Study on the Impact of eHMI on the Interaction between Cyclists and Autonomous Vehicles
Downloads
Autonomous vehicles (AVs) have the potential to improve road safety, reduce traffic congestion and lower emissions, but scepticism remains due to the absence of drivers. To address this, an external human-machine communication interface (eHMI) can be employed to communicate with other road users. However, the impact of eHMI on cyclists’ self-protective behaviour is still unclear. This study aimed to investigate the effects of eHMI technology on cyclists’ behaviour and safety awareness. Data on demographics (gender, age, education level), road behaviour (violations, errors, positive behaviours) and acceptance of AVs (social norms, attitudes, behavioural intention) were collected through online surveys. Six scenarios were designed to simulate potential collision risks and analyse the impact of eHMI on cyclists’ self-protective behaviour (e.g. braking, lane changes). A total of 895 respondents participated in the survey. The findings indicated that male and younger cyclists exhibited a higher acceptance of AVs. Cyclists who had experienced an accident within the past two years were more willing to share the road with AVs. Younger cyclists demonstrated better responsiveness and understanding of eHMI signals compared to older cyclists. Additionally, cyclists with higher education levels showed enhanced ability to utilise eHMI information and displayed more self-protective behaviour. This research provides significant theoretical and practical insights for advancing human-machine interactions between AVs and cyclists.
Downloads
Fan R, Naim D. Real-time stereo vision-based lane detection system. Measurement Science and Technology. 2018;29(7):074005. DOI: 10.1088/1361-6501/aac163.
Iacobucci R, Bruno R, Schmöcker JD. An integrated optimisation-simulation framework for scalable smart charging and relocation of shared autonomous electric vehicles. Energies. 2021;14(12):3633. DOI: 10.3390/en14123633.
Liu M, et al. Factors influencing the acceptance of robo‐taxi services in China: An extended technology acceptance model analysis. Journal of Advanced Transportation. 2022;2022(1):8461212. DOI: 10.1155/2022/8461212.
Yurtsever E, et al. A survey of autonomous driving: Common practices and emerging technologies. Iee Access. 2020;8:58443-69. DOI: 10.1109/access.2020.2983149.
Lee YM, et al. Road users rarely use explicit communication when interacting in today’s traffic: Implications for automated vehicles. Cognition, Technology & Work. 2021;23:367-80. DOI: 10.1007/s10111-020-00635-y.
Chen Z, et al. Participatory design of external HMI based on explicit human-vehicle interaction features. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications. 2023;365:74-83. DOI: 10.3233/faia220702.
Körber M, Baseler E, Bengler K. Introduction matters: Manipulating trust in automation and reliance in automated driving. Applied Ergonomics. 2018;66:18-31. DOI: 10.1016/j.apergo.2017.07.006.
Smyth J, et al. Public acceptance of driver state monitoring for automated vehicles: Applying the UTAUT framework. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. 2021;83:179-191. DOI: 10.1016/j.trf.2021.10.003.
Rejali S, Aghabayk K, Shiwakoti N. Assessing public a priori acceptance of fully automated vehicles using an extended technology acceptance model and importance-performance analysis. Iatss Research. 2024;48(4):537-549. DOI: 10.1016/j.iatssr.2024.10.004.
Edelmann A, Stümper S, Petzoldt T. Cross-cultural differences in the acceptance of decisions of automated vehicles. Applied Ergonomics. 2021;92:103346. DOI: 10.1016/j.apergo.2020.103346.
Torrao G, Lehtonen E, Innamaa S. The gender gap in the acceptance of automated vehicles in Europe. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. 2024;101:199-217. DOI: 10.1016/j.trf.2023.11.002.
Chen Y, et al. Exploring the association between socio-demographic factors and public acceptance towards fully automated vehicles: Insights from a survey in Australia. IET Intelligent Transport Systems. 2024;18(1):154-172. DOI: 10.1049/itr2.12441.
Alhomaidat F, Eljufout T. Perception of cycling risks and needs associated with skill level, gender, and age. Archives of Transport. 2021;59(3):113-127. DOI: 10.5604/01.3001.0015.2390.
Kaye SA, et al. Users’ acceptance of private automated vehicles: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Safety Research. 2021;79:352-367. DOI: 10.1016/j.jsr.2021.10.002.
