Next Article in Journal
Industry 4.0—Awareness in South India
Next Article in Special Issue
Spatio-Semantic Road Space Modeling for Vehicle–Pedestrian Simulation to Test Automated Driving Systems
Previous Article in Journal
Does Board Gender Diversity Bring Better Financial and Governance Performances? An Empirical Investigation of Cases in Taiwan
 
 
Article

Prioritizing Safety or Traffic Flow? Qualitative Study on Highly Automated Vehicles’ Potential to Prevent Pedestrian Crashes with Two Different Ambitions

Transport Research Centre Verne, Tampere University, FI-33014 Tampere, Finland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2020, 12(8), 3206; https://doi.org/10.3390/su12083206
Received: 10 March 2020 / Revised: 10 April 2020 / Accepted: 13 April 2020 / Published: 15 April 2020
Interaction between drivers and pedestrians enables pedestrians to cross the street without conflicts. When highly automated vehicles (HAVs) become prevalent, interaction will change. Although HAVs manage to identify pedestrians, they may not be able to assess pedestrians’ intentions. This study discusses two different ambitions: Prioritizing pedestrian safety and prioritizing efficient traffic flow; and how these two affect the possibilities to avoid fatal crashes between pedestrians and passenger cars. HAVs’ hypothetical possibilities to avoid different crash scenarios are evaluated based on 40 in-depth investigated fatal pedestrian crashes, which occurred with manually-driven cars in Finland in 2014–2016. When HAVs prioritize pedestrian safety, they decrease speed near pedestrians as a precaution which affects traffic flow due to frequent decelerations. When HAVs prioritize efficient traffic flow, they only decelerate, when pedestrians are in a collision course. The study shows that neither of these approaches can be applied in all traffic environments, and all of the studied crashes would not likely be avoidable with HAVs even when prioritizing pedestrian safety. The high expectations of HAVs’ safety benefits may not be realized, and in addition to safety and traffic flow, there are many other objectives in traffic which need to be considered. View Full-Text
Keywords: highly automated vehicle; pedestrian; safety; safety potential; interaction highly automated vehicle; pedestrian; safety; safety potential; interaction
MDPI and ACS Style

Utriainen, R.; Pöllänen, M. Prioritizing Safety or Traffic Flow? Qualitative Study on Highly Automated Vehicles’ Potential to Prevent Pedestrian Crashes with Two Different Ambitions. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3206. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12083206

AMA Style

Utriainen R, Pöllänen M. Prioritizing Safety or Traffic Flow? Qualitative Study on Highly Automated Vehicles’ Potential to Prevent Pedestrian Crashes with Two Different Ambitions. Sustainability. 2020; 12(8):3206. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12083206

Chicago/Turabian Style

Utriainen, Roni, and Markus Pöllänen. 2020. "Prioritizing Safety or Traffic Flow? Qualitative Study on Highly Automated Vehicles’ Potential to Prevent Pedestrian Crashes with Two Different Ambitions" Sustainability 12, no. 8: 3206. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12083206

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop