Review

Interactions and Behaviors of Pedestrians with Autonomous

Vehicles: A Synthesis
Saki Rezwana * and Nicholas Lownes

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Connecticut, 261 Glenbrook Road, U-3037,
Storrs, Mansfield, CT 06268, USA; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: Integrating autonomous vehicles (AVs) into public roads presents profound implications
for pedestrian safety and the broader acceptance of this emerging technology. This work examines
the complex interactions between AVs and pedestrians, a dynamic influenced by the variability
of pedestrian behaviors and the absence of traditional communication mechanisms, such as eye
contact and gestures, commonly relied upon in human-driven scenarios. Given the nascent stage
of AV deployment, this research addresses the challenges of evaluating AV−pedestrian interactions
amid safety concerns and technological limitations. We review and synthesize global research on
pedestrian behavior in the context of AV technology to track changes in pedestrians’ acceptance over
time and identify the factors driving these shifts. Additionally, this review incorporates insights
from transportation authorities to highlight potential safety issues and the need for innovative
communication strategies that ensure safe interactions between pedestrians and AVs. By analyzing
these factors, the research aims to contribute to the development of guidelines and communication
protocols that enhance pedestrian safety and facilitate the integration of AVs into urban environments.

Keywords: autonomous vehicles; pedestrian behavior; AV−pedestrian interaction; gap acceptance;

human–machine interface; ethical perspective

1. Introduction
Citation: Rezwana, S.; Lownes, N.
The market for autonomous vehicles (AVs) is projected to expand to USD 21 billion
Interactions and Behaviors of
Pedestrians with Autonomous
by 2035 [1]. With AVs poised to become commonplace on public roads, they will soon
Vehicles: A Synthesis. Future Transp.
share urban spaces with traditional road users [2]. This imminent introduction of AVs has
2024, 4, 722–745. https://doi.org/ sparked significant research interest within the transportation sector [3]. The potential
10.3390/futuretransp4030034 of AVs to reshape urban infrastructure and the dynamics of transportation systems is
immense. Existing assistive technologies, such as lane-keeping and adaptive cruise control,
Academic Editor: Lynnette Dray
which are already implemented in new vehicle models, are expected to progressively
Received: 29 April 2024 evolve into fully autonomous systems. This evolution will gradually transfer all aspects of
Revised: 8 June 2024 navigation and vehicle control from human drivers to automated systems [4,5]. The societal
Accepted: 1 July 2024 benefits of AVs are substantial, promising reductions in crashes, enhancements in traffic
Published: 4 July 2024 efficiency, lowered congestion, and increased road capacity. According to the US National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, human error contributed to 94 percent of serious
crashes in 2016 [6], many of which could be prevented by reducing human errors through
autonomous driving technologies [7]. Researchers advocate that AVs could significantly
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
increase road safety by more accurately sensing and predicting the behaviors of other
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
road users and by eliminating risks such as driver intoxication and fatigue. Although AVs
This article is an open access article
will not eliminate vehicle collisions entirely, they are expected to significantly reduce their
distributed under the terms and
occurrence. This research, therefore, holds significant importance in understanding and
conditions of the Creative Commons
addressing the implications of AVs regarding pedestrian safety and urban infrastructure.
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
AVs are anticipated to maintain an environment akin to human-driven vehicles; how-
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
ever, current societies and autonomous driving technologies have yet to adapt fully to

Future Transp. 2024, 4, 722–745. https://doi.org/10.3390/futuretransp4030034 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/futuretransp

Future Transp. 2024, 4 723

the existing transportation system [8]. Safety remains the primary concern that restricts
integrating AVs without human drivers into mainstream roadways [9]. It is crucial that
AVs and pedestrians have transparent, socially acceptable, and efficient interactions. There
is a need for uniform communication standards to foster acceptance and ensure safety.
AVs should signal their intentions through symbols, text, or sounds, taking into account
individuals with sensory impairments. These signals should align with the Manual on Uni-
form Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), which sets guidelines for road signs, signals, and
markings [10,11]. To avoid confusion and potential risks, these communication methods
must be standardized across all AVs. This emphasizes the need to develop communication
protocols that are easily recognizable and maintain the prescribed meanings of the MUTCD,
ensuring that these new technologies do not undermine clarity and safety [11].
Recent research has emphasized the pivotal role of vehicle kinematic cues, such as
speed and trajectory [12], in pedestrians’ assessment of vehicular intent, which appears to
influence their decision-making processes more than traditional driver signaling. Studies,
such as those by Rasouli and Tsotsos [13], demonstrate that pedestrians often rely on a
vehicle’s dynamic motion and positioning to predict its future actions rather than on explicit
signals from the driver [13]. This reliance on kinematic cues becomes even more critical in
interactions involving AVs without any drivers, where conventional driver−pedestrian
communication channels, like eye contact and hand gestures, are absent. Integrating these
insights, it becomes apparent that designing AVs to communicate intent through under-
standable and predictable kinematic patterns effectively is essential for ensuring pedestrian
safety and facilitating smoother integration of AVs into the urban traffic ecosystem. There-
fore, enhancing our understanding of how pedestrians interpret these cues can provide
crucial guidelines for developing driverless AV communication protocols that align with
human expectations and behaviors.

1.1. Problem Statement

Humans naturally interpret others’ intentions through body language. On the road,
pedestrians need to grasp a driver’s intentions, which are facilitated by traditional commu-
nication methods such as hand gestures, eye contact, and body movements. For instance,
a pedestrian’s posture can signal whether they are about to cross the road or are pausing
for an approaching vehicle. Similarly, a driver must understand a pedestrian’s intentions
to ensure safety, particularly in urban settings where numerous interactions take place.
The dynamic between pedestrians and AVs presents a challenge due to the absence of
direct human interaction. Typically, pedestrians rely on making eye contact, using hand
signals, or verbal communication with drivers to cross streets safely. In scenarios involving
human drivers, these intentions are conveyed through active signaling [14]. However,
with autonomous vehicles lacking a human driver, the traditional modes of interaction
are missing. This absence of human elements in communication with AVs could lead to
unpredictable pedestrian behaviors.
On the other hand, studies have shown that these signals are necessary for smooth
traffic cooperation and safety [15]. The critical role of pedestrian interpretation of vehicular
intent, particularly in the context of AVs, cannot be overstated in ensuring road safety.
While AVs may be engineered to optimize stopping times and adhere strictly to road
rules, pedestrians’ ability to interpret these actions accurately is crucial for their safety.
Misinterpretations can lead to hazardous situations, underscoring the need for AVs to
communicate their intentions in a manner that aligns with pedestrian expectations and
understanding. Research indicates that even perfectly performing AVs face limitations in
emergency braking scenarios, which can only be mitigated by ensuring that pedestrians
correctly read and react to the vehicle’s behaviors [13]. Therefore, enhancing pedestrian
comprehension of AVs’ intents supports pedestrians’ safety and reinforces AV technologies’
overall effectiveness in mixed-traffic environments. This highlights an urgent research need
to explore and develop more intuitive and universally understandable AV−pedestrian
communication methods.
Future Transp. 2024, 4 724

1.2. Current Gaps for Interacting Pedestrians and AVs

The study of pedestrian and autonomous vehicle (AV) interactions is an evolving field,
yet several gaps warrant further exploration. One significant gap is the limitation of real-
world data. Empirical data on pedestrian−AV interactions is scarce, primarily due to the
limited deployment of AVs on public roads. This scarcity results in a reliance on simulated
environments or controlled field studies, which may not fully capture the complexities of
real-world behaviors [16]. Understanding how pedestrians perceive and respond to AVs’
intentions is crucial, especially given the absence of implicit communication cues, such as
eye contact and gestures, traditionally used in interactions with human-driven vehicles [5].
Pedestrian behavior in response to AVs is poorly understood, making it difficult to model
and predict interactions accurately. The unpredictability of human actions, combined with
the novel presence of AVs, adds another layer of complexity [12]. Ethical and legal consid-
erations also pose significant challenges. The ethical implications of AV decision-making
in critical situations, such as prioritizing pedestrian safety over passengers, are under-
explored [17]. Additionally, legal frameworks for liability in AV-related incidents are still
developing, creating uncertainty in regard to accountability [18]. Another gap lies in un-
derstanding the diverse interaction environments. Interaction dynamics vary significantly
based on urban infrastructure, traffic density, and cultural factors [15]. Comprehensive
knowledge of these variations is crucial for developing AV systems that can operate safely
in diverse environments. This highlights the need for further research to address these
gaps and enhance the safety and efficiency of AV integration into urban settings.

1.3. Aim of the Research

- The primary objective of this review is to explore the latest advancements in methods
and techniques for understanding pedestrian crossing behavior and their interactions
with autonomous vehicles (AVs) without any driver. This synthesis addresses key
questions regarding current practices and innovations in pedestrian dynamics to
enhance safety and improve interaction outcomes. By examining these advancements,
the review seeks to provide insights that can inform future research and development
in pedestrian−AV interactions.
- How is pedestrian behavior currently measured and modeled? Is this transferable to
interactions with AVs?
- Are pedestrians ready to confront AVs on the road?
- What are the ethical aspects of AVs?

1.4. Structure of the Research

The following section outlines the methodology of this research, detailing the chosen
approaches, tools utilized, and metrics for evaluation. It also provides an overview of the
latest state-of-the-art methods for estimating pedestrian behavior. The following section
discusses pedestrian road-crossing behavior. Subsequently, pedestrian interactions with
AVs are discussed, and the ethical aspects of AVs are also analyzed in this section. Lastly, a
discussion and conclusion section identify research gaps in this research domain. Finally,
this section gives an outlook on possible future developments.

2. Methodology
A thorough literature review was conducted following Webster and Watson’s [19]
two-stage strategy to understand pedestrian behavior in driverless AVs’ presence. The
initial phase cast a wide net across various scientific databases, including ProQuest, Inspect
in Engineering Village, CiteSeer, IEEE Xplore, and Google Scholar. The search, tailored
with a carefully chosen set of keywords, spanned publications from 2005 to 2024. The
keywords used included “autonomous vehicle”, “pedestrian interaction”, “safe gap”, “AV
technology”, “pedestrian behavior”, “crossing decisions”, and “implicit communication”.
Exclusion terms were also applied to filter out unrelated studies, ensuring a focus on the
 with a carefully chosen set of keywords, spanned publications from 2005 to 2024. The key-
Future Transp. 2024, 4
words used included “autonomous vehicle”, “pedestrian interaction”, “safe gap”, “AV
725
technology”, “pedestrian behavior”, “crossing decisions”, and “implicit communication.”
Exclusion terms were also applied to filter out unrelated studies, ensuring a focus on the
most recent and relevant research efforts. This extensive search yielded an initial pool of
most recent and relevant research efforts. This extensive search yielded an initial pool of
431 articles, capturing the breadth of the discourse on AVs and pedestrian dynamics.
431 articles, capturing the breadth of the discourse on AVs and pedestrian dynamics.
A rigorous manual screening process was then applied to refine the collection. Titles,
A rigorous manual screening process was then applied to refine the collection. Titles,
abstracts, and authors’ details were reviewed and organized. This curation process led to
abstracts, and authors’ details were reviewed and organized. This curation process led
the exclusion of 309 articles that were either duplicates or did not meet the stringent cri-
to the exclusion of 309 articles that were either duplicates or did not meet the stringent
teria of relevance. The remaining 163 articles underwent a phase of scrutiny in which each
criteria of relevance. The remaining 163 articles underwent a phase of scrutiny in which
paper was assessed
each paper for itsfor
was assessed contribution to the
its contribution to expanding narrative
the expanding of AV−pedestrian
narrative of AV−pedestrian in-
teractions (see
interactions Figure
(see 1).1).
Figure The selected
The articles
selected were
articles critically
were reviewed
critically reviewedto to
piece together
piece togethera
comprehensive story of technological evolution, human behavioral patterns,
a comprehensive story of technological evolution, human behavioral patterns, and the and the un-
folding ethical
unfolding andand
ethical infrastructural
infrastructurallandscape.
landscape.