Alozi AR, Hussein M. Active road user interactions with autonomous vehicles: Proactive safety assessment. Transportation Research Record. 2023;26772677(77):74 - 89. DOI: 10.1177/03611981221151032.
Hagenzieker MP, et al. Interactions between cyclists and automated vehicles: Results of a photo experiment. Journal of Transportation Safety & Security. 2020;12(1):94-115. DOI: 10.1080/19439962.2019.1591556.
Oskina MI, et al. Safety assessment of the interaction between an automated vehicle and a cyclist: A controlled field test. Transportation Research Record. 2023;2677(2):1138-1149. DOI: 10.1177/03611981221112423.
Ahmed S, et al. Pedestrian and cyclist detection and intent estimation for autonomous vehicles: A survey. Applied Sciences. 2019;9(11):2335. DOI: 10.3390/app9112335.
Gigli L, et al. Road segmentation on low resolution lidar point clouds for autonomous vehicles. Isprs Annals of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences. 2020;5(2):335-342. DOI: 10.5194/isprs-annals-V-2-2020-335-2020.
Ngwu OL, Rimu A, Deb S. How to design traffic infrastructure to support cyclists’ interaction with autonomous vehicles: teenage cyclists’ perceptions. Human Factors and Systems Interaction. 2022;52(52). DOI: 10.54941/ahfe1002151.
Van Fossen JA, et al. Concerns, career decisions, and role changes: A qualitative study of perceptions of autonomous vehicles in the trucking industry. Work, Aging and Retirement. 2023;9(4):399-406. DOI: 10.1093/workar/waac037.
Bazilinskyy P, et al. Blinded windows and empty driver seats: The effects of automated vehicle characteristics on cyclists’ decision‐making. IET Intelligent Transport Systems. 2023;17(1):72-84. DOI: 10.1049/itr2.12235.
Kooijman L, Happee R, de Winter JCF. How do eHMIs affect pedestrians’ crossing behavior? A study using a head-mounted display combined with a motion suit. Information. 2019;10(12):386. DOI: 10.3390/info10120386.
Dey D, et al. Communicating the intention of an automated vehicle to pedestrians: The contributions of eHMI and vehicle behavior. It-Information Technology. 2021;63(2):123-41. DOI: 10.1515/itit-2020-0025.
Wilbrink M, Nuttelmann M, Oehl M. Scaling up automated vehicles’ eHMI communication designs to interactions with multiple pedestrians – putting eHMIs to the test. 13th International Conference on Automotive user Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications, 2021:119–122. DOI: 10.1145/3473682.3480277.
Lau M, Jipp M, Oehl M. Investigating the Interplay between eHMI and dHMI for Automated Buses: How do contradictory signals influence a pedestrian's willingness to cross?. 13th International Conference on Automotive user Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications. 2021;152–155. DOI: 10.1145/3473682.3480284.
Hensch AC, et al. The effect of eHMI malfunctions on younger and elderly pedestrians’ trust and acceptance of automated vehicle communication signals. Frontiers in Psychology. 2022;13:866475. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.866475.
Carlowitz S, et al. Pedestrians’ perceptions of automated vehicle movements and light-based eHMIs in real world conditions: A test track study. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. 2023;95:83-97. DOI: 10.1016/j.trf.2023.02.010.
Li Y, et al. Autonomous vehicles drive into shared spaces: eHMI design concept focusing on vulnerable road users. 2021 Ieee International Intelligent Transportation Systems Conference (ITSC). 2021;1729-1736. DOI: 10.1109/ITSC48978.2021.9564515.
Useche SA, et al. Validation of the cycling behavior questionnaire: A tool for measuring cyclists’ road behaviours. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. 2018;58:1021-1030. DOI: 10.1016/j.trf.2018.08.003.
Davis FD, Venkatesh V. A critical assessment of potential measurement biases in the technology acceptance model: Three experiments. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies. 1996;45(1):19-45. DOI: 10.1006/ijhc.1996.0040.
Ajzen I. The theory of planned behaviour. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 1991;50(2);179-211. DOI: 10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T.
Venkatesh V, et al. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. Mis Quarterly. 2003;425-78. DOI: 10.2307/30036540.
Kaye SA, et al. Assessing the feasibility of the theory of planned behaviour in predicting drivers’ intentions to operate conditional and full automated vehicles. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. 2020;74:173-183. DOI: 10.1016/j.trf.2020.08.015.
