Take a Seat! – Passengers’ Perceived Risk and Driving Behavior Preferences During Automated Driving in Urban Mixed Traffic Depending on the Seating Position

Stange, Vanessa; Helweg, Sarah; Vollrath, Mark · 2022 · Crossref

DOI: 10.54941/ahfe1002440

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 investigates how seating position influences passengers’ perceived risk and driving behavior preferences in highly automated vehicles (HAVs; SAE Level 4) during interactions with vulnerable road users (VRUs) in urban mixed traffic. As automation shifts passengers to a passive role, they may choose any seat, yet it remains unclear whether this choice affects their assessment of safety or their expectations for vehicle behavior. The authors specifically examined space-sharing conflicts at junctions where an HAV approaches while a pedestrian or cyclist crosses, aiming to determine if sitting in the driver’s seat versus the passenger seat alters risk perception, pleasantness ratings, or preferred braking timing. The research employed a stationary driving simulator study with a repeated-measures design involving 30 participants. The experimental variables included vehicle speed (30 km/h and 50 km/h), VRU type (cyclist or pedestrian), VRU crossing direction, and seating position (driver’s or passenger seat). Participants were instructed to trigger the HAV’s braking maneuver at two specific points: their "ideal" braking onset, defined as completely safe, and the "last acceptable" braking onset, defined as the latest safe moment to stop before the stop line. After each trial, participants rated perceived risk on an 8-point scale and pleasantness on a 5-point Likert scale. The study measured dependent variables including perceived risk, pleasantness, distance from the VRU, and time-to-collision at the moment of braking onset. The results indicated that seating position had no significant effect on passengers’ perceived risk, pleasantness ratings, or preferred braking onset timing. Perceived risk ratings remained low, ranging between "harmless" and "unpleasant," regardless of whether participants sat in the driver’s or passenger seat. Similarly, pleasantness ratings were consistently high. Significant effects were observed for vehicle speed and braking onset type; higher speeds and later braking onsets increased perceived risk. Regarding braking preferences, passengers consistently preferred early braking, initiating maneuvers at an average distance of 39.3 meters (ideal) and 27.3 meters (last acceptable) at 30 km/h, and 63.1 meters (ideal) and 41.4 meters (last acceptable) at 50 km/h. Time-to-collision preferences were also independent of seating position, with ideal onsets occurring approximately 4.5–4.7 seconds before collision. The study concludes that seating position is irrelevant to passengers’ risk perception and braking preferences in these specific space-sharing conflicts. Instead, passengers uniformly aim to avoid subjective risk, preferring harmless interactions with VRUs. These findings suggest that HAV braking parameters should prioritize early intervention to meet passenger expectations for safety, irrespective of seat configuration. The authors note limitations, including the use of a stationary simulator and the active role participants played in triggering brakes, which may underestimate risk perception compared to fully passive scenarios. Future research should focus on passive passenger experiences in dynamic environments to refine HAV interaction designs.

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-nvidia on 2026-08-10; verification: verified.

Topics

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

• passenger effects
• risk taking
• passenger motion sickness comfort
• braking response
• acceptance adoption

Information type

What kind of knowledge this paper contributes, grouped by family — independent of topic (what it is about) and method (how it was studied).

• Empirical Findings: behavioral performance data