Automated driving research over the past decades has mostly focused on highway environments. Recent technological developments have drawn researchers and manufacturers to look ahead at introducing automated driving in cities. The current position paper examines this challenge from the viewpoint of scientific experts. Sixteen Human Factors researchers were interviewed about their personal perspectives on automated vehicles (AVs) and the interaction with VRUs in the future urban environment. Aspects such as smart infrastructure, external human-machine interfaces (eHMIs), and the potential of augmented reality (AR) were addressed during the interviews. The interviews showed that the researchers believed that fully autonomous vehicles will not be introduced in the coming decades and that intermediate levels of automation, specific AV services, or shared control will be used instead. The researchers foresaw a large role of smart infrastructure and expressed a need for AV-VRU segregation, but were concerned about corresponding costs and maintenance requirements. The majority indicated that eHMIs will enhance future AV-VRU interaction, but they noted that implicit communication will remain dominant and advised against text-based and instructive eHMIs. AR was commended for its potential in assisting VRUs, but given the technological challenges, its use, for the time being, was believed to be limited to scientific experiments. The present expert perspectives may be instrumental to various stakeholders and researchers concerned with the relationship between VRUs and AVs in future urban traffic.Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions; Innovative Training Networks (ITN); SHAPE-IT; Grant number 860410Publication date: 4 January 2021DOI: 10.1016/j.trip.2020.100293@en

Tesla's Full Self-Driving Beta (FSD) program introduces technology that extends the operational design domain of standard Autopilot from highways to urban roads. This research conducted 103 in-depth semi-structured interviews with users of Tesla's FSD Beta and standard Autopilot to evaluate the impact on user behavior and perception. It was found that drivers became complacent over time with Autopilot engaged, failing to monitor the system, and engaging in safety-critical behaviors, such as hands-free driving, enabled by weights placed on the steering wheel, mind wandering, or sleeping behind the wheel. Drivers' movement of eyes, hands, and feet became more relaxed with experience with Autopilot engaged. FSD Beta required constant supervision as unfinished technology, which increased driver stress and mental and physical workload as drivers had to be constantly prepared for unsafe system behavior (doing the wrong thing at the worst time). The hands-on wheel check was not considered as being necessarily effective in driver monitoring and guaranteeing safe use. Drivers adapt to automation over time, engaging in potentially dangerous behaviors. Some behavior seems to be a knowing violation of intended use (e.g., weighting the steering wheel), and other behavior reflects a misunderstanding or lack of experience (e.g., using Autopilot on roads not designed for). As unfinished Beta technology, FSD Beta can introduce new forms of stress and can be inherently unsafe. We recommend future research to investigate to what extent these behavioral changes affect accident risk and can be alleviated through driver state monitoring and assistance.@en

The driving style of an automated vehicle (AV) needs to be comfortable to encourage the broad acceptance and use of this newly emerging transport mode. However, current research provides limited knowledge about what influences comfort, how this concept is described, and how it is measured. This knowledge is especially lacking when comfort is linked to the AV's driving styles. This paper presents results from an online workshop with nine experts, all with hands-on experience of AVs and a long track record of research in this context. Using online tools, experts were invited to introduce concepts they considered relevant to comfort/discomfort in currently available modes of transport which offer a ride (taxi/bus/train) to users and compare these to the concepts used to define comfort and discomfort in AVs. Results showed that a wide range of terms were used to describe user comfort and discomfort for both modes. Although all terms used for existing vehicles were found to apply to AVs, additional terms were proposed for determining comfort/discomfort of AVs. For example, to enhance comfort in AVs, designers should consider good communication channels, as well as ensuring that the AV's capabilities match users’ expectations. Results also revealed that more terms were used, overall, to define discomfort, and that a comfortable ride in AVs is not just about mitigating discomfort. New concepts specific to AVs were also revealed when considering what increases their discomfort, such as whether riders’ safety and privacy are affected, or if they feel in control. Experts’ input from the workshop was used to enhance and expand a simple conceptual framework, explaining how AV driving styles, as well as other, non-driving-related factors, affect user comfort. It is hoped that this framework provides a more comprehensive list of the concepts affecting user comfort, also allowing more accurate measurement of the concept. As well as allowing for a more accurate comparison between empirical studies measuring comfort in AVs, this study will facilitate the design of more comfortable and acceptable automated driving for future vehicles.@en

The driving style of an automated vehicle (AV) needs to be comfortable to encourage the broad acceptance and use of this newly emerging transport mode. However, current research provides limited knowledge about what influences comfort, how this concept is described, and how it is measured. This knowledge is especially lacking when comfort is linked to the AV's driving styles. This paper presents results from an online workshop with nine experts, all with hands-on experience of AVs and a long track record of research in this context. Using online tools, experts were invited to introduce concepts they considered relevant to comfort/discomfort in currently available modes of transport which offer a ride (taxi/bus/train) to users and compare these to the concepts used to define comfort and discomfort in AVs. Results showed that a wide range of terms were used to describe user comfort and discomfort for both modes. Although all terms used for existing vehicles were found to apply to AVs, additional terms were proposed for determining comfort/discomfort of AVs. For example, to enhance comfort in AVs, designers should consider good communication channels, as well as ensuring that the AV's capabilities match users’ expectations. Results also revealed that more terms were used, overall, to define discomfort, and that a comfortable ride in AVs is not just about mitigating discomfort. New concepts specific to AVs were also revealed when considering what increases their discomfort, such as whether riders’ safety and privacy are affected, or if they feel in control. Experts’ input from the workshop was used to enhance and expand a simple conceptual framework, explaining how AV driving styles, as well as other, non-driving-related factors, affect user comfort. It is hoped that this framework provides a more comprehensive list of the concepts affecting user comfort, also allowing more accurate measurement of the concept. As well as allowing for a more accurate comparison between empirical studies measuring comfort in AVs, this study will facilitate the design of more comfortable and acceptable automated driving for future vehicles.@en