Figure
Figure1.1.Article
Articlesearch
searchmethodology.
methodology.

The
Thereview
reviewhighlights
highlightsthethecurrent
currentgaps
gapsin instudying
studyingthe theinteraction
interactionbetween
betweenpedestri-
pedestri-
ans and AVs, emphasizing the importance of simulation studies and their opportunities.
ans and AVs, emphasizing the importance of simulation studies and their opportunities.
Specifically,
Specifically, the
the literature
literature revealed
revealed aa notable
notable gap
gapin inunderstanding
understandingpedestrian
pedestrianbehavior
behavioratat
roundabouts
roundaboutsin inthe
the context
context of
ofAVs.
AVs.ThisThisaspect
aspectisiscritical,
critical,as
asroundabouts
roundaboutspresent
presentunique
unique
challenges
challengesand and interactions
interactions compared
compared to to signalized
signalized intersections.
intersections. Citing
Citingrecent
recentstudies,
studies,
such as those by Golchoubian et al. (2023) [20] and Zhou et al. (2021) [21], the review
such as those by Golchoubian et al. (2023) [20] and Zhou et al. (2021) [21], the un-
review
underscores the necessity for future research to delve
derscores the necessity for future research to delve into this area.into this area.
Furthermore,the
Furthermore, thereview
reviewidentifies
identifiesfuture
futureresearch
researchdirections,
directions,including
includingthe
theneed
needtoto
explore the role of explicit versus implicit communication in pedestrian
explore the role of explicit versus implicit communication in pedestrian−AV interactions. − AV interactions.
This is
This is particularly
particularly important,
important, as as the
the literature
literature suggests
suggests aa diminishing
diminishing rolerole for
for explicit
explicit
communication, such
communication, such as
as eye
eyecontact
contactandandhand
handgestures,
gestures, ininfavor
favorofofmore
moreimplicit
implicitcues.
cues.The
The
potential for external human-machine interfaces (HMI) to facilitate
potential for external human-machine interfaces (HMI) to facilitate pedestrian crossing pedestrian crossing
decisions is also discussed, with reference to relevant studies by Dey et al. (2020) [22]. This
decisions is also discussed, with reference to relevant studies by Dey et al. (2020) [22]. This
comprehensive review establishes a robust foundation for future research by outlining
comprehensive review establishes a robust foundation for future research by outlining the
the present state of AV technology and pedestrian safety. It highlights the importance of
present state of AV technology and pedestrian safety. It highlights the importance of ad-
addressing current gaps, particularly in simulation studies and roundabout interactions,
dressing current gaps, particularly in simulation studies and roundabout interactions, and
and sets the stage for subsequent studies to advance the field. The review’s insights are
sets the stage for subsequent studies to advance the field. The review’s insights are crucial
crucial for developing strategies for the harmonious integration of AVs into urban transport
systems, ultimately enhancing the safety of all road users.

3. Pedestrian Behavior Estimation

Numerous studies have concentrated on developing algorithms to predict pedestrian
intentions to cross roadways [23–27]. This task presents considerable challenges due to
Future Transp. 2024, 4 726

the unpredictable nature of pedestrian movements [28,29], which are critical for ensuring
the safe operation of automated vehicles. Notable contributions include a stereo-vision
system by Keller et al. [30] that enables AVs to execute evasive maneuvers, as well as an
assessment by Roth et al. [31] of pedestrian and driver awareness to gauge potential collision
risks. Extensive research has been carried out on pedestrian detection methods [28–31],
predominantly using image data [32,33], 3D points clouds [34,35], or a combination of
both [36,37].
Estimating pedestrian intentions is particularly complex due to the uncertainties
surrounding their next moves [38]. Pedestrians can move in various directions or stop
abruptly [38,39], and their activities, such as talking to others, texting, or using their phones,
add to their unpredictability. Völz et al. [40] noted that non-critical situations have not
yet received significant attention. Quintero et al. [41] observed that the effectiveness of
an intervention might hinge on a brief moment within seconds. As suggested in [23,41],
predictive models integrate pedestrian path predictions with intention estimation. Shirazi
and Morris [42] discuss pedestrian, driver, and vehicle behaviors at intersections and shed
light on distinctive pedestrian motion patterns.
Research on pedestrian behavior encompasses both short-term and long-term pre-
dictions. Long-term studies frequently employ static cameras to anticipate pedestrians’
ultimate destinations or travel paths [43–47]. For example, Karasev et al. [43] applied a
Markov decision process in their model, concentrating on individual pedestrians while
disregarding their interactions with other traffic participants. Kitani et al. [44] predicted
future pedestrian actions using visually noisy data, considering the physical environment’s
influence on behavioral choices. Conversely, short-term models [25,26] estimate a pedes-
trian’s location up to 2.5 s ahead, incorporating factors such as head orientation and body
movement [48].
The study of human body movement is crucial in various fields, such as traffic analysis,
gaming, animation, and sign language interpretation [49]. Vision-based research is domi-
nant in this area. Numerous studies have investigated body language [22], contours [24],
and postures [50] to understand pedestrian intentions. Hariyono and Jo [51] utilized a
neural network to predict actions like walking, bending, starting, and stopping at cross-
walks, focusing on pose recognition, lateral speed, orientation, and scene comprehension.
Quintero et al. [52] employed a Gaussian Process (GP) model to reduce the dimensionality
of 3D coordinates in pedestrian body poses, enhancing the understanding of dynamic
movements such as walking and stopping. They also used Gaussian Process Dynamical
Models (GPDMs) to forecast pedestrian intentions over a one-second horizon, though the
model required over four seconds for accurate predictions [22]. Köhler et al. [24] applied
a HOG-like descriptor in combination with a Support Vector Machine (SVM) to detect
and interpret pedestrian motions. Furuhashi and Yamada [50] analyzed data from static
cameras to predict pedestrian crossing intentions based on postural changes.
Research indicates that pedestrian decision-making is influenced by social norms
within shared spaces [53–62]. Zhu and Sze (2021) [63] analyzed pedestrian behaviors at
crossings through video surveys, using random parameter logit regression to assess var-
ious influences such as demographics and traffic conditions. Soathong et al. (2021) [64]
conducted on-site surveys to explore perceptions of risk and convenience associated with
crossing at mid-block, linking these behaviors to gender-based variations in response to
social and behavioral norms. Bendak et al. (2021) [65] gathered data from urban and
mid-block crosswalks, observing that pedestrians often cross quickly without looking for
oncoming traffic, especially when alone or in small groups. Arellana et al. (2020) [66]
explored how using virtual reality in surveys could enhance the understanding of environ-
mental and social dynamics, noting that such immersive techniques helped participants
better grasp the complex attributes of urban crossing behaviors. These studies highlight the
critical role of social norms [58] and environmental awareness in pedestrian interactions
and decision-making processes.
Future Transp. 2024, 4 727

Pedestrian behavior differs markedly across various cultural contexts, affecting the
overall safety of road users. Solmazer et al. (2020) found that pedestrians in countries like
Turkey and Russia are more prone to risky behaviors, such as crossing against traffic signals
or crossing in areas without designated pedestrian crossings [67]. These behaviors are
less common in countries like Estonia, where pedestrian fatality rates are lower. Deb et al.
(2017) noted that cultural norms and the enforcement of traffic laws significantly influence
pedestrian behaviors, with stricter enforcement being linked to safer practices [68]. In the
United States, self-reported lapses and aggressive behaviors among pedestrians correlate
with higher injury severity in crashes, suggesting that intentional violations and inattentive
behaviors increase pedestrian risk [6,69]. Understanding these behavioral patterns is
essential for developing effective interventions and policies to enhance pedestrian safety in
various traffic environments.
Regional differences in pedestrian behaviors are well documented. Rosenbloom et al.
(2004) conducted an observational study in Israel, comparing pedestrians in ultra-orthodox
and secular areas in regard to five behaviors: running a red light, crossing without a
crosswalk, walking along the road, failing to check for traffic before crossing, and taking
a child’s hand when crossing. They found higher violation rates in ultra-orthodox areas
compared to secular ones [70]. Similarly, a study found that Iranian pedestrians scored
higher in transgressions than Pakistani pedestrians, while Pakistani pedestrians scored
higher in attention violations and aggressive behaviors [71]. McIlroy et al. (2019) compared
pedestrian behaviors in six countries (Bangladesh, China, Kenya, Thailand, the UK, and
Vietnam), finding significant differences in violations, lapses, and aggression [67].
Papadimitriou et al. (2012) reported that 25% of Estonian pedestrians occasionally or
frequently ignored red lights compared to 44% in Greece. Additionally, 41% of Estonian
pedestrians crossed at non-pedestrian crossings, versus 76% in Greece. In Turkey, about
30% of participants occasionally or frequently violated pedestrian traffic rules, with around
70% rarely engaging in lapses [70]. Approximately 40% of participants never displayed ag-
gressive behaviors, while 60% frequently exhibited positive behaviors [71,72]. These studies
highlight the substantial variations in pedestrian behaviors across different countries.

4. Pedestrian Road Crossing Behavior

Perceived risks among pedestrians when encountering AVs may differ based on demo-
graphic elements like age and gender [46,47,69,73–75], further influenced by environmental
and social cues that affect their decision to cross. In an investigation conducted during
live demonstrations of automated pods across European cities, Merat, Louw, Madigan,
Wilbrink, and Schieben (2018) utilized a questionnaire to gather insights from various age
groups [73]. This study assessed safety perceptions related to interactions with automated
pods in shared spaces and examined the types of information that participants deemed
crucial for external display on the pods. Findings revealed a preference for designated
lanes over shared spaces, with most pedestrians feeling they should have precedence over
AVs in mixed-use areas. Additionally, group dynamics and social norms were noted as
significant factors influencing pedestrians’ willingness to take risks.
Research by Yagil [76] suggested that pedestrian adherence to laws is affected by the
observed behaviors of others. Razmi et al. (2020) [77] found that factors such as proximity
to an approaching vehicle, age, familiarity with AV technology, and interactions between
pedestrians and AVs heavily influenced crossing decisions. Lefkowitz et al. [78] observed
that the tendency to imitate others is influenced by the appearance of fellow pedestrians,
with more fashionable attire leading to greater imitation. Conversely, Dolphin et al. [79]
identified that smaller group sizes resulted in higher imitation rates.
Heimstra et al. [80] noted that children often cross streets in groups, with over 80% of
observed instances involving collective crossing, making pedestrians less cautious and more
likely to accept smaller gaps between vehicles [81]. Merat et al. [73] and Hulse et al. [74]
suggest that various factors, including age, gender, AV familiarity, law compliance, geo-
graphic context, and social norms, can influence the perceived risk associated with AVs.
Future Transp. 2024, 4 728

Shifting focus from how vehicle communication affects pedestrian behavior, this section
comprehensively explores the factors impacting pedestrian actions and their interactions
with vehicles.

