What externally presented information do VRUs require when interacting with fully Automated Road Transport Systems in shared space?

Merat, Natasha; Louw, Tyron; Madigan, Ruth; Wilbrink, Marc; Schieben, Anna · 2018 · OpenAlex-citations

DOI: 10.1016/j.aap.2018.03.018

archive: archived pipeline: cataloged verified

Get this paper ↗ (DOI — opens at the source; we link to it, we don't host it)

Summary

This study addresses the critical need for effective communication between Vulnerable Road Users (VRUs), such as pedestrians and cyclists, and fully Automated Road Transport Systems (ARTS) in shared urban spaces. As Level 4 automated vehicles lack a human driver to convey intentions through eye contact or gestures, there is a risk of confusing interactions and reduced traffic efficiency. The research aims to identify what externally presented information VRUs require to feel safe and understand vehicle behavior, as well as their preferred modalities for receiving this information. The researchers conducted a questionnaire-based study involving 664 participants recruited during live demonstrations of ARTS in three European cities: La Rochelle (France), Lausanne (Switzerland), and Trikala (Greece). Participants were required to have interacted with the vehicles or ridden as passengers. The survey assessed feelings of safety, perceived priority, and the importance of specific vehicle behaviors (e.g., stopping, turning, detection of the VRU). It also examined preferences for communication modalities (lights, beeps, text, speech) and compared interactions in shared space versus dedicated lanes. Statistical analyses, including ANCOVA and Chi-Squared tests, were used to evaluate differences across locations and demographic factors. The results indicated that most pedestrians felt safer when ARTS operated in designated lanes rather than in shared space. In the absence of such infrastructure, the majority of respondents believed they had priority over the automated vehicles. Crucially, all respondents emphasized the importance of receiving external communication regarding the vehicle’s behavior. The most significant message requested was confirmation that the vehicle had detected the VRU. Regarding communication modality, there were no clear universal patterns, likely influenced by cultural and infrastructural differences. However, conventional signals, such as lights and beeps, were generally preferred over text-based messages or spoken words. The study also found that road markings significantly influenced the perceived importance of information regarding whether the vehicle was stopping or turning. The findings suggest that without universally comprehensible external Human-Machine Interfaces (e-HMI), automated vehicles may cause frustrating and conflicting interactions with VRUs, potentially hindering traffic flow and safety. The study highlights that while automated systems can prevent collisions, they cannot resolve social conflicts without effective communication. The preference for conventional signals implies that e-HMI designs should align with existing traffic norms to ensure intuitive understanding. These insights provide essential guidance for vehicle manufacturers and urban planners in designing external interfaces that facilitate safe and efficient coexistence between automated vehicles and other road users.

Provenance

The full processing record for this entry. Every stage of this paper's journey through the pipeline is logged — what ran, with which tool and model, how many attempts it took, and when it last completed.

Summary generated by qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant on 2026-06-26; verification: verified_with_issues.

Topics

Ranked by relevance to this paper. Hover a topic for its definition.

• ehmi external hmi
• vru facing ehmi
• odd communication
• driver vru interaction