Cyclists’ interactions with professional and non-professional drivers: Observations and game theoretic models

IF 4.4 2区 工程技术 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED Transportation Research Part F-Traffic Psychology and Behaviour Pub Date : 2025-04-03 DOI:10.1016/j.trf.2025.03.026
Ali Mohammadi , Amir Hossein Kalantari , Gustav Markkula , Marco Dozza
{"title":"Cyclists’ interactions with professional and non-professional drivers: Observations and game theoretic models","authors":"Ali Mohammadi ,&nbsp;Amir Hossein Kalantari ,&nbsp;Gustav Markkula ,&nbsp;Marco Dozza","doi":"10.1016/j.trf.2025.03.026","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>According to crash data reports, most collisions between cyclists and motorized vehicles occur at unsignalized intersections (where no traffic lights regulate vehicle priority). In the era of automated driving, it is imperative for automated vehicles to ensure the safety of cyclists, especially at these intersections. In other words, to safely interact with cyclists, automated vehicles need models that can describe how cyclists cross and yield at intersections. So far, only a few studies have modeled the interaction between cyclists and motorized vehicles at intersections, and none of them have explored the variations in interaction outcomes based on the type of drivers involved. In this study, we compare non-professional drivers (represented by passenger car drivers) and professional drivers (truck and taxi drivers). We also introduce a novel application of game theory by comparing logit and game theoretic models’ analyses of the interactions between cyclists and motorized vehicles, leveraging naturalistic data. Interaction events were extracted from a trajectory dataset, and cyclists’ non-kinematic cues were extracted from videos and incorporated into the interaction events’ data. The modeling outputs showed that professional drivers are less likely to yield to cyclists than non-professional drivers. Furthermore, the behavioral game theoretic models outperformed the logit models in predicting cyclists’ crossing decisions.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48355,"journal":{"name":"Transportation Research Part F-Traffic Psychology and Behaviour","volume":"112 ","pages":"Pages 48-62"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Transportation Research Part F-Traffic Psychology and Behaviour","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1369847825001184","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

According to crash data reports, most collisions between cyclists and motorized vehicles occur at unsignalized intersections (where no traffic lights regulate vehicle priority). In the era of automated driving, it is imperative for automated vehicles to ensure the safety of cyclists, especially at these intersections. In other words, to safely interact with cyclists, automated vehicles need models that can describe how cyclists cross and yield at intersections. So far, only a few studies have modeled the interaction between cyclists and motorized vehicles at intersections, and none of them have explored the variations in interaction outcomes based on the type of drivers involved. In this study, we compare non-professional drivers (represented by passenger car drivers) and professional drivers (truck and taxi drivers). We also introduce a novel application of game theory by comparing logit and game theoretic models’ analyses of the interactions between cyclists and motorized vehicles, leveraging naturalistic data. Interaction events were extracted from a trajectory dataset, and cyclists’ non-kinematic cues were extracted from videos and incorporated into the interaction events’ data. The modeling outputs showed that professional drivers are less likely to yield to cyclists than non-professional drivers. Furthermore, the behavioral game theoretic models outperformed the logit models in predicting cyclists’ crossing decisions.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
骑自行车者与专业和非专业司机的互动:观察和博弈论模型
根据碰撞数据报告,大多数骑自行车的人和机动车之间的碰撞发生在没有信号的十字路口(没有交通信号灯来调节车辆优先权)。在自动驾驶时代,自动驾驶车辆必须确保骑车人的安全,特别是在这些十字路口。换句话说,为了安全地与骑自行车的人互动,自动驾驶汽车需要能够描述骑自行车的人如何在十字路口穿过和屈服的模型。到目前为止,只有少数研究对十字路口骑自行车者和机动车之间的互动进行了建模,而且没有一项研究探讨了基于所涉及的驾驶员类型的互动结果的变化。在这项研究中,我们比较了非专业司机(以乘用车司机为代表)和专业司机(卡车和出租车司机)。我们还介绍了博弈论的一个新应用,通过比较logit模型和博弈论模型对骑自行车者和机动车之间相互作用的分析,利用自然数据。从轨迹数据集中提取交互事件,从视频中提取骑自行车者的非运动学线索,并将其纳入交互事件数据。建模结果表明,职业司机比非职业司机更不可能向骑自行车的人让步。此外,行为博弈论模型在预测骑车人过马路决策方面优于logit模型。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
14.60%
发文量
239
审稿时长
71 days
期刊介绍: Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour focuses on the behavioural and psychological aspects of traffic and transport. The aim of the journal is to enhance theory development, improve the quality of empirical studies and to stimulate the application of research findings in practice. TRF provides a focus and a means of communication for the considerable amount of research activities that are now being carried out in this field. The journal provides a forum for transportation researchers, psychologists, ergonomists, engineers and policy-makers with an interest in traffic and transport psychology.
期刊最新文献
Research on the influencing factors of human Drivers' Trust in fully autonomous vehicles A systematic review of gaming effects on driving related skills Medical cannabis and driving in Australia: Results from the cannabis as medicine survey 2022–2023 (CAMS-22) When driving becomes enjoyable: the role of hedonic motivation and interaction quality in the adoption of autonomous vehicles Exploring user heterogeneity in autonomous vehicle acceptance: A moderated mediation model based on extended TAM
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1