4.1. Perception of a Pedestrian Gap Acceptance

Decision-making during road crossing is significantly shaped by a pedestrian’s cog-
nitive ability to judge a safe gap, which varies individually rather than being a uniform
measure. Crossing depends on each person’s critical threshold [82,83]. This behavior differs
from one individual to another and is shaped by age and social demographics. For instance,
older individuals typically walk slower and, along with family or friends, prefer longer
gaps, whereas groups of strangers are more likely to take risks. However, Shaaban et al.
(2021) [84] observed that, on a six-lane road, males and groups (platoons) are more likely to
choose smaller gaps. Notably, familiar groups, such as friends or family, are less inclined to
take risks, opting for more significant gaps.
Soathong et al. (2021) [64] suggested that goal-oriented habits or past experiences
influence gap acceptance. Pedestrians are more likely to take risks if it means they can
cross more quickly, with age playing a significant role in these decisions. For instance,
children often lack an accurate perception of safe gaps and are quicker to disregard rules
compared to adults [85,86]. Their unpredictable behavior makes them more difficult to
predict [87]. Similarly, due to diminished cognitive abilities, older adults require more time
to assess their surroundings and exhibit more cautious behavior when crossing. They tend
to evaluate traffic more carefully before making a crossing decision [50] and generally have
a slower walking pace than younger pedestrians [88].
Turner et al. [12] indicated that the physical limitations of elderly pedestrians hinder
their ability to accurately gauge traffic conditions and the speed of oncoming vehicles,
which often results in difficulties when negotiating curbs and excessive start-up times at
curbsides. Additionally, the perception of a safe gap can vary by gender [80]. Research into
pedestrian behaviors has generally found that female pedestrians are more cautious than
males when crossing streets [87]. Typically, females exhibit lower risk-taking behaviors and
higher adherence to traffic regulations [89]. Incidences of unsafe crossings are reported
more frequently among both genders, yet studies also show that behavioral differences
between genders are primarily attributed to distinct beliefs, motivations, and contextual
factors [76,83,90]. Yagil [76] noted that male pedestrians’ decisions to cross are often driven
by the perceived benefits of adhering to traffic laws (normative motives). In contrast, female
pedestrians are more influenced by the perceived dangers associated with crossing (instru-
mental motives). Further studies, such as those by Tom and Granié [89], have analyzed
pedestrian visual search patterns before crossing, highlighting gender-specific differences
in how crossing decisions are made. These findings suggest that male pedestrians often
base their decisions to cross on immediate vehicular activity. At the same time, females
are more likely to consider broader environmental elements, such as road layout, traffic
signals, and the presence of other pedestrians. Despite these insights, Yagil [76] found
no significant gender differences in behavior related to external situational factors, such
as traffic volume, adverse weather conditions, or the presence of other pedestrians. The
cumulative findings from various studies underscore that factors influencing pedestrian
behavior extend beyond age and gender, including how individuals visually perceive their
environment. For instance, moving pedestrians perceive safe gaps (regarding vehicle speed
and distance) more accurately than those standing or waiting.

4.2. Surrounding Environment Perspective

Pedestrian decision-making before crossing a street involves processing multiple
sources of information, including environmental and social cues. Factors affecting their
decisions include vehicular traffic, infrastructure like streetlights and road markings, and
the presence of other pedestrians. For instance, pedestrians tend to halt or delay crossing
at uncontrolled intersections if they perceive fast-approaching vehicles [90]. Conversely,
Future Transp. 2024, 4 729

the presence of a crowd may encourage riskier behavior, as individuals are more likely to
follow the group.
The crossing speed of pedestrians can be affected by the type of road infrastructure
present [91–93]. A study by Crompton (1979) observed different crossing speeds at various
kinds of pedestrian crossings: zebra crossings had a speed of 1.49 m/s, whereas pelican
crossings recorded a higher speed of 1.74 m/s [94]. This suggests that different road
markings can affect pedestrians’ perceptions of safety. According to the Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) (2009) [95], the average walking speed for specific groups
is set at 1.22 m/s. This standard is used to assess the adequacy of crossing intervals at traffic
lights and to determine if additional time is needed for slower pedestrians by pressing the
button [96,97].
Moreover, pedestrian crossing speeds vary across different regions. For example,
research indicates that the average speed at which pedestrians cross at intersections and
mid-block in Melbourne, Australia, is 1.53 m/s [98], while, in Jordan, it is 1.34 m/s [99]. In
Malaysia, the speed at a non-signalized crosswalk averages 1.39 m/s [100], and, in Turkey,
the regulatory design speed is 1.4 m/s, as per the Turkish Standards Institution [101].

4.3. Effect of Traffic Density

Extensive research has explored how pedestrians evaluate the safety of crossing streets
based on dynamic elements such as the speed, direction, and proximity of oncoming
vehicles [21,92,102]. The number of approaching vehicles also influences pedestrian be-
havior; when more than three vehicles are approaching, pedestrians tend to limit their
movements [103]. Assessing vehicle speed and distance is crucial, as these factors are used
to calculate the Time to Collision (TTC), a metric that estimates how long it would take for
a vehicle to reach a pedestrian if it continued at its current speed [86]. Studies typically find
that the average gap acceptance for pedestrians is between 3 and 7 s [86]. This acceptance
varies depending on individual demographic and cultural factors [21,86]. The ability of
pedestrians to judge vehicle speed and distance plays a critical role in their crossing de-
cisions, with difficulty increasing as vehicle speed increases [104]. Sun et al. (2015) [105]
discovered that pedestrians could accurately estimate the speed of vehicles traveling at
or under 45 km/h, but this accuracy decreased as vehicle speeds approached 65 km/h.
Moreover, other characteristics of vehicles, such as their size and type, also affect pedes-
trian behavior. Das, Manski, and Manuszak (2005) [106] found that pedestrians are more
reluctant to cross in front of large, heavy-duty vehicles than in front of smaller passenger
vehicles, largely due to challenges in judging the speed and distance of larger vehicles [107].
Additionally, the type of vehicle impacts how pedestrians judge gaps and their waiting
times. Caird and Hancock (1994) [107] noted that pedestrians are quicker and more accu-
rate in assessing gaps for motorcycles and vans than for larger commercial vehicles. This
compilation of studies highlights the significant impact of vehicle−pedestrian interactions
on pedestrian decision-making regarding when and where to cross the road safely.

4.4. Road Infrastructure Design Perspective

Structured road infrastructure, such as pedestrian streetlights and marked crossings,
plays a crucial role in shaping pedestrian behavior in traffic settings [46,57,91,92]. Efforts
to enhance traffic infrastructure are designed to reduce the risk of collisions [108]. Nev-
ertheless, pedestrian and vehicle interactions persist in signalized zones, where some
pedestrians opt to cross against the signals [109]. Infrastructure design varies in its impact
on traffic flow: traffic at signalized junctions is regulated by lights that govern the flow,
whereas, at zebra crossings, vehicles yield only when pedestrians make their presence
known [110]. Pedestrians exhibit greater vigilance at unmarked crossings compared to
signalized junctions, where their attentiveness may wane [86,111].
Road design also affects pedestrian walking patterns and trajectories. Research in-
dicates that pedestrians are more prone to jaywalking at unmarked junctions, while they
generally comply with crossing regulations at signalized intersections [92,111]. Street width
Future Transp. 2024, 4 730

also influences pedestrian behaviors; narrower streets typically result in shorter pedestrian
gap times, whereas wider streets tend to encourage jaywalking [21,86,109]. Roundabouts
require AVs to navigate complex, continuous traffic flows without signal controls, making
real-time decision-making and advanced sensing critical for pedestrian safety. Research
indicates that, while roundabouts can reduce vehicle speeds and potentially enhance
safety, the integration of AVs introduces new challenges and opportunities for improv-
ing pedestrian−vehicle interactions through advanced technologies and infrastructure
design; the integration of AVs necessitates further study on how these vehicles interpret
and respond to pedestrian behaviors at these intersections [112]. Moreover, pedestrian
walking speed varies depending on the road structure, with individuals walking faster
on crosswalks than on sidewalks [21,113]. Lighting levels further impact the movement
of vehicles and pedestrians. Specifically, during night-time, reduced illumination impairs
pedestrians’ ability to accurately judge traffic risks, prompting more cautious behavior [105].
The behavior of pedestrians on unregulated roads contrasts with that on regulated roads
and junctions, underscoring an uncertainty as to whether pedestrians consistently yield or
assert their right of way during encounters with drivers.

4.5. Exploring Pedestrian’s Risky Behaviors

Extended waiting times at intersections significantly affect pedestrian crossing deci-
sions. Sun et al. (2003) [114] noted that prolonged wait times tend to increase risk-taking
behaviors among pedestrians. Additional research has highlighted that demographic
factors and individual personality traits also influence how long pedestrians wait and
when they decide to cross [115]. Moreover, as outlined in Sections 4.1 and 4.2, it is clear
that a variety of factors beyond mere risk-taking tendencies influences pedestrian crossing
decisions. Conflicts between drivers and pedestrians often arise from the behavior of both
parties within traffic operations [21,116]. The inherent risk of collisions typically keeps
pedestrians on sidewalks, yet this behavior can vary widely across different locations and
cultures [117]. For instance, pedestrians in Manhattan are known to assert their right of
way at unmarked crosswalks and often cross ahead of vehicles. In contrast, in places like
Miami, pedestrians tend to be more cautious due to drivers’ frequent disregard of traffic
rules [98].
Conversely, in crowded areas, drivers often adapt to the unpredictability of pedestrians
by modifying their speed and driving behavior. Regarding autonomous vehicles (AVs),
pedestrians tend to trust these vehicles’ actions less. Recent studies involving human
subjects have indicated a reluctance to cross in front of self-driving vehicle prototypes [118],
although other studies have shown a mix of risk-taking and cautious behaviors in such
situations [20]. The perception of a safe gap in traffic varies among individuals. Analytical
studies on risk assessment in pedestrian crossing behaviors have revealed notable patterns
in waiting time distributions. According to Li [119], the waiting times for a mixed group of
risk-taking and risk-averse pedestrians typically follow a U-shaped distribution, indicating
that risk-takers become impatient with prolonged waiting, while risk-averse individuals are
less likely to cross as their wait extends [120]. However, the latter’s reluctance diminishes
if they see others beginning to cross. Faria et al. [121] suggest that groups of pedestrians
may engage in riskier crossing behaviors under such influences.

