| People | Locations | Statistics |
|---|---|---|
| Seuring, Stefan |
| |
| Nor Azizi, S. |
| |
| Pato, Margarida Vaz |
| |
| Kölker, Katrin |
| |
| Huber, Oliver |
| |
| Király, Tamás |
| |
| Spengler, Thomas Stefan |
| |
| Al-Ammar, Essam A. |
| |
| Dargahi, Fatemeh |
| |
| Mota, Rui |
| |
| Mazalan, Nurul Aliah Amirah |
| |
| Macharis, Cathy | Brussels |
|
| Arunasari, Yova Tri |
| |
| Nunez, Alfredo | Delft |
|
| Bouhorma, Mohammed |
| |
| Bonato, Matteo |
| |
| Fitriani, Ira |
| |
| Autor Correspondente Coelho, Sílvia. |
| |
| Pond, Stephen |
| |
| Okwara, Ukoha Kalu |
| |
| Toufigh, Vahid |
| |
| Campisi, Tiziana | Enna |
|
| Ermolieva, Tatiana |
| |
| Sánchez-Cambronero, Santos |
| |
| Agzamov, Akhror |
|
Hagenzieker, M. P.
in Cooperation with on an Cooperation-Score of 37%
Topics
Publications (14/14 displayed)
- 2023(Mis-)use of standard Autopilot and Full Self-Driving (FSD) Beta: Results from interviews with users of Tesla's FSD Betacitations
- 2021Vulnerable road users and the coming wave of automated vehicles: Expert perspectivescitations
- 2021Will pedestrians cross the road before an automated vehicle?: The effect of drivers’ attentiveness and presence on pedestrians’ road crossing behaviorcitations
- 2020Pedestrians’ road crossing behaviour in front of automated vehicles: Results from a pedestrian simulation experiment using agent-based modellingcitations
- 2020Emergency braking at intersections: A motion-base motorcycle simulator studycitations
- 2020Are collision and crossing course surrogate safety indicators transferable?: A probability based approach using extreme value theorycitations
- 2020Automated bus systems in Europe: A systematic review of passenger experience and road user interactioncitations
- 2019Human behaviour with automated driving systems: A quantitative framework for meaningful human controlcitations
- 2018Interaction between pedestrians and automated vehicles: A Wizard of Oz experimentcitations
- 2017Concurrent audio-visual feedback for supporting drivers at intersections: A study using two linked driving simulatorscitations
- 2017A human factors perspective on automated drivingcitations
- 2016The use of navigation systems in naturalistic drivingcitations
- 2014Do in-car devices affect experienced users' driving performance?citations
- 2014The history of road safety research: A quantitative approachcitations
Places of action
| Organizations | Location | People |
|---|
article
Interaction between pedestrians and automated vehicles: A Wizard of Oz experiment
Abstract
Automated vehicles (AVs) will be introduced on public roads in the future, meaning that traditional vehicles and AVs will be sharing the urban space. There is currently little knowledge about the interaction between pedestrians and AVs from the point of view of the pedestrian in a real-life environment. Pedestrians may not know with which type of vehicle they are interacting, potentially leading to stress and altered crossing decisions. For example, pedestrians may show elevated stress and conservative crossing behavior when the AV driver does not make eye contact and performs a non-driving task instead. It is also possible that pedestrians assume that an AV would always yield (leading to short critical gaps). This study aimed to determine pedestrians’ crossing decisions when interacting with an AV as compared to when interacting with a traditional vehicle. We performed a study on a closed road section where participants (N = 24) encountered a Wizard of Oz AV and a traditional vehicle in a within-subject design. In the Wizard of Oz setup, a fake ‘driver’ sat on the driver seat while the vehicle was driven by the passenger by means of a joystick. Twenty scenarios were studied regarding vehicle conditions (traditional vehicle, ‘driver’ reading a newspaper, inattentive driver in a vehicle with “self-driving” sign on the roof, inattentive driver in a vehicle with “self-driving” signs on the hood and door, attentive driver), vehicle behavior (stopping vs. not stopping), and approach direction (left vs. right). Participants experienced each scenario once, in a randomized order. This allowed assessing the behavior of participants when interacting with AVs for the first time (no previous training or experience). Post-experiment interviews showed that about half of the participants thought that the vehicle was (sometimes) driven automatically. Measurements of the participants’ critical gap (i.e., the gap below which the participant will not attempt to begin crossing the street) and self-reported level of stress showed no ...
Topics
Search in FID move catalog