Search for: All records

Safety-critical data, such as crash and near-crash records, are crucial to improving autonomous vehicle (AV) design and development. Sharing such data across AV companies, academic researchers, regulators, and the public can help make all AVs safer. However, AV companies rarely share safety-critical data externally. This paper aims to pinpoint why AV companies are reluctant to share safety-critical data, with an eye on how these barriers can inform new approaches to promote sharing. We interviewed twelve AV company employees who actively work with such data in their day-to-day work. Findings suggest two key, previously unknown barriers to data sharing: (1) Datasets inherently embed salient knowledge that is key to improving AV safety and are resource-intensive. Therefore, data sharing, even within a company, is fraught with politics. (2) Interviewees believed AV safety knowledge is private knowledge that brings competitive edges to their companies, rather than public knowledge for social good. We discuss the implications of these findings for incentivizing and enabling safety-critical AV data sharing, specifically, implications for new approaches to (1) debating and stratifying public and private AV safety knowledge, (2) innovating data tools and data sharing pipelines that enable easier sharing of public AV safety dataand knowledge; (3) offsetting costs of curating safety-critical data and incentivizing data sharing. 

Numerous driving simulator systems are available and are continu- ing to be developed. However, we believe many simulator offerings are built around what is technically possible rather than what is useful to the researchers that might use such systems. This points to a critical need to understand what makes a driving simulator prac- tical and effective for automotive interface design researchers. To remedy this shortcoming, we conducted video interviews with 15 industry and academic researchers engaged in automotive interface design research. We transcribed and performed thematic analy- sis on the data collected to better understand the different ways that researchers are using driving simulators, and what challenges they still face. We identified needs across three broad dimensions including: (1) Participant Experience, (2) Research Needs, and (3) Operationalization Requirements. By categorizing these needs, we aim to inform the development of future simulation tools that are more accessible to researchers from diverse backgrounds. 

In this work, we analyze video data and interviews from a public deployment of two trash barrel robots in a large public space to better understand the sensemaking activities people perform when they encounter robots in public spaces. Based on an analysis of 274 human–robot interactions and interviews withN =65 individuals or groups, we discovered that people were responding not only to the robots or their behavior, but also to the general idea of deploying robots as trashcans, and the larger social implications of that idea. They wanted to understand details about the deployment because having that knowledge would change how they interact with the robot. Based on our data and analysis, we have provided implications for design that may be topics for future human–robot design researchers who are exploring robots for public space deployment. Furthermore, our work offers a practical example of analyzing field data to make sense of robots in public spaces. 

Social scientists have argued that autonomous vehicles (AVs) need to act as effective social agents; they have to respond implicitly to other drivers’ behaviors as human drivers would. In this paper, we investigate how contingent driving behavior in AVs influences human drivers’ experiences. We compared three algorithmic driving models: one trained on human driving data that responds to interactions (a familiar contingent behavior) and two artificial models that intend to either always-yield or never-yield regardless of how the interaction unfolds (non-contingent behaviors). Results show a statistically significant relationship between familiar contingent behavior and positive driver experiences, reducing stress while promoting the decisive interactions that mitigate driver hesitance. The direct relationship between familiar contingency and positive experience indicates that AVs should incorporate socially familiar driving patterns through contextually-adaptive algorithms to improve the chances of successful deployment and acceptance in mixed human-AV traffic environments. 

Realistically modeling interactions between road users—like those between drivers or between drivers and pedestrians—within experimental settings come with pragmatic challenges. Due to practical constraints, research typically focuses on a limited subset of potential scenarios, raising questions about the scalability and generalizability of findings about interactions to untested scenarios. Here, we aim to tackle this by laying the methodological groundwork for defining representative scenarios for dyadic (two-actor) interactions that can be analyzed individually. This paper introduces a conceptual guide for operationalizing controlled dyadic traffic interaction studies, developed through extensive interdisciplinary brainstorming to bridge theoretical models and practical experimental design. It elucidates critical trade-offs in scenario selection, interaction approaches, measurement strategies, and timing coordination, thereby enhancing reproducibility and clarity for future traffic interaction research and streamlining the design process. The methodologies and insights we provide aim to enhance the accessibility and quality of traffic interaction research, offering a guide that aids researchers in setting up studies and ensures clarity and reproducibility in reporting, bridging the gap between theoretical traffic interaction models and practical applications in controlled experiments, thereby contributing to advancements in human factors research on traffic management and safety. 

The design of self-driving vehicles requires an understanding of the social interactions between drivers in resolving vague encounters, such as at un-signalized intersections. In this paper, we make the case for social situation awareness as a model for understanding everyday driving interaction. Using a dual-participant VR driving simulator, we collected data from driving encounter scenarios to understand how (N=170) participant drivers behave with respect to one another. Using a social situation awareness questionnaire we developed, we assessed the participants’ social awareness of other driver’s direction of approach to the intersection, and also logged signaling, speed and speed change, and heading of the vehi- cle. Drawing upon the statistically significant relationships in the variables in the study data, we propose a Social Situation Awareness model based on the approach, speed, change of speed, heading and explicit signaling from drivers. 

The characterization of driver interactions is im- portant for a variety of problems associated with the design of autonomy for vehicles. We consider the role of cultural context in driver interactions, by evaluating the differences in driving interactions in simulated driving experiments conducted in New York City, New York, USA, and in Haifa, Israel. The same experiment was conducted in both locations, and focused on naturalistic driving interactions at unsigned intersections, in which interaction with another vehicle was required for safe navigation through the intersection. We employ conditional dis- tribution embeddings, a nonparametric machine learning tech- nique, to empirically characterize differences in the distribution of trajectories that characterize driver interactions, across both locations. We show that cultural variability outweighs individual variability in intersections that require turning ma- neuvers, and that clear distinctions amongst driving strategies are evident between populations. Our approach facilities a data-driven analysis that is amenable to rigorous statistical testing, in a manner that minimizes filtering, pre-processing, and other manipulations that could inadvertently bias the data and obscure important findings.