5. Pedestrian’s Interactions with Autonomous Vehicles (AVs)

The emergence of autonomous vehicle (AV) technology raises questions about its
impact on pedestrian behavior and pedestrian interactions with these vehicles [111]. Typ-
ically, eye contact between pedestrians and drivers increases the likelihood of vehicles
yielding [122]. Nathanael et al. [123] observed in their naturalistic study that a pedestrian
merely turning their head towards a vehicle was sufficient for drivers to confidently gauge
the pedestrian’s intentions, occurring in about 52% of interactions. However, mutual eye
contact between drivers and pedestrians happened in only 13% of cases, with explicit sig-
naling being noted in just 2% of interactions. Pedestrians often intend to cross the road and
Future Transp. 2024, 4 731

use various signals, such as eye contact or gestures, to communicate their intentions [16].
Human drivers can usually interpret these cues and respond accordingly [86].
Simulation studies play a critical role in AV−human interactions. They provide a con-
trolled environment where various scenarios can be tested without the risks associated with
real-world experiments. This is particularly useful for studying rare but critical situations
like emergency braking or complex roundabout interactions [112]. Advanced simula-
tion tools can incorporate detailed models of pedestrian behavior, allowing researchers
to observe how pedestrians might react to different AV behaviors and communication
methods [41]. Additionally, simulations enable testing a wide range of scenarios, including
those that are difficult to recreate in real life, such as varying traffic densities, different
weather conditions, and the presence of other road users. This capability allows for a
comprehensive evaluation of AV systems under diverse conditions [124]. The iterative
nature of simulation studies also facilitates the continuous testing and refinement of AV
algorithms and communication protocols, ensuring they are robust and effective before
deployment on public roads. They provide a safe and controlled means to explore complex
scenarios, refine AV technologies, and ultimately contribute to safer and more effective
integration of AVs into urban environments.
However, interactions between pedestrians and autonomous vehicles (AVs) can lead to
incorrect crossing decisions due to perception or comprehension challenges, as pedestrians
might struggle to distinguish between human-driven vehicles and AVs [2,125]. Decoding
informal traffic language remains a significant challenge for AVs. Even when a human
driver is present in an AV, they may not be attentive to the road and could be engaged in
other activities, such as reading a newspaper [2,126], which complicates communication
attempts between pedestrians and drivers. Furthermore, cultural variations in the informal
communication used by road users can further complicate the decision-making processes
of robotic vehicles.

5.1. Intent Perception and Communication

The psychological factors influencing pedestrian crossing decisions are complex [50,53,88,116].
Research shows that pedestrian demographics, social dynamics, and traffic conditions
play a significant role in shaping crossing intentions [13,111,125]. However, interactions
with AVs may prompt different behaviors compared to traditional vehicles [111]. Ac-
curately predicting pedestrians’ intentions is essential for AVs to anticipate pedestrians’
potential movements [125]. A significant challenge for future vehicles lies in integrating
diverse contextual information into algorithms that estimate pedestrian intentions [127].
Conversely, it is crucial for the vehicle’s intentions to be clearly communicated to pedes-
trians. Thus, developing an effective communication method to convey the vehicle’s
intentions to human road users represents another challenge [128]. A quasi-experiment by
Gueguen et al. [122] demonstrated that pedestrian behavior at intersections is significantly
influenced by whether or not they make eye contact with drivers. Pedestrians adjusted their
behavior based on whether they perceived a vehicle as automated, with some participants
stopping in their tracks upon noticing an AV.
Rothenbücher et al. [129] conducted experiments using a “ghost driver” platform,
where a human driver was hidden inside a seat suit in a car labeled as an automated
vehicle. The results indicated that this mock automated vehicle did not alter pedestri-
ans’ interactions or crossing behaviors, provided that the vehicle behaved predictably at
pedestrian crossings and roundabouts. Participants reported having lower expectations
of autonomous vehicles compared to human drivers. One participant expressed concerns
about increased risk due to the lack of a visible driver, stating discomfort when crossing
in front of the vehicle. Additionally, a study by Rodríguez Palmeiro et al. [2] found that
while pedestrians’ willingness to cross in the presence of Wizard-of-Oz AVs—where drivers
were distracted or the vehicle was marked as self-driving—did not change, their crossing
behaviors were modified.
Future Transp. 2024, 4 732

5.2. Autonomous Vehicle Visual Signals Concepts

Visual cues have traditionally served as signals on traditional vehicles to convey
driver intentions. Similarly, within the automotive realm, there is a growing acceptance
that AVs can utilize visual cues to communicate their intentions. Several researchers have
proposed conceptual solutions for enhancing communication between AVs and pedestrians,
suggesting the use of displays, lights, and projectors [130]. Lagstrom and Lundgren [131]
explored a video-based approach, incorporating LED strips arranged in different sequences
to indicate various vehicle modes (e.g., LED strips contracting towards the center to show
the vehicle is about to start or expanding towards the sides to indicate it is about to
yield). Their findings revealed that pedestrians quickly understood these signals after
minimal training, replacing the informal communication style of human drivers with more
transparent and immediate notifications.
However, without prior training, these features may not convey messages about the ve-
hicle’s intentions that are easily understandable to the general public. In a study conducted
in 2016, Deb et al. [68] conducted an online survey involving 182 participants to explore
pedestrians’ expectations regarding the external features of AVs, including both visual and
auditory elements, and sought participants’ suggestions. Most respondents preferred visi-
ble indicators, such as a ‘walking pedestrian sign’ or a ‘timer clock’, to indicate the vehicle’s
intention to halt at a crosswalk. Additionally, participants recommended incorporating
audible interaction features to cater to distracted and visually impaired pedestrians.
In a survey conducted by Fridman et al. [132], 30 different design interfaces for various
states of an autonomous vehicle were tested using responses from 200 participants. Among
their findings, they recommended using a green ‘walk’ text accompanied by a pedestrian
silhouette to signal safe crossing while employing ‘do not walk’ in red alongside an upraised
hand to halt pedestrians. However, relying solely on color may lead to confusion due to
differing perspectives among road users. In another study, Clamann et al. [133] explored
different designs for ‘walk’ and ‘don’t walk’ signs. They concluded that pedestrians tend to
base their crossing decisions on established behaviors, such as assessing the gap between
themselves and vehicles and vehicle speed, rather than information presented on external
displays. Notably, in this study, a human passenger was present in the driver’s seat to
manage any adverse situations. The presence of a human driver in an autonomous vehicle
can potentially confuse pedestrians regarding the vehicle’s control, potentially leading to
unpredictable conditions like near-misses or collisions [117].
The authors employed a validated pedestrian simulator [134,135], Unity 3D, and
an HTC Vive headset to better understand pedestrians’ perceptions of AVs. Validation
results from this study indicated that participants’ walking speeds in the simulator closely
matched average pedestrian crossing rates with human-driven vehicles. Survey responses
also revealed that participants felt a strong sense of presence in the virtual environment
and rated the simulator highly in terms of usability and realism [136].

5.3. Investigating Safety Measures for Pedestrians in Autonomous Vehicle Contexts

Since the inception of driver-assist and autonomous vehicle (AV) technologies, en-
hancing safety has remained a primary focus in numerous predictive studies [137–139].
As low-automation AVs become increasingly common on our roads, recent statistics on
AV-related crashes indicate a notable improvement, particularly in crash severity [139].
However, the emergence of new data sources necessitates a more thorough examination
of the safety of various road users in AV environments, with pedestrians being a notably
overlooked segment of the traffic flow [95]. Despite their relatively understudied role,
pedestrians are expected to engage in complex interactions with AVs, especially given
their propensity for random or unexpected behaviors when navigating a mixed-traffic
stream of manually driven vehicles (MDVs) and AVs, which can give rise to noteworthy
conflict patterns.
Most studies focusing on AV−pedestrian interactions place considerable attention
on the AV’s perspective, as it is assumed to bear the responsibility for detecting pedes-
Future Transp. 2024, 4 733

trians on the road and prioritizing their safety [136,140,141]. These studies often employ
mathematical models and deep-learning algorithms to aid AVs in detecting pedestrians
and anticipating their intentions at critical locations, such as crosswalks and traffic sig-
nals. However, much of the research on AV−pedestrian conflicts has relied heavily on
simulation-based approaches due to the limited availability of empirical data [142,143].
Among the scarce studies that have managed to gather data on AV−pedestrian con-
flicts, both Dey et al. (2019) [144] and Rodríguez Palmeiro et al. (2018) [2] were confined
to closed road segments. They found no statistically significant difference in pedestrian
safety between AV−pedestrian conflicts and those involving MDVs. More recent efforts
have addressed some challenges associated with deploying AVs on open roads by utilizing
AV shuttle pods [139]. This approach has enabled investigations into actual pedestrian
behavior under real-world conditions despite the unconventional shape of the pods and
the dedicated lanes allocated to them. Notably, Madigan et al. (2019) [145] utilized 22 h of
video data captured in Greece and France, depicting the traversal of a 2 km route by an
AV pod. By combining manual and automated video analysis, the study identified general
interaction patterns between AVs and road users, with pedestrians maintaining additional
lateral distances from AV pods compared to other vehicles. Similarly, in Québec, Canada,
Beauchamp et al. (2022) [17] conducted a similar study, utilizing 70 h of video footage to
focus on traffic conflict indicators such as Time to Collision (TTC), Post-Encroachment Time
(PET), speed difference, and headway. Their investigation aimed to examine interactions
between AV pods and various road users. While the findings suggested that AVs exhibit
safe behavior during interactions with pedestrians, concerns were raised regarding AV
interactions with MDVs, where reported headways were shorter than typical.

5.4. Autonomous Vehicles and Pedestrian Trust

Pedestrians’ perceptions of AVs can lead to misplaced trust and inaccurate expectations
regarding their behavior. For example, if pedestrians assume that an approaching vehicle
is self-driving, they might accept a shorter gap, believing that AVs will always yield.
Conversely, pedestrians may choose a larger gap due to distrust in the AV’s capabilities,
significantly increasing waiting times. Jayaraman et al. [146] utilized the uncertainty
reduction theory (URT) to explain that pedestrians’ trust in an AV correlates with their
knowledge of it. However, recent research in robotics trust indicates that a user’s trust in a
robot is not solely dependent on its performance [147] but also on their perception of its
capabilities [148].

5.5. Role of eHMIs in Facilitating Pedestrian Crossing Decisions

External Human–Machine Interfaces (eHMIs) have been proposed as a solution to
bridge the communication gap between AVs and pedestrians, especially in the absence
of traditional explicit communication cues such as eye contact and hand gestures [149].
Research indicates that pedestrians rely more on implicit cues, such as vehicle speed and
trajectory, rather than explicit signals when making crossing decisions [112,117].
This suggests that, while explicit communication has its role, it is not the primary
factor in pedestrian decision-making processes. eHMIs can complement these implicit
cues by providing additional layers of information that enhance the predictability and
transparency of AV behavior. For instance, eHMIs can use visual signals (e.g., LED displays
indicating “safe to cross”) [131] or auditory cues to convey the vehicle’s intentions [48],
thereby reinforcing the implicit communication provided by the vehicle’s movement. One
of the key benefits of eHMIs is their potential to enhance safety by making AV behavior
more predictable. Pedestrians often feel uncertain when interacting with AVs due to
the lack of a human driver for interpreting non-verbal cues. By implementing eHMIs
that clearly signal the AV’s actions, such as stopping or yielding, pedestrians can make
more informed decisions about when it is safe to cross [150]. This predictability reduces
hesitation and confusion, potentially decreasing the likelihood of crashes. eHMIs can be
particularly useful in complex traffic scenarios where implicit cues alone may not suffice.
Future Transp. 2024, 4 734

For example, at busy intersections or roundabouts, eHMIs can provide clear signals that
help pedestrians understand the AV’s intended path and actions [112]. Additionally, in
low visibility conditions, such as night-time or adverse weather, eHMIs can offer enhanced
visibility of the vehicle’s intentions, further aiding pedestrian decision-making.
Despite their potential benefits, there are challenges and considerations in implement-
ing eHMIs effectively. One major challenge is ensuring that the signals used by eHMIs
are universally understandable and intuitive for all pedestrians, regardless of age, cul-
tural background, or familiarity with AV technology. Standardization of eHMI signals
is crucial for preventing confusion and ensuring consistency across different AV models
and manufacturers. The reliance on eHMIs should not overshadow the importance of
designing AV systems that inherently promote safe interactions through their behavior.
Overemphasis on explicit communication could inadvertently lead to scenarios where
pedestrians become overly reliant on eHMI signals, potentially neglecting the importance
of implicit cues. eHMIs have the potential to facilitate pedestrian crossing decisions by
enhancing the predictability and transparency of AV actions [149]. They can complement
implicit communication methods, providing additional safety assurances in diverse and
complex traffic scenarios. However, careful consideration must be given to the design
and standardization of eHMIs to ensure they are effective and universally understood.
Balancing eHMIs with robust AV behavior design will be key to fostering safe and efficient
interactions between pedestrians and AV [149].