Merat N, Madigan R, Nordhoff S. Human factors, user requirements, and user acceptance of ride-sharing in automated vehicles. International Transport Forum Discussion Papers. 2017(2017/10):30. DOI: 10.1787/7c9b229e-en.
Xu Z, et al. What drives people to accept automated vehicles? Findings from a field experiment. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies. 2018;95:320-334. DOI: 10.1016/j.trc.2018.07.024.
Achtnicht M. Do environmental benefits matter? A choice experiment among house owners in Germany. Zew Discussion Paper. 2010(10-094). DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.1727279.
Gan H, Ye X. Leave the expressway or not? Impact of dynamic information. Journal of Modern Transportation. 2014;22:96-103. DOI: 10.1007/s40534-014-0043-1.
Rouwendal J, Meijer E. Preferences for housing, jobs, and commuting: A mixed logit analysis. Journal of Regional Science. 2001; 41(3), 475-505. DOI: 10.1111/0022-4146.00227.
Naji HAH, et al. Evaluating the driving risk of near-crash events using a mixed-ordered logit model. Sustainability. 2018;10(8):2868. DOI: 10.3390/su10082868.
Bernardi S, La Paix Puello L, Geurs K. Modelling route choice of Dutch cyclists using smartphone data. Journal of Transport and Land Use. 2018;11(1):883-900. DOI: 10.5198/jtlu.2018.1143.
Burnham KP, Anderson DR. Multimodel inference: Understanding AIC and BIC in model selection. Sociological Methods & Research. 2004;33(2):261-304. DOI: 10.1177/0049124104268644.
Mihara S, et al. Internet use and problematic Internet use among adolescents in Japan: A nationwide representative survey. Addictive Behaviors Reports. 2016;4:58-64. DOI: 10.1016/j.abrep.2016.10.001.
Wold S. Cross-validatory estimation of the number of components in factor and principal components models. Technometrics. 1978;20(4):397-405. DOI: 10.2307/1267639.
Sun Y, et al. Examining associations of environmental characteristics with recreational cycling behaviour by street-level strava data. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2017;14(6):644. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph14060644.
Useche S A, et al. Validation of the cycling behaviour questionnaire: A tool for measuring cyclists’ road behaviours. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. 2018;1021-1030. DOI: 10.1016/j.trf.2018.08.003.
Shoman M, et al. Measuring cyclist’s inputs, the kinematic and dynamic properties of a city bicycle, and estimating the road profile via sensor fusion. Highlights of Vehicles. 2023;1(1). DOI: 10.54175/hveh1010001.
Lee J, Huang Y. Covid-19 vaccine hesitancy: The role of socio economic factors and spatial effects. Vaccines. 2022;10(3):1-10. DOI: 10.3390/vaccines10030352.
Jing P, et al. The determinants behind the acceptance of autonomous vehicles: A systematic review. Sustainability. 2020;12(5):1719. DOI: 10.3390/su12051719.
Bansal P, Kockelman KM. Are we ready to embrace connected and self-driving vehicles? A case study of Texans. Transportation. 2018;45:641-75. DOI: 10.1007/s11116-016-9745-z.
Turrell G, et al. Test-retest reliability of perceptions of the neighborhood environment for physical activity by Socioeconomic Status. Journal of Physical Activity & Health. 2011;8(6), 829–840. DOI: 10.1123/jpah.8.6.829.
Lee JD, See KA. Trust in Automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors. 2004;46(1):50–80. DOI: 10.1518/hfes.46.1.50_30392.
Eisma YB, Van Gent L, de Winter J. Should an external human–machine interface flash or just show text? Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. 2023;97:140–153. DOI: 10.1016/j.trf.2023.07.005.
De Clercq K, et al. External human–machine interfaces on automated vehicles: Effects on pedestrian crossing decisions. Human Factors. 2019;61(8):1353–1370. DOI: 10.1177/0018720819836343.
Lau M, Jipp M, Oehl M. One solution fits all? Evaluating different communication strategies of a light-based external human–machine interface for differently sized automated vehicles from a pedestrian’s perspective. Accident Analysis & Prevention. 2022;172:106708. DOI: 10.1016/j.aap.2022.106641.
Copyright (c) 2026 zi meng lin, zhiwei Liu
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
