To 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 communicate effectively with other road users in a complex traffic environment. The current study, conducted as part of the European project interACT, investigates the communication strategies used by drivers and pedestrians while crossing the road at six observed locations, across three European countries. In total, 701 road user interactions were observed and annotated, using an observation protocol developed for this purpose. The observation protocols identified 20 event categories, observed from the approaching vehicles/drivers and pedestrians. These included information about movement, looking behaviour, hand gestures, and signals used, as well as some demographic data. These observations illustrated that explicit communication techniques, such as honking, flashing headlights by drivers, or hand gestures by drivers and pedestrians, rarely occurred. This observation was consistent across sites. In addition, a follow-on questionnaire, administered to a sub-set of the observed pedestrians after crossing the road, found that when contemplating a crossing, pedestrians were more likely to use vehicle-based behaviour, rather than communication cues from the driver. Overall, the findings suggest that vehicle-based movement information such as yielding cues are more likely to be used by pedestrians while crossing the road, compared to explicit communication cues from drivers, although some cultural differences were observed. The implications of these findings are discussed with respect to design of suitable external interfaces and communication of intent by future automated vehicles.

In current urban traffic, pedestrians attempting to cross the road at un-signalized locations are thought to mostly use implicit communication, such as deceleration cues, to interpret a vehicle's intention to yield. There is less reliance on explicit driver- or vehicle-based messages, such as hand/head movements, or flashing lights/beeping horns. With the impending deployment of Automated Vehicles (AV), especially those at SAE Level 4 and 5, where the driver is no longer in control of the vehicle, there has been a surge in interest in the value of new forms of communication for AVs, for example, via different types of external Human Machine Interfaces (eHMIs). However, there is still much to be understood about how quickly a novel eHMI affects pedestrian crossing decisions, and whether it provides any additional aid, above and beyond implicit/kinematic information from the vehicle. The aim of this between-participant study, funded by the H2020 interACT project, was to investigate how the combination of kinematic information from a vehicle (e.g., Speed and Deceleration), and eHMI designs, play a role in assisting the crossing decision of pedestrians in a cave-based pedestrian simulator. Using an existing, well-recognized, message for yielding (Flashing Headlights - FH) as a benchmark, this study also investigated how quickly a novel eHMI (Slow Pulsing Light Band - SPLB) was learned. To investigate the effect of eHMI visibility on crossing decisions, the distance at which each eHMI was perceivable was also measured. Results showed that, compared to SPLB, the FH led to earlier crossings during vehicle deceleration, especially at lower approaching speeds, and smaller time gaps. However, although FH was visible earlier than SPLB, this visibility does not appear to be the only reason for earlier crossings, with message familiarity thought to play a role. Participants were found to learn the meaning conveyed by FH relatively quickly, crossing around 1 second earlier in its presence (compared to the no eHMI condition), across the three blocks of trials. On the other hand, it took participants at least one block of 12 trials for the new SPLB signal to affect crossing, which only accelerated crossing initiations by around 200 ms, compared to the no eHMI condition. The role of comprehension, long-term exposure, and familiarity of novel messages in this context is therefore important, if AVs are to provide safe, trustworthy communication messages, which will enhance traffic flow and efficiency.

Credibility of speed limits is a key factor affecting drivers’ compliance with speed limits. Two experiments were conducted to investigate how credibility of speed limits affects judgments of appropriate speed. The first experiment aimed to establish speeds deemed appropriate by investigating Malaysians drivers’ judgments of the appropriate speed to drive based on photographs of roads with the speed limit sign erased. Drivers chose speeds which correlated with but were higher than the actual speed limits of the roads. Analysis of road characteristics suggested they based their decisions mainly on features of the road itself rather than of the roadside. The second experiment tested the impact of credibility of speed limit information on the speed drivers judged appropriate. Drivers judged the appropriate speed to drive for the same photographs as in Experiment 1 with speed limit information provided. Four conditions were included: two conditions where the speed limit posted was 10% higher or 10% lower than the appropriate speed established in Experiment 1 (credible speed limits), and two conditions where the posted speed limit was 50% higher or 50% lower than the appropriate speed (non-credible speed limits). Posted speed limits did affect drivers’ judgments about the appropriate speed to drive. Credibility also influenced judgments whereby drivers selected appropriate speeds consistent with the speed limits for the 10% lower condition, but not for speed limits that deviated highly from the appropriate speed judged in Experiment 1.

Failure in making the correct judgment about the intention of an approaching vehicle at a junction could lead to a collision. This paper investigated the impact of dynamic information on drivers' judgments about the intentions of approaching cars and motorcycles, and whether a valid or invalid signal was provided was also manipulated. Participants were presented with videoclips of vehicles approaching a junction which terminated immediately before the vehicle made any manoeuvre, or images of the final frame of each video. They were asked to judge whether or not the vehicle would turn. Drivers were better in judging the manoeuvre of approaching vehicles in dynamic than static stimuli, for both vehicle types. Drivers were better in judging the manoeuvre of cars than motorcycles for videos, but not for photographs. Drivers were also better in judging the manoeuvre of approaching vehicles when a valid signal was provided than an invalid signal, demonstrating the importance of providing a valid signal while driving. However, drivers were still somewhat successful in their judgments in most of the conditions with an invalid signal, suggesting that drivers were able to focus on other cues to intention. Finally, given that dynamic stimuli more closely reflect the demands of real-life driving there may be a need for drivers to adopt a more cautious approach while inferring a motorcyclist's intentions.

Both perceptual errors (failing to perceive) and appraisal errors (failing to make a correct judgment about safety) could explain the relatively high number of pulling out at the junctions involving approaching motorcycles in relation to cars. Two experiments were conducted to investigate the effect of exposure to motorcycles on these types of errors by comparing drivers from Malaysia where motorcycles are very common with drivers from the UK where motorcycles are rare. Experiment 1 investigated drivers’ ability to perceive approaching vehicles (car or motorcycle) located at different distances (near, intermediate and far) on UK and Malaysian roads. There was no difference between Malaysian and UK drivers in overall ability to perceive the approaching vehicles but Malaysian drivers were relatively good at perceiving motorcycles at further distances. Experiment 2 investigated drivers’ judgments about whether or not it was safe to pull out on the same roads and found that Malaysian drivers were more likely to judge it was safe to pull out as compared to UK drivers. Findings suggest that high exposure to motorcycles may reduce vehicle effects on perception for Malaysian drivers. However they may make more risky appraisals about safety of pulling out, which might contribute to the high accident and fatality rates in Malaysia.