Objective: Right-of-way negotiation between drivers and pedestrians often relies on explicit (e.g., waving) and implicit (e.g., kinematic) cues that signal intent. Since effective driver-pedestrian communication is important for reducing safety-relevant conflicts, this study uses information theory to identify vehicle kinematic behaviors that provide the greatest information gain and serve as cues for pedestrians to cross safely.
Data sources: A driver-pedestrian dataset with 348 interactions was extracted from a large naturalistic driving data collection effort. It includes 325 instances of a pedestrian crossing the vehicle's path and 23 instances in which the vehicle did not yield to a pedestrian. Kinematic data were collected from the vehicle's CAN. Pedestrian behaviors, driver cues, and contextual information were manually annotated from a forward-facing video.
Methods: We used kernel density estimation to quantify the probabilities of vehicle acceleration, speed, and standard deviation of speed, for a given vehicle position and pedestrian behavior. Mutual information was then calculated between the estimated distributions given a pedestrian behavior (crossing/not crossing; walking/pausing) across intersection types (protected, e.g., stop signs; designated, e.g., crosswalks; and undesignated, e.g., jaywalking).
Results: The patterns mutual information conveyed by vehicle kinematics differed across measures (acceleration, speed, and standard deviation of speed) reaching peak values (in bits of information) at different distances from the pedestrian path. The mutual information conveyed by vehicle acceleration and pedestrian crossing behaviors peaked the farthest from the pedestrian path in the designated crossings, about 18 m away from the pedestrian path, with a difference in median deceleration of 1.01 m/s2 (p < 0.001) between pedestrian pausing and walking epochs. For protected crossings, the peak in mutual information occurred closer (10 m) to the pedestrian path, where median vehicle deceleration was significantly lower (0.55 m/s2; p < 0.05) in pausing epochs compared to walking epochs. For undesignated crossings, the peak in mutual information was the closest to the pedestrian crossing path, around 5 m, and was associated with a stronger deceleration behavior in pedestrian crossing epochs (-0.33 m/s2; p < 0.1). Vehicle speed demonstrated a similar sensitivity to distance from the pedestrian path across intersection types. Lastly, looking at the outcome of pedestrian behavior (i.e., crossing/not crossing), we find that the mutual information conveyed by acceleration, speed, and standard deviation of speed, peaked when the vehicle was at 30 m (stronger braking -0.37 m/s2; p < 0.1) and 10 m away, with greater acceleration (0.81 m/s2; p < 0.001) and faster speeds (2.41 m/s; p < 0.001) in pedestrian crossing epochs.
Significance of results: This study examined driver-pedestrian information exchange using vehicle kinematic behavioral cues. We find that the differences in mutual information are shaped by multiple factors including the intersection type. In general, there was less mutual information gain in protected crossings which may be explained by unambiguous right-of-way rules guiding driver and pedestrian behavior, reducing the need for negotiation. Driver-pedestrian interactions in designated crossings seem to take place over a larger distance range compared to undesignated or protected crossings. These findings may support the design of automated driving and pedestrian safety systems that are able to consider the type, strength, and timing of kinematic cues to optimize driver-pedestrian negotiation. Eventually, such systems may enhance safe, efficient, and social interactions with pedestrians.
Keywords: Automation; Communication; Driver behavior; Interaction; Pedestrian.
Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Ltd.