Linda Miller
ABSTRACT
As drivers’ expectations guide their perception and behavior, violated expectations can lead to mistakes and discomfort. In this work, the role of expectations regarding drivers’ reactions to automated (AVs) and manual vehicles (MVs) was investigated. Interviews were conducted to explore expectations toward AVs and MVs. Then, drivers interacted with AVs and MVs in a multi-agent driving simulator. The vehicles yielded or insisted on the right-of-way, indicated by a lateral offset. Self-report data revealed that drivers expected AVs to drive second (yield) and MVs to drive first (insist) in narrow passages. Driving simulator data showed that driving behavior improved, i.e., faster passing time, higher average speed, and higher lateral position, when AVs yielded and matched drivers’ expectations, compared to MVs that behaved the same way. No improvement was found when MVs (vs. AVs) insisted on the right-of-way. Overall, yielding was evaluated more trustworthy and cooperative than insisting for both vehicle categories.
- Gerson Alexander and Harold Lunenfeld. 1986. Driver Expectancy in Highway Design and Traffic Operations. Washington DC.Google Scholar
- Prateek Bansal and Kara M. Kockelman. 2017. Forecasting Americans ’ long-term adoption of connected and autonomous vehicle technologies. Transportation Research Part A 95: 49–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2016.10.013Google ScholarCross Ref
- Matthias Beggiato and Josef F. Krems. 2013. The evolution of mental model, trust and acceptance of adaptive cruise control in relation to initial information. Transportation research part F: traffic psychology and behaviour 18: 47–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2012.12.006Google Scholar
- Klaus Bengler, Michael Rettenmaier, Nicole Fritz, and Alexander Feierle. 2020. From HMI to HMIs: Towards an HMI framework for automated driving. Information 11, 2: 61. https://doi.org/10.3390/info11020061Google ScholarCross Ref
- Abebe Dress Beza and Mohammad Maghrour Zefreh. 2019. Potential Effects of Automated Vehicles on Road Transportation: A Literature Review. Transport and Telecommunication 20, 3: 269–278. https://doi.org/10.2478/ttj-2019-0023Google ScholarCross Ref
- Barry Brown and Eric Laurier. 2017. The trouble with autopilots: Assisted and autonomous driving on the social road. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings 2017-May: 416–429. https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025462Google ScholarDigital Library
- Debargha Dey and Jacques Terken. 2016. 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, 109–113. https://doi.org/10.1145/3122986.3123009Google ScholarDigital Library
- Michael A. Dilich, Dror Kopernik, and John Goebelbecker. 2002. Evaluating driver response to a sudden emergency: Issues of expectancy, emotional arousal and uncertainty. SAE Technical Papers 111: 238–248. https://doi.org/10.4271/2002-01-0089Google Scholar
- Joshua E. Domeyer, John D. Lee, and Heishiro Toyoda. 2020. Vehicle automation-other road user communication and coordination: Theory and mechanisms. IEEE Access 8: 19860–19872. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2969233Google ScholarCross Ref
- Marc Dziennus, Anna Schieben, Annika Ilgen, and David Käthner. 2016. How to interact with a Cybercar? – Attitudes and expectations on the interaction and communication with fully automated vehicles. In 58. Tagung experimentell arbeitender Psychologen. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.21819.82726Google Scholar
- Stefanie M. Faas, Vanessa Stange, and Martin Baumann. 2021. Self-Driving Vehicles and Pedestrian Interaction: Does an External Human-Machine Interface Mitigate the Threat of a Tinted Windshield or a Distracted Driver? International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction 37, 14: 1364–1374. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2021.1886483Google Scholar
- Alexander Feierle, Michael Rettenmaier, Florian Zeitlmeir, and Klaus Bengler. 2020. Multi-vehicle simulation in urban automated driving: Technical implementation and added benefit. Information 11, 5: 272. https://doi.org/10.3390/INFO11050272Google ScholarCross Ref
- Gregory M. Fitch, Myra Blanco, Justin F. Morgan, and Amy E. Wharton. 2010. Driver braking performance to surprise and expected events. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 3: 2076–2080. https://doi.org/10.1518/107118110X12829370264529Google Scholar
- Tanja Fuest, Alexander Feierle, Elisabeth Schmidt, and Klaus Bengler. 2020. Effects of Marking Automated Vehicles on Human Drivers on Highways. Information 11, 6: 286. https://doi.org/10.3390/info11060286Google ScholarCross Ref
- Tanja Fuest, Lars Michalowski, Luca Traris, Hanna Bellem, and Klaus Bengler. 2018. Using the Driving Behavior of an Automated Vehicle to Communicate Intentions - A Wizard of Oz Study. IEEE Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems, Proceedings, ITSC 2018-Novem: 3596–3601. https://doi.org/10.1109/ITSC.2018.8569486Google ScholarDigital Library
- Mai-Britt Herslund and Niels O. Jørgensen. 2003. Looked-but-failed-to-see-errors in traffic. Accident Analysis and Prevention 35: 885–891. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-4575(02)00095-7Google ScholarCross Ref
- Graham J. Hole and Lisa Tyrrell. 1995. The influence of perceptual ‘ set ’ on the detection of motorcyclists using daytime headlights. Ergonomics 38, 7: 1326–1341. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139508925191Google ScholarCross Ref
- Mohammad A. Hossain and Mohammed Quaddus. 2012. Expectation–confirmation theory in information system research: A review and analysis. In Information System Theory. Integrated Series in Information Systems (28th ed.), Yogesh K Dwivedi, Michael R Wade and Scott L Schneberger (eds.). Springer, New York, NY, 441–469. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-6108-2_21Google Scholar
- Maura Houtenbos. 2008. Expecting the unexpected: a study of interactive driving behaviour at intersections. Delft University of Technology.Google Scholar
- Jonas Imbsweiler. 2019. Kooperation im Straßenverkehr in innerstädtischen Pattsituationen. Karlsruher Institut für Technologie.Google Scholar
- Jonas Imbsweiler, Maureen Ruesch, Hannes Weinreuter, Fernando Puente León, and Barbara Deml. 2018. Cooperation behaviour of road users in t-intersections during deadlock situations. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 58: 665–677. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2018.07.006Google ScholarCross Ref
- Suresh K. Jayaraman, Chandler Creech, Dawn M. Tilbury, X Jessie Yang, Anuj K. Pradhan, Katherine M. Tsui, and Lionel P. Robert Jr. 2019. Pedestrian Trust in Automated Vehicles: Role of Traffic Signal and AV Driving Behavior. Frontiers in Robotics and AI 6: 117. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2019.00117Google ScholarCross Ref
- Gunnar Johansson and Kåre Rumar. 1971. Drivers’ Brake Reaction Times. Human Factors: The Journal of Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 13, 1: 23–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872087101300104Google ScholarCross Ref
- Philip Joisten, Emanuel Alexandi, Robin Drews, Liane Klassen, Patrick Petersohn, Alexander Pick, Sarah Schwindt, and Bettina Abendroth. 2019. Displaying Vehicle Driving Mode: Effects on Pedestrian Behavior and Perceived Safety Displaying Vehicle Driving Mode – Effects on Pedestrian Behavior and Perceived Safety. In Human Systems Engineering and Design II. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Human Systems Engineering and Design (IHSED2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-27928-8_38Google Scholar
- Johanna Josten, Jens Kotte, and Lutz Eckstein. 2019. Expectations of Non-automated Road Users for Interactions in Mixed Traffic. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93885-1_42Google Scholar
- Nina Kauffmann, Franz Winkler, Frederik Naujoks, and Mark Vollrath. 2018. “What Makes a Cooperative Driver?” Identifying parameters of implicit and explicit forms of communication in a lane change scenario. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 58: 1031–1042. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2018.07.019Google ScholarCross Ref
- Moritz Körber. 2018. Theoretical Considerations and Development of a Questionnaire to Measure Trust in Automation. In Proceedings 20th Triennial Congress of the IEA. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, 13–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96074-6_2Google ScholarCross Ref
- Johannes Kraus. 2020. Psychological Processes in the Formation and Calibration of Trust in Automation. Ulm University.Google Scholar
- Johannes Kraus, David Scholz, Dina Stiegemeier, and Martin Baumann. 2019. The more you know: trust dynamics and calibration in highly automated driving and the effects of take-overs, system malfunction, and system transparency. Human Factors 62, 5: 718–736. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720819853686Google ScholarCross Ref
- Mirjam Lanzer and Martin Baumann. 2022. How media reports influence drivers’ perception of safety and trust in automated vehicles in urban traffic. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Europe Chapter 2022 Annual Conference.Google Scholar
- John D. Lee. 2005. Driving safety. Reviews of Human Factors and Ergonomics 1, 1: 172–218. https://doi.org/10.1518/155723405783703037Google ScholarCross Ref
- Roald J. van Loon and Marieke H. Martens. 2015. Automated Driving and its Effect on the Safety Ecosystem: How do Compatibility Issues Affect the Transition Period? Procedia Manufacturing 3: 3280–3285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2015.07.401Google ScholarCross Ref