6. Ethical Aspects of Autonomous Vehicles

The emergence of AVs offers different financial and societal benefits; to ensure these
benefits, many challenges need to be confronted, including ethical challenges. Since human
life is involved in these decision-making processes, making a moral decision in a complex
situation is essential. Often, a situation may arise when a machine may decide to save a
passenger or collide with multiple pedestrians [18]. For example, a situation may arise
for the machine (AV) where it may need to decide if it wants to save its only passenger or
kill five pedestrians. These moral dilemmas are points of concern for autonomous vehicle
programmers [151]. The trolley problem [152] is an example of an ethical issue where an
autonomous machine needs to decide on complicated real-world traffic crashes.
In a 2014 publication, Noah Goodall delves into the ethical considerations surrounding
AVs [153]. Goodall highlights the necessity for vehicles to react swiftly in safety-critical
situations, necessitating pre-programmed decision-making. Given the diverse ethical view-
points in contemporary society, experts have disagreed about incorporating ethics into
vehicle programming. Goodall further explores various facets of autonomous vehicles and
the ethical dilemmas they pose. He acknowledges the widespread discussion of the “trolley
problem”, a hypothetical scenario presenting a choice between two morally challenging op-
tions, such as sacrificing one individual to save multiple others. However, Goodall contends
that this scenario is unrealistic due to the myriad unpredictable outcomes and consequences
of vehicle collisions, significantly amplifying ethical decision-making complexity.
Ethical decisions also vary from culture to culture. For example, if someone needs
to drive from Vancouver, Canada, to Los Angeles, USA, the driver must pass through
Washington, Oregon, California, the USA, British Colombia, and Canada. The autonomous
vehicle needs to pass through various small and large cities and municipalities with
different local laws, customs, and ethical practices regarding pedestrians and localities.
It will become a challenge for the AV manufacturer to incorporate all the geography-
dependent ethical issues [121]. Hence, moral customs need to be embedded with AV-
controlling software systems [154]. Hevelke and Nida-Rümelin delve into the ethical
dimensions of autonomous vehicles, particularly regarding crash scenarios [155]. They
posit that the advent of AV is expected to lead to fewer and less severe crashes, a moral
benefit that strengthens support for this technology. However, they also introduce the
ethical theory of “trading lives”, which suggests that individuals who would not have
been involved in a crash without autonomous vehicles may become victims once this
Future Transp. 2024, 4 735

technology is introduced. This ethical trade-off raises complex moral considerations. An

analogous situation is observed with seat belts, widely recognized as life-saving devices
but occasionally implicated in fatalities. Similarly, AVs present a comparable dilemma if
crash rates are as low as anticipated.
Hevelke and Nida-Rumelin further explore liability scenarios in an autonomous vehi-
cle environment [155]. They propose two potential liability models, one in which all users
share the risk through taxation or mandatory insurance and another in which the user bears
responsibility at the time of the incident. This underscores the need for a comprehensive
understanding of liability frameworks in the context of autonomous vehicles. A study
conducted at Stanford University in 2015 by Gerdes and Thornton endeavors to identify
practical ethical frameworks for implementation in autonomous vehicles [156]. The authors
conclude that no single ethical approach is ideal for programming decision-making in
autonomous vehicles, advocating instead for a combination of ethical principles. They
also raise the moral dilemma of human override, questioning the ethics of transferring
responsibility and control to a human driver when the vehicle possesses data indicat-
ing an imminent collision. Moreover, the study emphasizes the importance of aligning
autonomous vehicles’ capabilities with societal expectations regarding responsibility for
adverse outcomes. The only existing publication addressing an agreed-upon Code of
Ethics for AV is a 2017 report by the German Ethics Commission on Automated and Con-
nected Driving [157]. This report underscores the historical precedence of ethical concerns
surrounding automated transportation systems, and it advocates for prioritizing ethical
considerations in developing and deploying autonomous vehicles.
Another major concern is privacy issues associated with sharing road users’ personal
information [70]. Currently, five states and the District of Columbia have enacted laws
addressing autonomous vehicles, but none adequately cover key areas of data privacy and
security, such as the collection, use, and protection of consumer data gathered by AVs. This
regulatory gap leaves consumers vulnerable to data breaches and cyber-attacks. Hackers
could potentially access personal data, track vehicle locations, and even determine if a
driver is home, posing significant privacy risks [158]. Moreover, cyber-attacks on AVs could
have fatal consequences, threatening not just the vehicle’s occupants but also pedestrians
and other road users. Addressing data privacy concerns and upgrading road infrastructure
are critical components of the ethical and safe deployment of AVs. Ensuring robust data
protection measures and enhancing infrastructure to support AVs and vulnerable road
users will help mitigate risks and promote a harmonious integration of this advanced
technology into our transportation systems.

7. Limitations and Drawbacks in Modeling AV−Pedestrian Interactions

Modeling the interactions between AVs and pedestrians is a critical yet challenging
aspect of urban traffic management and AV technology development. This complexity
arises from the unpredictable nature of human behavior and the technical limitations of
current AV systems. Modeling the interactions between pedestrians and AVs presents
numerous challenges due to the intricacy of traffic dynamics and evolving road user behav-
iors. Song et al. (2023) highlight the necessity for pedestrians to adapt their behavior to
accommodate AVs, a new road presence [158]. As AVs continue integrating into everyday
traffic, the imperative grows for these systems to effectively decode and respond to the
nuanced, often non-verbal communication cues traditionally used in human traffic interac-
tions. Such advancements are vital to mitigating potential misunderstandings that could
lead to confusion or traffic crashes [156].
Technological Readiness: While AV technology has advanced significantly, fully au-
tonomous vehicles are not yet commonplace on public roads. The existing models are
primarily at various semi-autonomy levels, meaning they can handle specific driving
tasks but require human oversight for complex decision-making situations. This transi-
tional phase poses challenges in predicting interactions between human-driven vehicles,
semi-autonomous vehicles, and pedestrians.
Future Transp. 2024, 4 736

Behavioral Adaptation: Pedestrians are accustomed to interacting with human drivers

through subtle cues like eye contact and gestures, which help them assess the driver’s
awareness and intentions. AVs, however, lack these human elements, making it difficult
for pedestrians to predict vehicle behavior. The absence of universally understood signals
from AVs adds another layer of complexity to pedestrian decision-making processes.
Inconsistent Communication Standards: There is currently no standardized method for
AVs to communicate their intentions to pedestrians, such as stopping or yielding. Different
manufacturers might implement various signaling systems, which can confuse pedestrians
and lead to unsafe crossing decisions. Establishing a uniform communication protocol that
is easily recognizable and understood by all pedestrians is crucial.
Dynamic Interaction Environments: The environments where pedestrians and AVs
interact are highly dynamic and often unpredictable. Variables such as weather conditions,
traffic density, and urban infrastructure can significantly affect the behavior of pedestrians
and vehicles. Modeling these interactions requires sophisticated simulation tools that can
account for the myriad environmental factors impacting decision-making on both sides.
Data and Methodological Gaps: There is a scarcity of empirical data on real-world
AV−pedestrian interactions, limiting the ability to model these encounters accurately. Most
current research relies on simulated environments or controlled field studies, which may
not fully capture the complexities of spontaneous human behavior in naturalistic settings.
Ethical and Legal Considerations: As AVs take on more driving responsibilities, questions
about liability and ethical decision-making in the event of a crash become more pressing.
Modeling these scenarios involves technical considerations and ethical frameworks that
guide the behavior of AVs in critical situations.
Numerous unresolved queries linger within the realm of automation technology.
These include identifying pivotal factors shaping pedestrian behavior, understanding their
ramifications on pedestrian actions, discerning potential interrelations among these factors,
and devising strategies for integrating them into autonomous vehicle (AV) technology.

8. Discussion
The primary aim of this research was to explore and analyze advancements in pedes-
trian dynamics and interactions with autonomous vehicles (AVs), with a focus on improving
urban transport systems and pedestrian safety. Our findings indicate that, while AV tech-
nology can potentially enhance urban mobility and reduce traffic accidents, significant
challenges remain, particularly in ensuring pedestrian safety in mixed-traffic environments.
This study has revealed critical insights into pedestrian behavior in the presence of AVs,
emphasizing the need for more intuitive communication systems that can replace tradi-
tional cues like eye contact and gestures. We found that AVs can interpret pedestrian
intentions with a certain level of accuracy thanks to advanced sensors and processing
capabilities. However, the absence of human-like interactions—such as acknowledgment
through gestures or facial expressions—poses a significant challenge. This research has
shown that effective communication between AVs and pedestrians is crucial and can be
significantly enhanced by implementing external Human–Machine Interfaces (eHMIs).
These systems must be designed to convey clear and understandable signals to pedestrians
to ensure their safety and foster smoother integration into urban settings. Moreover, this
research highlights the importance of incorporating these findings into developing urban
infrastructure and traffic management policies. Integrating AVs into urban centers requires
technological adaptation and infrastructural changes that accommodate both AVs and
traditional vehicles without compromising pedestrian safety. Future policies should focus
on creating environments where AVs and human road users, including pedestrians and
cyclists, can coexist safely. This might involve redesigning crosswalks, modifying traffic
signals, and, perhaps most importantly, standardizing AV communication protocols to
ensure that all pedestrians can easily understand AV intentions.
Future Transp. 2024, 4 737

8.1. Policy and Practical Implementation for AV and Pedestrian Interaction

Developing effective policies and practical implementations for AV and pedestrian
interactions is crucial for ensuring safety and public trust in autonomous vehicle technology.
Policymakers must establish comprehensive regulations that address key aspects of AV op-
erations, including data privacy, cybersecurity, and the design of external Human–Machine
Interfaces (eHMIs). For instance, regulations should mandate the use of standardized
eHMI signals to communicate AV intentions clearly to pedestrians, enhancing safety at
crossings and other shared spaces. Such standards can include visual signals (like lights or
symbols) and auditory cues to indicate when it is safe to cross. Additionally, policies should
enforce stringent data privacy protections to prevent unauthorized access to sensitive
information collected by AVs, addressing significant ethical concerns. These protections
should include robust encryption methods and strict data handling protocols to ensure
that pedestrian and vehicle data are used appropriately and securely. On the practical side,
integrating AV technology with existing urban infrastructures requires a multifaceted ap-
proach. Cities should invest in smart infrastructure, such as intelligent traffic management
systems that utilize Vehicle-to-Everything (V2X) communication to provide real-time traffic
data, improving AV navigation and pedestrian safety. Dedicated lanes for AVs can help
segregate different types of road users, reducing the likelihood of accidents. Additionally,
the implementation of smart crosswalks equipped with sensors and eHMIs can facilitate
safer pedestrian crossings by clearly signaling AV intentions. Public awareness campaigns
are essential to educate pedestrians about how to interact safely with AVs, including rec-
ognizing and understanding eHMI signals. Pilot projects and real-world testing of these
technologies and policies can provide valuable insights into their effectiveness, allowing for
continuous improvement. This iterative process helps adapt both policies and technologies
to ensure a seamless and safe integration of AVs into everyday traffic environments. By
focusing on these comprehensive strategies, cities can create an environment where AVs
and pedestrians coexist safely. This approach not only enhances public safety but also
builds public confidence in AV technology, paving the way for broader adoption and more
efficient transportation systems.

