In: Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE intelligent vehicles symposium (IV), pp 264–269

  • Ren Z, Jiang X, Wang W (2016) Analysis of the influence of pedestrians’ eye contact on drivers’ comfort boundary during the crossing conflict. Procedia Eng 137:399–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2016.01.274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Risto M, Emmenegger C, Vinkhuyzen E, Cefkin M, Hollan J (2017) Human–vehicle interface: the power of vehicle movement gestures in human road user coordination. In: University of Iowa (ed) Proceedings of the 9th international driving symposium on human factors in driver assessment, training and vehicle design

  • Rodriguez P (2017) Safety of pedestrians and cyclists when interacting with automated vehicles—a case study of the WEpods. Master thesis, TU Eindhoven

  • Rothenbücher D, Li J, Sirkin D, Mok B, Ju W (2016) Ghost driver: a field study investigating the interaction between pedestrians and driverless vehicles. In: Proceedings of the 25th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN), pp 795–802

  • Sadigh D, Sastry S, Seshia SA, Dragan AD (2016) Planning for autonomous cars that leverages effects on human actions. In: Proceedings of the robotics: science and systems conference. https://doi.org/10.15607/RSS.2016.XII.029

  • Saunders S (2017) Local motors and Deutsche Bahn Launch six-month self-driving Olli Vehicle Pilot Program on Euref Campus in Berlin. https://3dprint.com/161739/deutsche-bahn-olli-pilot-program/. Accessed 15 May 2018

  • Savigny EV (1995) Autofahrerzeichen: Funktion, Systeme, Autonomie [Signs of drivers: function, systems, autonomy]. Z Semiot 17(1–2):105–128

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneemann F, Gohl I (2016) Analyzing driver-pedestrian interaction at crosswalks: a contribution to autonomous driving in urban environments. In: 2016 IEEE intelligent vehicles symposium (IV), pp 38–43

  • Semcon (2017) Who sees you when the car drives itself? https://semcon.com/smilingcar/. Accessed 15 May 2018

  • Shor RE (1964) Shared patterns of nonverbal normative expectations in automobile driving. J Soc Psychol 62(1):155–163. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1964.9919512

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) (2016) Taxonomy and definitions for terms related to driving automation systems for on-road motor vehicles (standard no. J3016_201609). SAE International, Michigan

    Google Scholar 

  • Sucha M, Dostal D, Risser R (2017) Pedestrian-driver communication and decision strategies at marked crossings. Accident Anal Prev 102:41–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2017.02.018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Urmson C, Mahon I, Dolgov D, Zhu J (2015) Pedestrian Notification (US9196164B1)

  • Vanderhaegen F, Chalmé S, Anceaux F, Millot P (2006) Principles of cooperation and competition—application to car driver behavior analysis. Cogn Technol Work 8:183–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Várhelyi A (1998) Drivers’ speed behaviour at a zebra crossing: a case study. Accident Anal Prev 30(6):731–743

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vissers LK, van der Kint L, van Schagen I, Hagenzieker MP (2016) Safe interaction between cyclists, pedestrians and automated vehicles: what do we know and what do we need to know? Report of the SWOV Institute for Road Safety Research, The Hague. https://www.swov.nl/publicatie/safe-interaction-between-cyclists-pedestrians-and-automated-vehicles. Accessed 15 May 2018

  • Waymo (2017) Say hello to Waymo: what’s next for Google’s self-driving car project. https://medium.com/waymo/say-hello-to-waymo-whats-next-for-google-s-self-driving-car-project-b854578b24ee Accessed 15 May 2018

  • Zito GA, Cazzoli D, Scheffler L, Jäger M, Müri RM, Mosimann UP, Nyffeler T, Mast FW, Nef T (2015) Street crossing behavior in younger and older pedestrians: an eye- and head-tracking study. BMC Geriatr 15:176. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-015-0175-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The research presented in this paper has been partly funded in the CityMobil2 project by the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration under Grant Agreement No 314190.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. German Aerospace Center (DLR e.V.), Institute of Transportation Systems, Lilienthalplatz 7, 38108, Brunswick, Germany

    Anna Schieben, Marc Wilbrink & Carmen Kettwich

  2. Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK

    Ruth Madigan, Tyron Louw & Natasha Merat

Authors
  1. Anna Schieben
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marc Wilbrink
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Carmen Kettwich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ruth Madigan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Tyron Louw
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Natasha Merat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anna Schieben.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schieben, A., Wilbrink, M., Kettwich, C. et al. Designing the interaction of automated vehicles with other traffic participants: design considerations based on human needs and expectations. Cogn Tech Work 21, 69–85 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-018-0521-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-018-0521-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation