真实交通环境下传统车辆与自动驾驶车辆在人行横道上的行人行为差异

IF 1.8 Q3 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Safety Pub Date : 2023-01-09 DOI:10.3390/safety9010002
Masahiro Taima, T. Daimon
{"title":"真实交通环境下传统车辆与自动驾驶车辆在人行横道上的行人行为差异","authors":"Masahiro Taima, T. Daimon","doi":"10.3390/safety9010002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this study, we examine the differences in pedestrian behavior at crosswalks between communicating with conventional vehicles (CVs) and automated vehicles (AVs). To analyze pedestrian behavior statistically, we record the pedestrian’s position (x- and y-coordinates) every 0.5 s and perform a hot spot analysis. A Toyota Prius (ZVW30) is used as the CV and AV, and the vehicle behavior is controlled using the Wizard of Oz method. An experiment is conducted on a public road in Odaiba, Tokyo, Japan, where 38 participants are recruited for each experiment involving a CV and an AV. The participants cross the road after communicating with the CV or AV. The results show that the pedestrians can cross earlier when communicating with the CV as compared with the AV. The hot spot analysis shows that pedestrians who communicate with the CV decide to cross the road before the CV stops; however, pedestrians who communicate with the AVs decide to cross the road after the AV stops. It is discovered that perceived safety does not significantly affect pedestrian behavior; therefore, earlier perceived safety by drivers’ communication and external human–machine interface is more important than higher perceived safety for achieving efficient communication.","PeriodicalId":36827,"journal":{"name":"Safety","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Differences in Pedestrian Behavior at Crosswalk between Communicating with Conventional Vehicle and Automated Vehicle in Real Traffic Environment\",\"authors\":\"Masahiro Taima, T. Daimon\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/safety9010002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this study, we examine the differences in pedestrian behavior at crosswalks between communicating with conventional vehicles (CVs) and automated vehicles (AVs). To analyze pedestrian behavior statistically, we record the pedestrian’s position (x- and y-coordinates) every 0.5 s and perform a hot spot analysis. A Toyota Prius (ZVW30) is used as the CV and AV, and the vehicle behavior is controlled using the Wizard of Oz method. An experiment is conducted on a public road in Odaiba, Tokyo, Japan, where 38 participants are recruited for each experiment involving a CV and an AV. The participants cross the road after communicating with the CV or AV. The results show that the pedestrians can cross earlier when communicating with the CV as compared with the AV. The hot spot analysis shows that pedestrians who communicate with the CV decide to cross the road before the CV stops; however, pedestrians who communicate with the AVs decide to cross the road after the AV stops. It is discovered that perceived safety does not significantly affect pedestrian behavior; therefore, earlier perceived safety by drivers’ communication and external human–machine interface is more important than higher perceived safety for achieving efficient communication.\",\"PeriodicalId\":36827,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Safety\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Safety\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/safety9010002\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Safety","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/safety9010002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

在这项研究中,我们考察了与传统车辆(CV)和自动车辆(AV)通信的行人在人行横道上的行为差异。为了统计分析行人行为,我们每0.5秒记录一次行人的位置(x和y坐标),并进行热点分析。一辆丰田普锐斯(ZW30)用作CV和AV,并使用绿野仙踪方法控制车辆行为。在日本东京台场的一条公共道路上进行了一项实验,每次实验招募38名参与者,其中包括一份简历和一份AV。参与者在与CV或AV沟通后横穿马路。结果表明,与AV相比,行人在与CV通信时可以更早地通过。热点分析表明,与CV通信的行人在CV停车前决定过马路;然而,与AV通信的行人决定在AV停止后横穿道路。研究发现,感知安全不会显著影响行人行为;因此,对于实现高效通信,驾驶员通信和外部人机界面的早期感知安全比更高的感知安全更重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Differences in Pedestrian Behavior at Crosswalk between Communicating with Conventional Vehicle and Automated Vehicle in Real Traffic Environment
In this study, we examine the differences in pedestrian behavior at crosswalks between communicating with conventional vehicles (CVs) and automated vehicles (AVs). To analyze pedestrian behavior statistically, we record the pedestrian’s position (x- and y-coordinates) every 0.5 s and perform a hot spot analysis. A Toyota Prius (ZVW30) is used as the CV and AV, and the vehicle behavior is controlled using the Wizard of Oz method. An experiment is conducted on a public road in Odaiba, Tokyo, Japan, where 38 participants are recruited for each experiment involving a CV and an AV. The participants cross the road after communicating with the CV or AV. The results show that the pedestrians can cross earlier when communicating with the CV as compared with the AV. The hot spot analysis shows that pedestrians who communicate with the CV decide to cross the road before the CV stops; however, pedestrians who communicate with the AVs decide to cross the road after the AV stops. It is discovered that perceived safety does not significantly affect pedestrian behavior; therefore, earlier perceived safety by drivers’ communication and external human–machine interface is more important than higher perceived safety for achieving efficient communication.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Safety
Safety Social Sciences-Safety Research
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
5.30%
发文量
71
审稿时长
7 weeks
期刊最新文献
Enhancing System Safety and Reliability through Integrated FMEA and Game Theory: A Multi-Factor Approach General Knowledge and Attitudes about Safety and Emergency Evacuation: The Case of a Higher Education Institution Simultaneous Enhancement of Welder Health and Aluminum Weld Joint Quality Using Controlled Welding Room Condition Control Transitions in Level 3 Automation: Safety Implications in Mixed-Autonomy Traffic Improving Functional Exercises Based on Experts’ Evaluation Weights for Emergency Responses
×
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:481959085
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