Can Eyes on a Car Reduce Traffic Accidents?

ABSTRACT

Various car manufacturers and researchers have explored the idea of adding eyes to a car as an additional communication modality. A previous study demonstrated that autonomous vehicles’ (AVs) eyes help pedestrians make faster street-crossing decisions. In this study, we examine a more critical question, "can eyes reduce traffic accidents?” To answer this question, we consider a critical street-crossing situation in which a pedestrian is in a hurry to cross the street. If the car is not looking at the pedestrian, this implies that the car does not recognize the pedestrian. Thus, pedestrians can judge that they should not cross the street, thereby avoiding potential traffic accidents. We conducted an empirical study using 360-degree video shooting of an actual car with robotic eyes. The results showed that the eyes can reduce potential traffic accidents and that gaze direction can increase pedestrians’ subjective feelings of safety and danger. In addition, the results showed gender differences in critical and noncritical scenarios in AV-to-pedestrian interaction.

References

1. Daniel J. Fagnant, and Kara Kockelman. 2015. Preparing a nation for autonomous vehicles: opportunities, barriers and policy recommendations. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 77: 167-181. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2015.04.003
2. Hiroshi Hayakawa, Paul S. Fischbeck, and Baruch Fischhoff. 2000. Traffic accident statistics and risk perceptions in Japan and the United States. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 32(6), 827-835. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0001-4575(00)00007-5
3. Sucha Matúš. 2014. Pedestrians and drivers: their encounters at zebra crossings. In Proceedings of the Fit to drive: 8th International Traffic Expert Congress. https://psych.upol.cz/fileadmin/userdata/FF/katedry/pch/vyzkum/dopravni_psychologie/FTD_2014_WAW_PPT_Sucha2.pdf
4. Chia-Ming Chang, Koki Toda, Daisuke Sakamoto, and Takeo Igarashi. 2017. Eyes on a Car: an Interface Design for Communication between an Autonomous Car and a Pedestrian. In Proceedings of the 9th international conference on automotive user interfaces and interactive vehicular applications (AutomotiveUI ’17), pp. 65-73. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3122986.3122989
5. Stefanie M. Faas, Johannes Kraus, Alexander Schoenhals, and Martin Baumann. 2021. Calibrating Pedestrians' Trust in Automated Vehicles: Does an Intent Display in an External HMI Support Trust Calibration and Safe Crossing Behavior?. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1-17). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445738
6. María Ángeles Onieva-García, Virginia Martínez-Ruiz, Pablo Lardelli-Claret, José Juan Jiménez-Moleón, Carmen Amezcua-Prieto, Juan de Dios Luna-Del-Castillo, and Eladio Jiménez-Mejías. 2016. Gender and age differences in components of traffic-related pedestrian death rates: exposure, risk of crash and fatality rate. Injury epidemiology, 3(1), 1-10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40621-016-0079-2
7. Eladio Jiménez-Mejías, Carmen Amezcua Prieto, Virginia Martínez-Ruiz, Juan de Dios Luna del Castillo, Pablo Lardelli-Claret, José Juan Jiménez-Moleón. 2014. Gender-related differences in distances travelled, driving behaviour and traffic accidents among university students. Transportation research part F: traffic psychology and behaviour, 27, 81-89. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2014.09.008
8. Chia-Ming Chang. 2020. A Gender Study of Communication Interfaces between an Autonomous Car and a Pedestrian. In 12th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications (AutomotiveUI ’20), pp. 42-45. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3409251.3411719
9. Debargha Dey, Marieke Martens, Berry Eggen, and Jacques Terken. 2017. The impact of vehicle appearance and vehicle behavior on pedestrian interaction with autonomous vehicles. In Adjunct Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications (AutomotiveUI ’17), 158–162. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3131726.3131750
10. Friederike Schneemann and Irene Gohl. 2016. Analyzing driver-pedestrian interaction at crosswalks: A contribution to autonomous driving in urban en- environments. In 2016 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV), 38–43. DOI: https: //doi.org/10.1109/IVS.2016.7535361
11. Yung-ChingLiuandYing-ChanTung.2014.Riskanalysisofpedestrians'road- crossing decisions: Effects of age, time gap, time of day, and vehicle speed. Safety Science, 63, 77–82. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2013.11.002
12. Matúš Šucha, Daniel Dostal, and Ralf Risser. 2017. Pedestrian-driver communication and decision strategies at marked crossings. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 102, 41–50. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2017.02.018
13. Nicolas Guéguen, Sébastien Meineri, and Chloé Eyssartier. 2015. A pedestrian's stare and drivers’ stopping behavior: A feld experiment at the pedestrian crossing. Safety Science, 75, 87–89. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2015.01.018
14. ZehengRen,XiaobeiJiang,andWuhongWang.2016.Analysisoftheinfuenceof pedestrians’ eye contact on drivers’ comfort boundary during the crossing confict. Procedia Engineering 137, 399–406. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2016.01.274
15. Chia-Ming, Chang, Koki Toda, Takeo Igarashi, Masahiro Miyata, and Yasuhiro Kobayashi, 2018, September. A Video-based Study Comparing Communication Modalities between an Autonomous Car and a Pedestrian. In Adjunct Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications (AutomotiveUI ’18), pp. 104-109. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3239092.3265950
16. Kai Holländer, Ashley Colley, Christian Mai, Jonna Häkkilä, Florian Alt, and Bastian Pfleging. 2019. Investigating the influence of external car displays on pedestrians' crossing behavior in virtual reality. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services (MobileHCI ’19), pp. 1-11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3338286.3340138
17. Yeti Li, Murat Dikmen, Thana G. Hussein, Yahui Wang, and Catherine Burns. 2018. To Cross or Not to Cross: Urgency-Based External Warning Displays on Autonomous Vehicles to Improve Pedestrian Crossing Safety. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications (AutomotiveUI ’18). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 188–197. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3239060.3239082
18. Karthik Mahadevan, Sowmya Somanath, and Ehud Sharlin. 2018. Communicating Awareness and Intent in Autonomous Vehicle-Pedestrian Interaction. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’18). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 429, 12 pages. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3174003
19. Jingyi Zhang, Erik Vinkhuyzen, and Melissa Cefkin. 2018. Evaluation of an Autonomous Vehicle External Communication System Concept: A Survey Study. In Advances in Human Aspects of Transportation, Neville A Stanton (Ed.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, Germany, 650–661. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60441-1_63
20. Lex Fridman, Bruce Mehler, Lei Xia, Yangyang Yang, Laura Yvonne Facusse, and Bryan Reimer. 2017. To Walk or Not to Walk: Crowd- sourced Assessment of External Vehicle-to-Pedestrian Displays. CoRR abs/1707.02698 (2017), 7. arXiv:1707.02698
21. Debargha Dey, Marieke Martens, Chao Wang, Felix Ros, and Jacques Terken. 2018. Interface Concepts for Intent Communication from Au- tonomous Vehicles to Vulnerable Road Users. In Adjunct Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications (AutomotiveUI ’18). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 82–86. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3239092.3265946
22. Debargha Dey, Azra Habibovic, Bastian Pfleging, Marieke Martens, and Jacques Terken. 2020. Color and Animation Preferences for a Light Band eHMI in In- teractions Between Automated Vehicles and Pedestrians. In CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Hawai'i, Honolulu, United States, 1–13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376325
23. Debargha Dey, Kai Holländer, Melanie Berger, Berry Eggen, Marieke Martens, Bastian Pfeging, and Jacques Terken. 2020. Distance-Dependent EHMIs for the Interaction Between Automated Vehicles and Pedestrians. In 12th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications (Virtual Event, DC, USA) (AutomotiveUI ’20). Association for Computing Ma- chinery, New York, NY, USA, 192–204. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3409120.3410642a
24. Annette Werner. 2018. New Colours for Autonomous Driving: An Evaluation of Chromaticities for the External Lighting Equipment of Autonomous Vehicles. ColourTurn 10, 3 (2018), 183–193. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.25538/tct.v0i1.692
25. Helmut Tiesler-Wittig. 2019. Functional Application, Regulatory Requirements and Their Future Opportunities for Lighting of Automated Driving Systems. Technical Report. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4271/2019-%2001-%200848
26. Yoichi Ochiai and Keisuke Toyoshima. 2011. Homunculus: The Vehicle as Augmented Clothes. In Proceedings of the 2nd Augmented Human. 3–6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/1959826.1959829
27. Koen de Clercq, Andre Dietrich, Juan Pablo Núñez Velasco, Joost de Winter, and Riender Happee. 2019. External human-machine interfaces on automated vehicles: effects on pedestrian crossing decisions. Human factors, 61(8), 1353-1370. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720819836343
