When humans share space in road traffic, as drivers or as vulnerable road users, they draw on their full range of communicative and interactive capabilities. Much remains unknown about these behaviors, but they need to be captured in models if automated vehicles are to coexist successfully with human road users. Empirical studies of human road user behavior implicate a large number of underlying cognitive mechanisms, which taken together are well beyond the scope of existing computational models. Here, we note that for all of these putative mechanisms, computational theories exist in different subdisciplines of psychology, for more constrained tasks. We demonstrate how these separate theories can be generalized from abstract laboratory paradigms and integrated into a computational framework for modeling human road user interaction, combining Bayesian perception, a theory of mind regarding others’ intentions, behavioral game theory, long-term valuation of action alternatives, and evidence accumulation decision-making. We show that a model with these assumptions—but not simpler versions of the same model—can account for a number of previously unexplained phenomena in naturalistic driver–pedestrian road-crossing interactions, and successfully predicts interaction outcomes in an unseen data set. Our modeling results contribute to demonstrating the real-world value of the theories from which we draw, and address calls in psychology for cumulative theory-building, presenting human road use as a suitable setting for work of this nature. Our findings also underscore the formidable complexity of human interaction in road traffic, with strong implications for the requirements to set on development and testing of vehicle automation.

The development of automated vehicles has the potential to revolutionize transportation, but they are currently unable to ensure a safe and time-efficient driving style. Reliable models predicting human behavior are essential for overcoming this issue. While data-driven models are commonly used to this end, they can be vulnerable in safety-critical edge cases. This has led to an interest in models incorporating cognitive theory, but as such models are commonly developed for explanatory purposes, this approach's effectiveness in behavior prediction has remained largely untested so far. In this article, we investigate the usefulness of the Commotions model - a novel cognitively plausible model incorporating the latest theories of human perception, decision-making, and motor control - for predicting human behavior in gap acceptance scenarios, which entail many important traffic interactions such as lane changes and intersections. We show that this model can compete with or even outperform well-established data-driven prediction models across several naturalistic datasets. These results demonstrate the promise of incorporating cognitive theory in behavior prediction models for automated vehicles.