- Harold Lunenfeld and Gerson J. Alexander. 1984. Human factors in highway design and operations. Journal of Transportation Engineering 110, 2: 149–158.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Gustav Markkula, Ruth Madigan, Dimitris Nathanael, Evangelia Portouli, Yee M. Lee, Andre Dietrich, Jac Billington, Anna Schieben, and Natasha Merat. 2020. Defining interactions: a conceptual framework for understanding interactive behaviour in human and automated road traffic. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science 21, 6: 728–752. https://doi.org/10.1080/1463922X.2020.1736686Google ScholarCross Ref
- Marieke H. Martens and Micah Fox. 2007. Does road familiarity change eye fixations? A comparison between watching a video and real driving. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 10, 1: 33–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2006.03.002Google ScholarCross Ref
- Philipp Mayring. 1994. Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. In Texte verstehen: Konzepte, Methoden, Werkzeuge, A. Boehm, A. Mengel and T. Muhr (eds.). UKV Universitätsverlag Konstanz, 159–174.Google Scholar
- Mark Meeder and Ulrich Weidmann. 2017. Autonomous vehicles: Pedestrian heaven or pedes- trian hell? In 17th Swiss Transport Research Conference.Google Scholar
- Adam Millard-Ball. 2018. Pedestrians, Autonomous Vehicles, and Cities. Journal of Planning Education and Research 38, 1: 6–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X16675674Google ScholarCross Ref
- Linda Miller, Johannes Kraus, Franziska Babel, and Martin Baumann. 2021. More Than a Feeling—Interrelation of Trust Layers in Human-Robot Interaction and the Role of User Dispositions and State Anxiety. Frontiers in Psychology 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.592711Google Scholar
- Linda Miller, Johannes Kraus, Jasmin Leitner, Tanja Stoll, and Martin Baumann. 2021. Solving Cooperative Situations: Strategic Driving Decisions Depending on Perceptions and Expectations About Other Drivers. In Proceedings of the IEA International Ergonomics Association Conference 2021, 742–750. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-74608-7_91Google ScholarCross Ref
- Linda Miller, Jasmin Leitner, Johannes Kraus, and Martin Baumann. 2022. Implicit intention communication as a design opportunity for automated vehicles: Understanding drivers ’ interpretation of vehicle trajectory at narrow passages. Accident Analysis and Prevention 173: 106691. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2022.106691Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kristin Mühl, Tanja Stoll, and Martin Baumann. 2020. Look ahead: Understanding cognitive anticipatory processes based on situational characteristics in dynamic traffic situations. IET Intelligent Transport Systems 14, 4: 233–240. https://doi.org/10.1049/iet-its.2018.5557Google ScholarCross Ref
- Risto Näätänen and Heikki Summala. 1974. A model for the role of motivational factors in drivers’ decision-making*. Accident Analysis and Prevention 6, 3–4: 243–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-4575(74)90003-7Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ana R. Palmeiro, Sander van der Kint, Luuk Vissers, Haneen Farah, Joost C. F. de Winter, and Marjan Hagenzieker. 2018. Interaction between pedestrians and automated vehicles: A Wizard of Oz experiment. Transportation Research Part F: Psychology and Behaviour 58: 1005–1020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2018.07.020Google ScholarCross Ref
- Anantha Pillai. 2017. Virtual Reality based Study to Analyse Pedestrian Attitude towards Autonomous Vehicles. Alto University.Google Scholar
- Mikko Räsänen and Heikki Summala. 1998. Attention and expectation problems in bicycle-car collisions: An in-depth study. Accident Analysis and Prevention 30, 5: 657–666. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-4575(98)00007-4Google ScholarCross Ref
- Dieter Rasch and Volker Guiard. 2004. The Robustness of Parametric Statistical Methods. Psychology Science 46, 2: 175–208.Google Scholar
- Michael Rettenmaier, Deike Albers, and Klaus Bengler. 2020. After you?! – Use of external human-machine interfaces in road bottleneck scenarios. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 70: 175–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2020.03.004Google ScholarCross Ref
- Michael Rettenmaier and Klaus Bengler. 2021. The Matter of How and When: Comparing Explicit and Implicit Communication Strategies of Automated Vehicles in Bottleneck Scenarios. IEEE Open Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems 2: 282–293. https://doi.org/10.1109/ojits.2021.3107678Google ScholarCross Ref
- Michael Rettenmaier, Sabrina Dinkel, and Klaus Bengler. 2021. Communication via motion – Suitability of automated vehicle movements to negotiate the right of way in road bottleneck scenarios. Applied Ergonomics 95: 103438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2021.103438Google ScholarCross Ref
- Michael Rettenmaier, Camilo R. Witzig, and Klaus Bengler. 2020. Interaction at the Bottleneck – A Traffic Observation. In Human Systems Engineering and Design II. IHSED 2019. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, T. Ahram, W. Karwowski, S. Pickl and R. Taiar (eds.). Springer, Cham, 243–249. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-27928-8Google Scholar
