Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
139 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
47 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
43 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
47 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Pedestrian-Vehicle Interaction in Shared Space: Insights for Autonomous Vehicles (2403.04933v1)

Published 7 Mar 2024 in cs.HC

Abstract: Shared space reduces segregation between vehicles and pedestrians and encourages them to share roads without imposed traffic rules. The behaviour of road users (RUs) is then controlled by social norms, and interactions are more versatile than on traditional roads. Autonomous vehicles (AVs) will need to adapt to these norms to become socially acceptable RUs in shared spaces. However, to date, there is not much research into pedestrian-vehicle interaction in shared-space environments, and prior efforts have predominantly focused on traditional roads and crossing scenarios. We present a video observation investigating pedestrian reactions to a small, automation-capable vehicle driven manually in shared spaces based on a long-term naturalistic driving dataset. We report various pedestrian reactions (from movement adjustment to prosocial behaviour) and situations pertinent to shared spaces at this early stage. Insights drawn can serve as a foundation to support future AVs navigating shared spaces, especially those with a high pedestrian focus.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (57)
  1. A glossary for research on human crowd dynamics. Collective Dynamics 4 (2019), 1–13.
  2. Proxemic interaction: designing for a proximity and orientation-aware environment. In ACM International Conference on Interactive Tabletops and Surfaces. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 121–130.
  3. Sigal G Barsade. 2002. The ripple effect: Emotional contagion and its influence on group behavior. Administrative science quarterly 47, 4 (2002), 644–675.
  4. Measurement instruments for the anthropomorphism, animacy, likeability, perceived intelligence, and perceived safety of robots. International journal of social robotics 1, 1 (2009), 71–81.
  5. Michel Beaudouin-Lafon. 2004. Designing Interaction, Not Interfaces. In Proceedings of the Working Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces (AVI ’04). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 15––22.
  6. Socially aware motion planning with deep reinforcement learning. In 2017 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, New York, NY, USA, 1343–1350.
  7. Emma Clarke. 2006. Shared space-the alternative approach to calming traffic. Traffic engineering & control 47, 8 (2006), 290–292.
  8. Investigating the Effects of Feedback Communication of Autonomous Vehicles. In 13th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 263–273.
  9. !‘ Vamos! Observations of pedestrian interactions with driverless cars in Mexico. In Proceedings of the 10th international conference on automotive user interfaces and interactive vehicular applications. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 210–220.
  10. Perceived pedestrian safety: Public interaction with driverless vehicles. In 2019 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV). IEEE, New York, NY, USA, 90–95.
  11. Taming the eHMI jungle: A classification taxonomy to guide, compare, and assess the design principles of automated vehicles’ external human-machine interfaces. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 7 (2020), 100174.
  12. Pedestrian road-crossing willingness as a function of vehicle automation, external appearance, and driving behaviour. Transportation research part F: traffic psychology and behaviour 65 (2019), 191–205.
  13. Debargha Dey and Jacques Terken. 2017. Pedestrian interaction with vehicles: roles of explicit and implicit communication. In Proceedings of the 9th international conference on automotive user interfaces and interactive vehicular applications. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 109–113.
  14. Proxemics and kinesics in automated vehicle–pedestrian communication: Representing ethnographic observations. Transportation research record 2673, 10 (2019), 70–81.
  15. On the road with an autonomous passenger shuttle: Integration in public spaces. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI conference extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1569–1576.
  16. Collective behavior in road crossing pedestrians: the role of social information. Behavioral ecology 21, 6 (2010), 1236–1242.
  17. Olivier Friard and Marco Gamba. 2016. BORIS: a free, versatile open-source event-logging software for video/audio coding and live observations. Methods in ecology and evolution 7, 11 (2016), 1325–1330.
  18. Visual attention and the acquisition of information in human crowds. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109, 19 (2012), 7245–7250.
  19. Proxemics [and comments and replies]. Current anthropology 9, 2/3 (1968), 83–108.
  20. Mohammed M Hamed. 2001. Analysis of pedestrians’ behavior at pedestrian crossings. Safety science 38, 1 (2001), 63–82.
  21. Victoria Hammond and Charles Musselwhite. 2013. The attitudes, perceptions and concerns of pedestrians and vulnerable road users to shared space: a case study from the UK. Journal of Urban Design 18, 1 (2013), 78–97.
  22. The Prosocial and Aggressive Driving Inventory (PADI): A self-report measure of safe and unsafe driving behaviors. Accident Analysis & Prevention 72 (2014), 1–8.
  23. Emotional expressions of non-humanoid urban robots: the role of contextual aspects on interpretations. In Proceedings of the 9TH ACM International Symposium on Pervasive Displays. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 87–95.
  24. Designing Interactions with Shared AVs in Complex Urban Mobility Scenarios. Frontiers in Computer Science 4 (2022), 59.
  25. P2V and V2P communication for pedestrian warning on the basis of autonomous vehicles. In 2016 IEEE 19th International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC). IEEE, New York, NY, USA, 2034–2039.
  26. Analysing the perceptions of pedestrians and drivers to shared space. Transportation research part F: traffic psychology and behaviour 15, 3 (2012), 297–310.