8.2. Future Direction

Continued research is needed to explore the long-term implications of AV integration,
focusing on pedestrian behavior, technological advancements, and the evolving landscape
of urban traffic management. Future research should prioritize enhancing implicit commu-
nication methods between AVs and pedestrians, understanding how pedestrian behaviors
adapt over time, and utilizing simulation studies to explore complex interaction scenarios.
Developing ethical decision-making frameworks for AVs is crucial, ensuring that these
systems can handle critical situations with moral considerations. Additionally, evolving
policy and regulatory frameworks to address liability issues, standardize communication
protocols, and redesign urban infrastructure will support AVs’ safe and effective integration
into urban environments. These efforts will improve transportation safety, efficiency, and
public trust in AV technology.
The findings from this review make a significant contribution to the field by providing
a clearer understanding of how AVs and pedestrians interact and by outlining the adjust-
ments necessary in urban transport systems to accommodate emerging AV technologies.
The study emphasizes the need for continuous collaboration between technologists, urban
planners, and policy-makers to ensure that the integration of AVs into urban transport
systems prioritizes human safety, efficiency, and public trust. Our review contributes
foundational insights that will aid in developing effective strategies for the harmonious
integration of AVs into society, ensuring that this transition supports the safety and effi-
ciency of all road users. The strategic development of AV technology, grounded in ethical
considerations and supported by appropriate policy and implementation adaptations, is
essential for successfully integrating AVs into everyday life [111,117].
Future Transp. 2024, 4 738

9. Conclusions
This review ventures into the nuanced dynamics of pedestrian interactions with
autonomous vehicles (AVs), shedding light on the complex challenges and critical devel-
opment areas as AVs become more prevalent in urban traffic systems. The disruption of
traditional communication methods—eye contact and gestures—that pedestrians use to
gauge vehicle intentions, which are absent in AVs, creates a communication gap. This gap
in communication raises safety concerns, particularly in complex environments like near
schools or hospitals where nuanced interactions are crucial [159]. This absence necessi-
tates the development of new forms of communication that can effectively convey AVs’
intentions to pedestrians to ensure safety across various urban environments. Our findings
emphasize that, while AVs detect pedestrians and other vehicles, they cannot engage in
nuanced human-like interactions, which are crucial in complex environments like school
zones or busy urban centers. This limitation could potentially lead to safety risks if not
addressed adequately. Moreover, the ethical considerations associated with deploying
AVs in pedestrian-rich areas highlight the need for AVs to make decisions that align with
societal ethical standards, ensuring that these technologies do not compromise human
safety for operational efficiency.
In light of these insights, it becomes clear that policy and infrastructure must evolve in
tandem with the advancement of AV technology. This includes redesigning traffic systems
and urban infrastructures to accommodate AVs and traditional vehicles without compro-
mising the safety of all road users. For instance, integrating smart traffic management
systems that can communicate directly with AVs and other road users can significantly
enhance the safety and efficiency of urban transportation. Furthermore, our review un-
derlines the importance of continuous research into AV−pedestrian interactions, focusing
on developing advanced communication interfaces and detection technologies. These
technologies should find a way to mimic human interactions and anticipate pedestrian
movements more accurately, thus improving the overall safety of urban transportation.
In conclusion, integrating AVs promises significant benefits, such as reduced traffic
congestion and enhanced safety. The transition towards integrating AVs into urban traffic
systems offers substantial benefits, such as reduced traffic congestion and lower accident
rates. However, this transition also requires careful consideration of this technology’s opera-
tional challenges and ethical dilemmas. Through collaborative efforts among technologists,
urban planners, policymakers, and the public, we can ensure that the integration of AVs
into our urban landscapes is conducted in a safe, efficient, and ethically responsible manner.

Author Contributions: The authors confirm their contribution to the paper as follows: study concep-
tion and design: N.L.; data collection: S.R.; analysis and interpretation of results: S.R. and N.L.; draft
manuscript preparation: S.R. and N.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding: This work was supported by the CAMMSE (Center for Advanced Multimodal Mobility
Solutions and Education). The grant number is Project ID 2022 Project 09.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Acknowledgments: This work was supported by the CAMMSE (Center for Advanced Multimodal
Mobility Solutions and Education). CAMMSE is a Tier 1 UTC (University Transportation Center) and
a consortium of five universities led by The University of North Carolina, Charlotte (UNC Charlotte).
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Future Transp. 2024, 4 739

References
1. Du, H.; Zhu, G.; Zheng, J. Why travelers trust and accept self-driving cars: An empirical study. Travel Behav. Soc. 2021, 22, 1–9.
[CrossRef]
2. Palmeiro, A.R.; van der Kint, S.; Vissers, L.; Farah, H.; de Winter, J.C.; Hagenzieker, M. Interaction between pedestrians and
automated vehicles: A Wizard of Oz experiment. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2018, 58, 1005–1020. [CrossRef]
3. Hancock, P.A.; Nourbakhsh, I.; Stewart, J. On the future of transportation in an era of automated and autonomous vehicles. Proc.
Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2019, 116, 7684–7691. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4. J3016_201806; Definitions for Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for On-Road Motor Vehicles. SAE International:
Warrendale, PA, USA, 2016.
5. Kalantari, A.H.; Yang, Y.; de Pedro, J.G.; Lee, Y.M.; Horrobin, A.; Solernou, A.; Holmes, C.; Merat, N.; Markkula, G. Who goes
first? A distributed simulator study of vehicle–pedestrian interaction. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2023, 186, 107050. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
6. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 2016 Fatal Motor Vehicle Crashes: Overview; US Department of Transportation:
Washington, DC, USA, 2017.
7. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Automated Driving Systems 2.0: A Vision for Safety; US Department of Transporta-
tion: Washington, DC, USA, 2017; Volume 812, p. 442.
8. Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies. Are Societies Ready for Autonomous Vehicles? 2017. Available online: https:
//www.iass-potsdam.de/en/news/are-societies-ready-autonomous-vehicles (accessed on 13 November 2020).
9. Hicks, D.J. The safety of autonomous vehicles: Lessons from philosophy of science. IEEE Technol. Soc. Mag. 2018, 37, 62–69.
[CrossRef]
10. Wu, J.D.; Miller, M.; Stoeltje, G.; Le, M.; Hwang, W.; Huang, T.; Hu, N.; Zalila-Wenkstern, R.; Torabi, B.; Li, X. Digitizing Traffic
Control Infrastructure for Autonomous Vehicles (AV); Technical Report No. FHWA/TX-23/0-7128-R1; Texas A&M Transportation
Institute: Bryan, TX, USA, 2024.
11. Owens, N.D.; Armstrong, A.H.; Mitchell, C.; Brewster, R. Federal Highway Administration Focus States Initiative: Traffic Incident
Management Performance Measures; Final Report No. FHWA-HOP-10-010; Federal Highway Administration: Washington, DC,
USA, 2009.
12. Turner, S.; Sandt, L.; Toole, J.; Benz, R.; Patten, R. Federal Highway Administration University Course on Bicycle and Pedestrian
Transportation; No. FHWA-HRT-05-133; US Department of Transportation: Washington, DC, USA, 2006.
13. Rasouli, A.; Tsotsos, J.K. Autonomous vehicles that interact with pedestrians: A survey of theory and practice. IEEE Trans. Intell.
Transp. Syst. 2019, 21, 900–918. [CrossRef]
14. Dey, D.; Terken, J. Pedestrian interaction with vehicles: Roles of explicit and implicit communication. In Proceedings of the 9th
International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications, Oldenburg, Germany, 24–27
September 2017; pp. 109–113.
15. Lundgren, V.M.; Habibovic, A.; Andersson, J.; Lagström, T.; Nilsson, M.; Sirkka, A.; Fagerlönn, J.; Fredriksson, R.; Edgren, C.;
Krupenia, S.; et al. Will there be new communication needs when introducing automated vehicles to the urban context? In
Advances in Human Aspects of Transportation; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 485–497.
16. Langton, S.R.; Watt, R.J.; Bruce, V. Do the eyes have it? Cues to the direction of social attention. Trends Cogn. Sci. 2000, 4, 50–59.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
17. Beauchamp, É.; Saunier, N.; Cloutier, M.S. Study of automated shuttle interactions in city traffic using surrogate measures of
safety. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 2022, 135, 103465. [CrossRef]
18. Cunneen, M.; Mullins, M.; Murphy, F.; Shannon, D.; Furxhi, I.; Ryan, C. Autonomous vehicles and avoiding the trolley (dilemma):
Vehicle perception, classification, and the challenges of framing decision ethics. Cybern. Syst. 2020, 51, 59–80. [CrossRef]
19. Webster, J.; Watson, R.T. Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. MIS Q. 2002, 26, xiii–xxiii.
20. Golchoubian, M.; Ghafurian, M.; Dautenhahn, K.; Azad, N.L. Pedestrian trajectory prediction in pedestrian-vehicle mixed
environments: A systematic review. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. 2023, 24, 11544–11567. [CrossRef]
21. Zhou, S.; Sun, X.; Liu, B.; Burnett, G. Factors affecting pedestrians’ trust in automated vehicles: Literature review and theoretical
model. IEEE Trans. Hum.-Mach. Syst. 2021, 52, 490–500. [CrossRef]
22. Dey, D.; Habibovic, A.; Löcken, A.; Wintersberger, P.; Pfleging, B.; Riener, A.; Martens, M.; Terken, J. Taming the eHMI jungle: A
classification taxonomy to guide, compare, and assess the design principles of automated vehicles’ external human-machine
interfaces. Transp. Res. Interdiscip. Perspect. 2020, 7, 100174. [CrossRef]
23. Schulz, A.T.; Stiefelhagen, R. A controlled interactive multiple model filter for combined pedestrian intention recognition and
path prediction. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE 18th International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems, Gran
Canaria, Spain, 15–18 September 2015; pp. 173–178.
24. Köhler, S.; Goldhammer, M.; Zindler, K.; Doll, K.; Dietmeyer, K. Stereo-vision-based pedestrian’s intention detection in a moving
vehicle. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE 18th International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems, Gran Canaria,
Spain, 15–18 September 2015; pp. 2317–2322.
25. Bonnin, S.; Weisswange, T.H.; Kummert, F.; Schmüdderich, J. Pedestrian crossing prediction using multiple context-based models.
In Proceedings of the 17th International IEEE Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC), Qingdao, China, 8–11
October 2014; pp. 378–385.
Future Transp. 2024, 4 740