- Malte Risto, Colleen Emmenegger, Erik Vinkhuyzen, Melissa Cefkin, and Jim Hollan. 2017. Human-Vehicle Interfaces: The Power of Vehicle Movement Gestures in Human Road User Coordination. In Proceedings of the 9th International Driving Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training and Vehicle Design, 186–192. https://doi.org/10.17077/drivingassessment.1633Google ScholarCross Ref
- Eugene R. Russell. 1998. Using Concepts of Driver Expectancy , Positive Guidance and Consistency for Improved Operation and Safety. In Transportation Conference Proceedings, 155–158.Google Scholar
- Trijntje W. Schaap. 2012. Driving behaviour in unexpected situations: A study into drivers’ compensation behaviour to safety-critical situations and the effects of mental workload, event urgency and task prioritization. University of Twente.Google Scholar
- Anna Schieben, Marc Wilbrink, Carmen Kettwich, Ruth Madigan, Tyron Louw, and Natasha Merat. 2019. Designing the interaction of automated vehicles with other traffic participants: design considerations based on human needs and expectations. Cognition, Technology and Work 21, 1: 69–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-018-0521-zGoogle ScholarDigital Library
- Anirudh Sripada, Pavlo Bazilinskyy, and Joost de Winter. 2021. Automated vehicles that communicate implicitly: examining the use of lateral position within the lane. Ergonomics 64, 11: 1416–1428. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2021.1925353Google ScholarCross Ref
- Patrick Stahl, Birsen Donmez, and Greg A. Jamieson. 2014. Anticipation in driving: The role of experience in the efficacy of pre-event conflict cues. IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems 44, 5: 603–613. https://doi.org/10.1109/THMS.2014.2325558Google ScholarCross Ref
- Vanessa Stange. 2021. Human driver and passenger reactions to highly automated vehicles in mixed traffic on highways and in urban areas. Technischen Universität Carolo-Wilhelmina zu Braunschweig.Google Scholar
- Tanja Stoll, Mirjam Lanzer, and Martin Baumann. 2020. Situational influencing factors on understanding cooperative actions in automated driving. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 70: 223–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2020.03.006Google ScholarCross Ref
- Dick de Waard, Frank J. J. M. Steyvers, and Karel A. Brookhuis. 2003. How much visual road information is needed to drive safely and comfortably? Related papers. Safety Science 42, 7: 639–655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2003.09.002Google ScholarCross Ref
- Yan Wang and Ling Wang. 2017. Autonomous vehicles’ performance on single lane road: A simulation under VISSIM environment. In 2017 10th International Congress on Image and Signal Processing, BioMedical Engineering and Informatics. https://doi.org/10.1109/CISP-BMEI.2017.8302162Google ScholarCross Ref
- Qiaoning Zhang, X. Jessie Yang, and Lionel Peter Robert. 2020. Expectations and trust in automated vehicles. Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems: 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1145/3334480.3382986Google ScholarDigital Library
- Raphael Zimmermann and Reto Wettach. 2017. First Step into Visceral Interaction with Autonomous Vehicles. In Proceedings of the 9th ACM International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications, 58–64. https://doi.org/10.1145/3122986.3122988Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- The Impact of Expectations about Automated and Manual Vehicles on Drivers’ Behavior: Insights from a Mixed Traffic Driving Simulator Study
Recommendations
Evaluation of ACC vehicles in mixed traffic: lane change effects and sensitivity analysis
Almost every automobile company is producing vehicles with adaptive cruise control (ACC) system onboard that enables a vehicle to do automatic vehicle following in the longitudinal direction. The ACC system is designed for driver's comfort and safety ...
Do drivers change their manual car-following behaviour after automated car-following?
AbstractThere is evidence that drivers’ behaviour adapts after using different advanced driving assistance systems. For instance, drivers’ headway during car-following reduces after using adaptive cruise control. However, little is known about whether, ...
Design of Test System on Nighttime Driving Behavior and ECG Characteristics of Long-distance Bus Drivers (I) - Test Design
ICIE '10: Proceedings of the 2010 WASE International Conference on Information Engineering - Volume 03For the safety issues of night long-distance bus drivers, a test system that real-time continuously acquires vehicles driving parameter, traffic environmental images as well as ECG physiological state of drivers under night-time driving conditions is ...
Comments