  27. Analysis of pedestrian performance in shared-space environments. Transportation research record 2393, 1 (2013), 1–11.
  28. Road users rarely use explicit communication when interacting in today’s traffic: implications for automated vehicles. Cognition, Technology & Work 23, 2 (2021), 367–380.
  29. On-road and online studies to investigate beliefs and behaviors of Netherlands, US and Mexico pedestrians encountering hidden-driver vehicles. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 141–149.
  30. Socially Aware Crowd Navigation with Multimodal Pedestrian Trajectory Prediction for Autonomous Vehicles. In 2020 IEEE 23rd International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC). IEEE, New York, NY, USA, 1–8.
  31. Autonomous Vehicles Drive into Shared Spaces: eHMI Design Concept Focusing on Vulnerable Road Users. In 2021 IEEE International Intelligent Transportation Systems Conference (ITSC). IEEE, New York, NY, USA, 1729–1736.
  32. To cross or not to cross: Urgency-based external warning displays on autonomous vehicles to improve pedestrian crossing safety. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 188–197.
  33. Investigating user requirements for communication between automated vehicles and vulnerable road users. In 2019 IEEE intelligent vehicles symposium (IV). IEEE, New York, NY, USA, 879–884.
  34. Understanding interactions between Automated Road Transport Systems and other road users: A video analysis. Transportation research part F: traffic psychology and behaviour 66 (2019), 196–213.
  35. What externally presented information do VRUs require when interacting with fully Automated Road Transport Systems in shared space? Accident Analysis & Prevention 118 (2018), 244–252.
  36. Simon Moody and Steve Melia. 2014. Shared space–research, policy and problems. In Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Transport, Vol. 167. Thomas Telford Ltd, ICE Publishing, London, UK, 384–392.
  37. Defense against the dark cars: Design principles for griefing of autonomous vehicles. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 201–209.
  38. Sound decisions: How synthetic motor sounds improve autonomous vehicle-pedestrian interactions. In 12th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 94–103.
  39. The case for implicit external human-machine interfaces for autonomous vehicles. In Proceedings of the 11th international conference on automotive user interfaces and interactive vehicular applications. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 295–307.
  40. Naturalistic observation of interactions between car drivers and pedestrians in high density urban settings. In Congress of the International Ergonomics Association. Springer, Switzerland, 389–397.
  41. Comparing state-of-the-art and emerging augmented reality interfaces for autonomous vehicle-to-pedestrian communication. IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology 70, 2 (2021), 1157–1168.
  42. Pedestrian Behavior in Shared Spaces with Autonomous Vehicles: An Integrated Framework and Review. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles Early Access (2021), 1–1.
  43. Agreeing to cross: How drivers and pedestrians communicate. In 2017 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV). IEEE, New York, NY, USA, 264–269.
  44. Amir Rasouli and John K Tsotsos. 2019. Autonomous vehicles that interact with pedestrians: A survey of theory and practice. IEEE transactions on intelligent transportation systems 21, 3 (2019), 900–918.
  45. Human-vehicle interfaces: The power of vehicle movement gestures in human road user coordination. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Driving Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training and Vehicle Design. University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA, 186–192.
  46. Safety of pedestrians and cyclists when interacting with automated vehicles: A case study of the WEpods. Master’s thesis. Civil Enginieering-Transport & Planning, Delft University.
  47. An exploration of prosocial aspects of communication cues between automated vehicles and pedestrians. In 12th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 205–211.
  48. Workshop on Prosocial Behavior in Future Mixed Traffic. In 13th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 167–170.
  49. Designing the interaction of automated vehicles with other traffic participants: design considerations based on human needs and expectations. Cognition, Technology & Work 21, 1 (2019), 69–85.
  50. Friederike Schneemann and Irene Gohl. 2016. Analyzing driver-pedestrian interaction at crosswalks: A contribution to autonomous driving in urban environments. In 2016 IEEE intelligent vehicles symposium (IV). IEEE, New York, NY, USA, 38–43.
  51. Impact of social and technological distraction on pedestrian crossing behaviour: an observational study. Injury prevention 19, 4 (2013), 232–237.
  52. Martin Tomitsch. 2017. Making cities smarter. JOVIS Verlag GmbH, Berlin, Germany.
  53. Road user interactions in a shared space setting: Priority and communication in a UK car park. Transportation research part F: traffic psychology and behaviour 72 (2020), 32–46.
  54. CommDisk: A Holistic 360 eHMI Concept to Facilitate Scalable, Unambiguous Interactions between Automated Vehicles and Other Road Users. In 13th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 132–136.
  55. How Can Autonomous Vehicles Convey Emotions to Pedestrians? A Review of Emotionally Expressive Non-Humanoid Robots. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction 5, 12 (2021), 84.
  56. The mind in the machine: Anthropomorphism increases trust in an autonomous vehicle. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 52 (2014), 113–117.
  57. Developing and testing robust autonomy: The university of sydney campus data set. IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Magazine 12, 4 (2020), 23–40.
Citations (14)
View on Semantic Scholar

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

Ai Sparkles Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Summarize Now
X Twitter Logo Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Tweets