28. Andreas Löcken, Carmen Golling, and Andreas Riener. 2019. How should automated vehicles interact with pedestrians? A comparative analysis of interaction concepts in virtual reality. In Proceedings of the 11th international conference on automotive user interfaces and interactive vehicular applications, pp. 262-274. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3342197.3344544
29. Uwe Gruenefeld, Sebastian Weiß, Andreas Löcken, Isabella Virgilio, Andrew L. Kun, and Susanne Boll. 2019. VRoad: gesture-based interaction between pedestrians and automated vehicles in virtual reality. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications: Adjunct Proceedings, pp. 399-404. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3349263.3351511
30. Sebastian Stadler, Henriette Cornet, Tatiana Novaes Theoto, and Fritz Frenkler. 2019. A tool, not a toy: using virtual reality to evaluate the communication between autonomous vehicles and pedestrians. In Augmented reality and virtual reality (pp. 203-216). Springer, Cham. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-06246-0_15
31. Mark Colley, Stefanos Can Mytilineos, Marcel Walch, Jan Gugenheimer, Enrico Rukzio. 2020. Evaluating highly automated trucks as signaling lights. In 12th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications, pp. 111-121. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3409120.3410647
32. Marius Hoggenmüller, Martin Tomitsch, Luke Hespanhol, Tram Thi Minh Tran, Stewart Worrall, and Eduardo Nebot. 2021. Context-based interface prototyping: Understanding the effect of prototype representation on user feedback. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1-14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445159
33. Alexandre M. Nascimento, Anna Carolina M. Queiroz, Lucio F. Vismari, Jeremy N. Bailenson, Paulo S. Cugnasca, João B. Camargo Junior, and Jorge R. de Almeida. 2019. The role of virtual reality in autonomous vehicles’ safety. In 2019 IEEE International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Virtual Reality (AIVR) (pp. 50-507). IEEE. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/AIVR46125.2019.00017
34. Claudia Ackermann, Matthias Beggiato, Sarah Schubert, and Josef F. Krems. 2019. An experimental study to investigate design and assessment criteria: What is important for communication between pedestrians and automated vehicles?. Applied ergonomics, pp. 272-282. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2018.11.002
35. Dominik Schlackl, Klemens Weigl, and Andreas Riener. 2020. eHMI visualization on the entire car body: results of a comparative evaluation of concepts for the communication between AVs and manual drivers. In Proceedings of the Conference on Mensch und Computer, pp. 79-83. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3404983.3410011
36. Ann-Christin Hensch, Isabel Neumann, Matthias Beggiato, Josephine Halama, and Josef F. Krems. 2019. Effects of a light-based communication approach as an external HMI for Automated Vehicles–a Wizard-of-Oz Study. Transactions on Transport Sciences, 10(2). DOI: http://doi.org/10.5507/tots.2019.012
37. Dirk Rothenbücher, Jamy Li, David Sirkin, Brian Mok, and Wendy Ju. 2016. Ghost driver: A field study investigating the interaction between pedestrians and driverless vehicles. In 2016 25th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN), pp. 795-802. IEEE. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2016.7745210
38. Xinyue Gui, Koki Toda, Stela H. Seo, Chia-Ming Chang and Takeo Igarashi. 2022. “I am going this way”: Gazing eyes on a self-driving car show multiple moving directions. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications (AutomotiveUI ’22).
39. The Japan Automobile Federation (JAF), 2016. JAF finds over 90% of drivers ignore pedestrian crosswalks. Retrieved April 23, 2022 from https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20161002/p2a/00m/0na/015000c
40. Jaguar Land Rover Automotive Plc., 2018. The Virtual Eyes Have it. Retrieved June 19, 2022 from https://www.jaguarlandrover.com/2018/virtual-eyes-have-it
41. Jim Blascovich, Jack Loomis, Andrew C. Beall, Kimberly R. Swinth, Crystal L. Hoyt, and Jeremy N. Bailenson. 2002. Immersive Virtual Environment Technology as a Methodological Tool for Social Psychology. Psychological Inquiry 13, 2: 103–124. DOI: https://doi.org/10/ff8f42
42. Dylan Moore, Rebecca Currano, G. Ella Strack, and David Sirkin. 2019. The Case for Implicit External Human-Machine Interfaces for Autonomous Vehicles. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications (AutomotiveUI '19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 295–307. https://doi.org/10.1145/3342197.3345320