Shared space: Different age groups’ perspectives

BackgroundShared spaces, in the context of road transport, often refer to areas shared by unprotected and protected road users and intended to facilitate a living city space for every-one. A basic idea behind shared spaces is to create traffic safety by inducing some uncertainty. This study investigates how young, middle-aged, and elderly pedestrians experience shared space, as well as whether and, if so, how two shared space designs (without and with large flowerpots) affect this experience.MethodThirty-seven participants, divided into three age groups, participated in the study, conducted in Fisherman’s Square, Västervik, Sweden. An adjacent non-signal-regulated pedestrian crossing was used as a control. Two studies – visual scanning and Q studies – were combined. In the visual scanning study, eye-tracking examined how the two designs affected the participants’ visual scanning behaviour (i.e., what participants looked at) as pedestrians. In the Q-study, Q-methodology was used to examine how the two designs affected the participants’ experiences as pedestrians.ResultsThe visual scanning study showed that different age groups were affected in different ways by designs without and with large flowerpots in the shared space. While the middle-aged participants always glanced more often at traffic-relevant objects, and young participants always glanced equally often at traffic-relevant and non-traffic-relevant objects, the elderly participants changed their visual scanning behaviour depending on the design. Without large flowerpots deployed, the elderly participants glanced more often at traffic-relevant than non-traffic-relevant objects. No such difference was obtained when large flowerpots were deployed. The Q-study showed that participants, regardless of age, experienced no great uncertainty in this shared space. The perceived uncertainty, which nevertheless existed, was reduced with large flowerpots deployed to recreate the traditional division with clear zones where pedestrians could stay in relatively car-free areas while motor vehicles had clear paths to travel along.ConclusionThe results suggest that shared space, without large flowerpots, succeeded in inducing some uncertainty, especially among middle-aged and elderly pedestrians. However, deploying large flowerpots seemed to decrease this uncertainty, especially among elderly pedestrians. The major concern prompted by these results is how this decreased uncertainty affects traffic safety. Shared space also needs to be studied from the car driver’s perspective to understand the interaction between different road user groups.     

Predicting pedestrians’ intention to cross the road in front of automated vehicles in risky situations

Due to the absence of a human driver, the introduction of fully automated vehicles (FAVs) may bring new safety challenges to the traffic system, especially when FAVs interact with vulnerable road users such as pedestrians. To ensure safer interactions between pedestrians and FAVs, this questionnaire-based study aims to understand Australian pedestrians’ intention to engage in risky road-crossing behaviors when they interact with FAVs vs. human-driven vehicles (HDVs). A 2 × 2 between-subject design was utilized, in which two risky road-crossing scenarios were designed and took into account the vehicle type (FAV vs. HDV) and vehicle speed (30 km/h vs. 50 km/h). A total of 493 participants (aged 18–77) were randomly assigned to one of the four experimental conditions and completed an online questionnaire based on the extended Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB). This questionnaire measured pedestrians’ intentions to cross the road in the assigned scenarios as well as the motivational factors behind these intentions in terms of attitude, subjective norm, perceived behavioral control, perceived risk and trust in the vehicle. The results show that pedestrians had significantly higher intentions to cross the road in front of approaching FAVs than HDVs. Participants also reported a lower risk perception of crossing in front of FAVs and greater trust in this type of vehicle. Attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control were significant predictors of intentions to engage in risky road-crossing behavior. Findings of this study provide important implications for the development and implementation of FAVs in the future road transport system.     

For heaven’s sake follow the rules: pedestrians’ behavior in an ultra-orthodox and a non-orthodox city

The present study focuses on the effect of the elements of religiosity and faith on pedestrian behavior. The sample consisted of 1047 pedestrians who were observed at two busy urban intersections. The observations were conducted in three separate intervals at two busy intersections in Ramat-Gan (secular area) and Bnei-Brak (ultra-orthodox area) during the afternoon hours. Five activities were the focus of the observation: running a red-light, crossing where there is no crosswalk, walking along the road, failing to check for traffic prior to crossing, and taking a child’s hand when crossing. A Chi square test for independence was used to estimate the effect of location, gender and age. In the case of two-by-two cross-tabulation, Φ, the non-directional measure of association for categorical variables, was calculated. Findings indicate that males committed significantly more violations than females, and there is a negative correlation between age and frequency of violations. The younger the individual, the more frequently s/he commits a violation. Beyond age and gender as behavioral determinants, pedestrians in the orthodox environment committed violations about three times more frequently than those in the secular environment. Part of the robust difference found between the secular and the ultra-orthodox pedestrians, may be due to the fact that the age-related trend does not exist in Bnei-Brak. Age was related to the violation rate in Ramat-Gan, but not in Bnei-Brak. The following discussion relates to ideological, psychological and practical explanations of these findings.     

Factors that influence the acceptance of future shared automated vehicles – A focus group study with United Kingdom drivers

The development of Shared Automated Vehicles (SAVs) is well underway to provide mobility as a service (MaaS) and bring benefits such as reduced traffic congestion, reduced reliance on privately owned vehicles and increased independence to non-drivers. To realise the benefits of SAVs, adoption by private vehicle users is crucial. Previous research has shown this subset of users as the least likely to adopt SAVs, and it is not well understood what factors are important to achieve such adoption. The purpose of this study is to obtain an in-depth understanding of attitudes, perceptions and preferences that influence the acceptance of future SAVs for drivers. This paper presents the results from an online asynchronous focus group study with 21 British drivers as participants. From the analysis, Service Quality, Trust and Price Value emerged as the three most prominent factors to understand user acceptance of SAVs. These three main factors may be of prime importance for convincing naïve private car owners to accept high-speed SAVs. Productive use of travel time has been frequently mentioned in previous research as a benefit of vehicle automation but was scarcely mentioned by participants in this study. Shared Space Quality in introduced as an indicator for Service Quality, together with Security and Trusting Co-passengers as two indicators of Trust. Based on the findings, this paper concludes with a conceptual SAV technology acceptance model is introduced, with the results added as extended model predictors to the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT2).     

Key factors associated with Australian parents’ willingness to use an automated vehicle to transport their unaccompanied children

This study aimed to identify the key factors associated with Australian parents' willingness to use an automated vehicle to transport their unaccompanied child(ren). Seven hundred and seventy-five participants completed the online survey (M = 40.7 years, SD = 8.9 years, Range = 18.0–65.0 years; Female: 56.4%). Most participants reported that they would 'never' use an automated vehicle to transport their unaccompanied child(ren) (43.5%). The results of a logistic regression model showed that participants' age, gender, level of education, propensity for technology adoption, aberrant driving behaviours, awareness of advanced driver assistance safety (ADAS) technologies, perceived knowledge regarding automated vehicles, as well their requirements for assurance-related vehicle features were significantly associated with their willingness to use an automated vehicle to transport their unaccompanied child(ren), χ2(12) = 137.41, p < 0.001). Overall, the findings suggest that Australian parents are mostly unwilling to use an automated vehicle to transport their unaccompanied child(ren) unless various reassurance features and technologies (i.e., microphones, camera, ability to summon assistance if the vehicle breaks down) are embedded in the vehicle. Therefore, automated vehicle manufacturers are encouraged to consider these requirements when prototyping their designs so that all user groups, including child occupants, can benefit from the impending arrival of automated technologies.     

Cyclists’ intentions to yield for automated cars at intersections when they have right of way: Results of an experiment using high-quality video animations

What will cyclists do in future conflict situations with automated cars at intersections when the cyclist has the right of way? In order to explore this, short high-quality animation videos of conflicts between a car and a cyclist at five different intersections were developed. These videos were ‘shot’ from the perspective of the cyclist and ended when a collision was imminent should the car or the bicyclist not slow down. After each video participants indicated whether they would slow down or continue cycling, how confident they were about this decision, what they thought the car would do, and how confident they were about what the car would do. The appearance of the approaching car was varied as within-subjects variable with 3 levels (Car type): automated car, automated car displaying its intentions to the cyclists, and traditional car. In all situations the cyclist had right of way. Of each conflict, three versions were made that differed in the moment that the video ended by cutting off fractions from the longest version, thus creating videos with an early, mid, and late moment for the cyclist to decide to continue cycling or to slow down (Decision moment). Before the video experiment started the participants watched an introductory video about automated vehicles that served as prime. This video was either positive, negative, or neutral about automated vehicles (Prime type). Both Decision moment and Prime type were between subject variables. After the experiment participants completed a short questionnaire about trust in technology and trust in automated vehicles. 1009 participants divided in nine groups (one per Decision moment and Prime) completed the online experiment in which they watched fifteen videos (5 conflicts × 3 car types). The results show that participants more often yielded when the approaching car was an automated car than when it was a traditional car. However, when the approaching car was an automated car that could communicate its intentions, they yielded less often than for a traditional car. The earlier the Decision moment, the more often participants yielded but this increase in yielding did not differ between the three car types. Participants yielded more often for automated cars (both types) after they watched the negative prime video before the experiment than when they watched the positive video. The less participants trusted technology, and the capabilities of automated vehicles in particular, the more they were inclined to slow down in the conflict situations with automated cars. The association between trust and yielding was stronger for trust in the capabilities of automated vehicles than for trust in technology in general.