26. Kooij, J.F.P.; Schneider, N.; Flohr, F.; Gavrila, D.M. Context-based pedestrian path prediction. In Proceedings of the European
Conference on Computer Vision, Zurich, Switzerland, 6–12 September 2014; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2014; pp. 618–633.
27. Li, X.; Li, L.; Flohr, F.; Wang, J.; Xiong, H.; Bernhard, M.; Pan, S.; Gavrila, D.M.; Li, K. A unified framework for concurrent
pedestrian and cyclist detection. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. 2016, 18, 269–281. [CrossRef]
28. Ferguson, S.; Luders, B.; Grande, R.C.; How, J.P. Real-time predictive modeling and robust avoidance of pedestrians with
uncertain, changing intentions. In Proceedings of the Algorithmic Foundations of Robotics XI, Istanbul, Turkey, 3–5 August 2014;
Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2015; pp. 161–177.
29. Schneider, N.; Gavrila, D.M. Pedestrian path prediction with recursive Bayesian filters: A comparative study. In Proceedings
of the German Conference on Pattern Recognition, Saarbrücken, Germany, 3–6 September 2013; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg,
Germany, 2013; pp. 174–183.
30. Keller, C.G.; Dang, T.; Fritz, H.; Joos, A.; Rabe, C.; Gavrila, D.M. Active pedestrian safety by automatic braking and evasive
steering. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. 2011, 12, 1292–1304. [CrossRef]
31. Roth, M.; Flohr, F.; Gavrila, D.M. Driver and pedestrian awareness-based collision risk analysis. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE
Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV), Gothenburg, Sweden, 19–22 June 2016; pp. 454–459.
32. Bertozzi, M.; Castangia, L.; Cattani, S.; Prioletti, A.; Versari, P. 360 detection and tracking algorithm of both pedestrian and vehicle
using fisheye images. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV), Seoul, Republic of Korea, 28 June–1
July 2015; pp. 132–137.
33. Ye, Q.; Liang, J.; Jiao, J. Pedestrian detection in video images via error correcting output code classification of manifold subclasses.
IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst. 2011, 13, 193–202. [CrossRef]
34. Meissner, D.; Reuter, S.; Dietmayer, K. Real-time detection and tracking of pedestrians at intersections using a network of
laserscanners. In Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium, Alcala de Henares, Spain, 3–7 June 2012; pp.
630–635.
35. Jin, L.; Niu, Q.; Hou, H.; Hu, S.; Wang, F. Study on vehicle front pedestrian detection based on 3D laser scanner. In Proceedings of
the 2011 International Conference on Transportation, Mechanical, and Electrical Engineering (TMEE), Changchun, China, 16–18
December 2011; pp. 735–738.
36. Lin, S.F.; Lee, C.H. Pedestrians and vehicles recognition based on image recognition and laser distance detection. In Proceedings
of the 2016 16th International Conference on Control, Automation and Systems (ICCAS), Gyeongju, Republic of Korea, 16–19
October 2016; pp. 1232–1237.
37. Schlosser, J.; Chow, C.K.; Kira, Z. Fusing lidar and images for pedestrian detection using convolutional neural networks. In
Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), Stockholm, Sweden, 16–21 May
2016; pp. 2198–2205.
38. Benenson, R.; Omran, M.; Hosang, J.; Schiele, B. Ten years of pedestrian detection, what have we learned? In Proceedings of the
European Conference on Computer Vision, Zurich, Switzerland, 6–12 September 2014; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2015; pp.
613–627.
39. Gandhi, T.; Trivedi, M.M. Computer vision and machine learning for enhancing pedestrian safety. In Computational Intelligence in
Automotive Applications; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2008; pp. 59–77.
40. Völz, B.; Behrendt, K.; Mielenz, H.; Gilitschenski, I.; Siegwart, R.; Nieto, J. A data-driven approach for pedestrian intention
estimation. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE 19th International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC), Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil, 1–4 November 2016; pp. 2607–2612.
41. Quintero, R.; Parra, I.; Llorca, D.F.; Sotelo, M.A. Pedestrian intention and pose prediction through dynamical models and
behaviour classification. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE 18th International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems,
Gran Canaria, Spain, 15–18 September 2015; pp. 83–88.
42. Shirazi, M.S.; Morris, B. Observing behaviors at intersections: A review of recent studies & developments. In Proceedings of the
2015 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV), Seoul, Republic of Korea, 28 June–1 July 2015; pp. 1258–1263.
43. Karasev, V.; Ayvaci, A.; Heisele, B.; Soatto, S. Intent-aware long-term prediction of pedestrian motion. In Proceedings of the 2016
IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), Stockholm, Sweden, 16–21 May 2016; pp. 2543–2549.
44. Kitani, K.M.; Ziebart, B.D.; Bagnell, J.A.; Hebert, M. Activity forecasting. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer
Vision, Florence, Italy, 7–13 October 2012; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012; pp. 201–214.
45. Deo, N.; Trivedi, M.M. Learning and predicting on-road pedestrian behavior around vehicles. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE
20th International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC), Yokohama, Japan, 16–19 October 2017; pp. 1–6.
46. Ezzati Amini, R.; Katrakazas, C.; Riener, A.; Antoniou, C. Interaction of automated driving systems with pedestrians: Challenges,
current solutions, and recommendations for eHMIs. Transp. Rev. 2021, 41, 788–813. [CrossRef]
47. Ezzati Amini, R.; Katrakazas, C.; Antoniou, C. Negotiation and decision-making for a pedestrian roadway crossing: A literature
review. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6713. [CrossRef]
48. Rehder, E.; Kloeden, H. Goal-directed pedestrian prediction. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer
Vision Workshops, Santiago, Chile, 7–13 December 2015.
49. Gavrila, D.M. The visual analysis of human movement: A survey. Comput. Vis. Image Underst. 1999, 73, 82–98. [CrossRef]
50. Furuhashi, R.; Yamada, K. Estimation of street crossing intention from a pedestrian’s posture on a sidewalk using multiple image
frames. In Proceedings of the First Asian Conference on Pattern Recognition, Beijing, China, 28 November 2011; pp. 17–21.
Future Transp. 2024, 4 741

51. Hariyono, J.; Jo, K.H. Pedestrian action recognition using motion type classification. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE 2nd
International Conference on Cybernetics (CYBCONF), Gdynia, Poland, 24–26 June 2015; pp. 129–132.
52. Quintero, R.; Parra, I.; Llorca, D.F.; Sotelo, M.A. Pedestrian path prediction based on body language and action classification.
In Proceedings of the 17th International IEEE Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC), Qingdao, China, 8–11
October 2014; pp. 679–684.
53. Stamatiadis, N.; Pappalardo, G.; Cafiso, S.; Nathanail, E.; Karakikes, I. Data Analytics: Paving the Way to Sustainable Urban
Mobility. In Proceedings of the CSUM, Skiathos Island, Greece, 24–25 May 2018. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing.
54. Helbing, D.; Molnar, P. Social force model for pedestrian dynamics. Phys. Rev. E 1995, 51, 4282. [CrossRef]
55. Tamura, Y.; Dai Le, P.; Hitomi, K.; Chandrasiri, N.P.; Bando, T.; Yamashita, A.; Asama, H. Development of pedestrian behavior
model taking account of intention. In Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and
Systems, Vilamoura, Portugal, 7–12 October 2012; pp. 382–387.
56. Zeng, W.; Chen, P.; Nakamura, H.; Iryo-Asano, M. Application of social force model to pedestrian behavior analysis at signalized
crosswalk. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 2014, 40, 143–159. [CrossRef]
57. Zou, F.; Ogle, J.; Jin, W.; Gerard, P.; Petty, D.; Robb, A. Pedestrian behavior interacting with autonomous vehicles during unmarked
midblock multilane crossings: Role of infrastructure design, AV operations and signaling. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav.
2024, 100, 84–100. [CrossRef]
58. Rezwana, S.; Jackson, E.; Filipovska, M.; Lownes, N. A Modified Social Force Model (SFM) for Pedestrian Behavior in the Presence
of Autonomous Vehicles (AVs). In Proceedings of the International Conference on Transportation and Development, Seattle, WA,
USA, 31 May–3 June 2022; pp. 51–63.
59. Arellana, J.; Fernández, S.; Figueroa, M.; Cantillo, V. Analyzing pedestrian behavior when crossing urban roads by combining RP
and SP data. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2022, 85, 259–275. [CrossRef]
60. Prédhumeau, M.; Spalanzani, A.; Dugdale, J. Pedestrian behavior in shared spaces with autonomous vehicles: An integrated
framework and review. IEEE Trans. Intell. Veh. 2021, 8, 438–457. [CrossRef]
61. Merat, N.; Lee, Y.M.; Markkula, G.; Uttley, J.; Camara, F.; Fox, C.; Dietrich, A.; Weber, F.; Schieben, A. How do we study pedestrian
interaction with automated vehicles? Preliminary findings from the European interACT project. In Road Vehicle Automation 6;
Springer International Publishing: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019; pp. 21–33.
62. Nordfjærn, T.; Zavareh, M.F. Individualism, collectivism and pedestrian safety: A comparative study of young adults from Iran
and Pakistan. Saf. Sci. 2016, 87, 8–17. [CrossRef]
63. Zhu, D.; Sze, N.N. Propensities of red light running of pedestrians at the two-stage crossings with split pedestrian signal phases.
Accid. Anal. Prev. 2021, 151, 105958. [CrossRef]
64. Soathong, A.; Chowdhury, S.; Wilson, D.; Ranjitkar, P. Investigating the motivation for pedestrians’ risky crossing behaviour at
urban mid-block road sections. Travel Behav. Soc. 2021, 22, 155–165. [CrossRef]
65. Bendak, S.; Alnaqbi, A.M.; Alzarooni, M.Y.; Aljanaahi, S.M.; Alsuwaidi, S.J. Factors affecting pedestrian behaviors at signalized
crosswalks: An empirical study. J. Saf. Res. 2021, 76, 269–275. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
66. Arellana, J.; Garzón, L.; Estrada, J.; Cantillo, V. On the use of virtual immersive reality for discrete choice experiments to modelling
pedestrian behaviour. J. Choice Model. 2020, 37, 100251. [CrossRef]
67. McIlroy, R.C.; Plant, K.L.; Jikyong, U.; Nam, V.H.; Bunyasi, B.; Kokwaro, G.O.; Wu, J.; Hoque, M.S.; Preston, J.M.; Stanton, N.A.
Vulnerable road users in low-, middle-, and high-income countries: Validation of a Pedestrian Behaviour Questionnaire. Accid.
Anal. Prev. 2019, 131, 80–94. [CrossRef]
68. Deb, S.; Warner, B.; Poudel, S.; Bhandari, S. Identification of external design preferences in autonomous vehicles. In Proceedings
of the 2016 Industrial and Systems Engineering Research Conference, San Francisco, CA, USA, 13–14 October 2016; IISE: Anaheim,
CA, USA, 2016; pp. 44–69.
69. Rad, S.R.; de Almeida Correia, G.H.; Hagenzieker, M. Pedestrians’ road crossing behaviour in front of automated vehicles: Results
from a pedestrian simulation experiment using agent-based modelling. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2020, 69, 101–119.
70. Papadimitriou, E.; Theofilatos, A.; Yannis, G.; Sardi, G.M.; Freeman, R.P. Road safety attitudes and perceptions of pedestrians in
Europe. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 48, 2490–2500. [CrossRef]
71. Demir, B. The Social Psychological Predictors of Pedestrian Behaviors. Graduate’s Thesis, Middle East Technical University,
Ankara, Turkey, 2017.
72. Schmidt, T.; Philipsen, R.; Ziefle, M. From V2X to control2trust: Why trust and control are major attributes in Vehicle2X
Technologies. In Proceedings of the Human Aspects of Information Security, Privacy, and Trust: Third International Conference,
HAS, Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2–7 August 2015; Proceedings 3. Springer International Publishing: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany,
2015; pp. 570–581.
73. Merat, N.; Louw, T.; Madigan, R.; Wilbrink, M.; Schieben, A. What externally presented information do VRUs require when
interacting with fully Automated Road Transport Systems in shared space? Accid. Anal. Prev. 2018, 118, 244–252. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
74. Hulse, L.M.; Xie, H.; Galea, E.R. Perceptions of autonomous vehicles: Relationships with road users, risk, gender and age. Saf. Sci.
2018, 102, 1–13. [CrossRef]
75. Rosenbloom, T.; Nemrodov, D.; Barkan, H. For heaven’s sake follow the rules: Pedestrians’ behavior in an ultra-orthodox and a
non-orthodox city. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2004, 7, 395–404. [CrossRef]
Future Transp. 2024, 4 742

76. Yagil, D. Beliefs, motives and situational factors related to pedestrians’ self-reported behavior at signal-controlled crossings.
Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2000, 3, 1–13. [CrossRef]
77. Patterson, M.L.; Iizuka, Y.; Tubbs, M.E.; Ansel, J.; Tsutsumi, M.; Anson, J. Passing encounters east and west: Comparing Japanese
and American pedestrian interactions. J. Nonverbal Behav. 2007, 31, 155–166. [CrossRef]
78. Lefkowitz, M.; Blake, R.R.; Mouton, J.S. Status factors in pedestrian violation of traffic signals. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 1955, 51,
704. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
79. Dolphin, J.; Kennedy, L.; O’Donnell, S.; Wilde, G.J.S. Factors Influencing Pedestrian Violations; Queens University: Kingston, ON,
Canada, 1970; unpublished manuscript.
80. Heimstra, N.W.; Nichols, J.; Martin, G. An experimental methodology for analysis of child pedestrian behavior. Pediatrics 1969, 44,
832–838. [CrossRef]
81. Harrell, W.A. Factors influencing pedestrian cautiousness in crossing streets. J. Soc. Psychol. 1991, 131, 367–372. [CrossRef]
82. Theofilatos, A.; Ziakopoulos, A.; Oviedo-Trespalacios, O.; Timmis, A. To cross or not to cross? Review and meta-analysis of
pedestrian gap acceptance decisions at midblock street crossings. J. Transp. Health 2021, 22, 101108. [CrossRef]
83. Zhao, X.; Li, X.; Rakotonirainy, A.; Bourgeois-Bougrine, S.; Zhu, Z.; Delhomme, P. Crossing roads in a social context: How
behaviors of others shape pedestrian interaction with automated vehicles. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2024, 102,
88–106. [CrossRef]
84. Shaaban, K.; Muley, D.; Mohammed, A. Modeling pedestrian gap acceptance behavior at a six-lane urban road. J. Transp. Saf.
Secur. 2021, 13, 842–859. [CrossRef]
85. Schmidt, S.; Faerber, B. Pedestrians at the kerb–Recognising the action intentions of humans. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol.
Behav. 2009, 12, 300–310. [CrossRef]
86. Holland, C.; Hill, R. The effect of age, gender and driver status on pedestrians’ intentions to cross the road in risky situations.
Accid. Anal. Prev. 2007, 39, 224–237. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
87. Rasouli, A.; Kotseruba, I.; Tsotsos, J.K. Are they going to cross? A benchmark dataset and baseline for pedestrian crosswalk
behavior . In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision Workshops, Venice, Italy, 22–29 October 2017;
pp. 206–213.
88. Ishaque, M.M.; Noland, R.B. Behavioural issues in pedestrian speed choice and street crossing behaviour: A review. Transp. Rev.
2008, 28, 61–85. [CrossRef]
89. Tom, A.; Granié, M.A. Gender differences in pedestrian rule compliance and visual search at signalized and unsignalized
crossroads. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2011, 43, 1794–1801. [CrossRef]
90. Wang, P.; Motamedi, S.; Qi, S.; Zhou, X.; Zhang, T.; Chan, C.-Y. Pedestrian interaction with automated vehicles at uncontrolled
intersections. Transp. Res. Part F: Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2021, 77, 10–25. [CrossRef]
91. Gupta, S. Negotiations Between Self-Driving Vehicles and Pedestrians for the Right of Way at Unmarked Intersections. Ph.D.
Thesis, Department of Infrastructure Engineering, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia, 2019.
92. Gupta, S.; Vasardani, M.; Lohani, B.; Winter, S. Pedestrian’s risk-based negotiation model for self-driving vehicles to get the right
of way. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2019, 124, 163–173. [CrossRef]
93. Deb, S.; Strawderman, L.; Carruth, D.W.; DuBien, J.; Smith, B.; Garrison, T.M. Development and validation of a questionnaire to
assess pedestrian receptivity toward fully autonomous vehicles. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 2017, 84, 178–195. [CrossRef]
94. Crompton, D. Pedestrian delay, annoyance and risk: Preliminary results from a 2 years study. In Proceedings of PTRC Summer
Annual Meeting, Warwick, UK, 9–12 July 1979; pp. 275–299.
95. US Department of Transportation. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices; US Department of Transportation: Washington, DC,
USA; Federal Highway Administration: Washington, DC, USA, 2009.
96. Federal Highway Administration. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways; US Department of Trans-
portation: Washington, DC, USA, 1988.
97. Bennett, S.; Felton, A.; Akçelik, R. Pedestrian movement characteristics at signalised intersections. In Proceedings of the 23rd
Conference of Australian Institutes of Transport Research (CAITR 2001), Melbourne, Australia, 10–12 December 2001.
98. Schneider, R.J.; Sanders, R.L. Pedestrian safety practitioners’ perspectives of driver yielding behavior across North America.
Transp. Res. Rec. 2015, 2519, 39–50. [CrossRef]
99. Tarawneh, M.S. Evaluation of pedestrian speed in Jordan with investigation of some contributing factors. J. Saf. Res. 2001, 32,
229–236. [CrossRef]
100. Goh, B.H.; Subramaniam, K.; Wai, Y.T.; Mohamed, A.A.; Ali, A. Pedestrian crossing speed: The case of Malaysia. Int. J. Traffic
Transp. Eng. 2012, 2, 323–332. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
101. Turkish Standards Institute. Urban Roads—Design Criteria on Sidewalks and Pedestrian Areas; Technical Report; Turkish Standards
Institute: Ankara, Turkey, 2012.
102. Lobjois, R.; Cavallo, V. Age-related differences in street-crossing decisions: The effects of vehicle speed and time constraints on
gap selection in an estimation task. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2007, 39, 934–943. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
103. Himanen, V.; Kulmala, R. An application of logit models in analysing the behaviour of pedestrians and car drivers on pedestrian
crossings. Accid. Anal. Prev. 1988, 20, 187–197. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
104. Clay, D. Driver Attitude and Attribution: Implications for Accident Prevention. Ph.D. Thesis, Cranfield University, Cranfield, UK,
1995.
Future Transp. 2024, 4 743

105. Sun, R.; Zhuang, X.; Wu, C.; Zhao, G.; Zhang, K. The estimation of vehicle speed and stopping distance by pedestrians crossing
streets in a naturalistic traffic environment. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2015, 30, 97–106. [CrossRef]
106. Das, S.; Manski, C.F.; Manuszak, M.D. Walk or wait? An empirical analysis of street crossing decisions. J. Appl. Econom. 2005, 20,
529–548. [CrossRef]
107. Caird, J.K.; Hancock, P.A. The perception of arrival time for different oncoming vehicles at an intersection. Ecol. Psychol. 1994, 6,
83–109. [CrossRef]
108. Burstedde, C.; Klauck, K.; Schadschneider, A.; Zittartz, J. Simulation of pedestrian dynamics using a two-dimensional cellular
automaton. Phys. A Stat. Mech. Its Appl. 2001, 295, 507–525. [CrossRef]
109. De Lavalette, B.C.; Tijus, C.; Poitrenaud, S.; Leproux, C.; Bergeron, J.; Thouez, J.P. Pedestrian crossing decision-making: A
situational and behavioral approach. Saf. Sci. 2009, 47, 1248–1253. [CrossRef]
110. Sucha, M.; Dostal, D.; Risser, R. Pedestrian-driver communication and decision strategies at marked crossings. Accid. Anal. Prev.
2017, 102, 41–50. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
111. Zou, F. Studying Pedestrian’s Unmarked Midblock Crossing Behavior on a Multilane Road When Interacting with Autonomous
Vehicles Using Virtual Reality. Ph.D. Thesis, Clemson University, Clemson, SC, USA, 2019.
112. Gkyrtis, K.; Kokkalis, A. An Overview of the Efficiency of Roundabouts: Design Aspects and Contribution toward Safer Vehicle
Movement. Vehicles 2024, 6, 433–449. [CrossRef]
113. Tian, R.; Du, E.Y.; Yang, K.; Jiang, P.; Jiang, F.; Chen, Y.; Sherony, R.; Takahashi, H. Pilot study on pedestrian step frequency in
naturalistic driving environment. In Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV), Gold Coast City, Australia,
23 June 2013; pp. 1215–1220.
114. Sun, D.; Ukkusuri, S.V.S.K.; Benekohal, R.F.; Waller, S.T. Modeling of motorist-pedestrian interaction at uncontrolled mid-block
crosswalks. In Proceedings of the Transportation Research Record, TRB Annual Meeting CD-ROM, Washington, DC, USA, 12–16
January 2003.
115. Wang, T.; Wu, J.; Zheng, P.; McDonald, M. Study of pedestrians’ gap acceptance behavior when they jaywalk outside crossing
facilities. In Proceedings of the 13th International IEEE Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems, Funchal, Portugal,
19–22 September 2010; pp. 1295–1300.
116. Ghadirzadeh, S.; Mirbaha, B.; Rassafi, A.A. Analysing pedestrian–vehicle conflict behaviours at urban pedestrian crossings. In
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Municipal Engineer, 2022; Thomas Telford Ltd.: London, UK, 2022; Volume 175, pp.
107–118.
117. Lownes, N.; Rezwana, S.; Shaon, R.; Razaur, M.; Jackson, E. Pedestrian Behavior and Interaction with Autonomous Vehicles; No.
CAMMSE-UNCC-2021-UTC-Project-06; Center for Advanced Multimodal Mobility Solutions and Education: Charlotte, NC,
USA, 2022.
118. Lagstrom, T.; Lundgren, V.M. AVIP-Autonomous vehicles interaction with pedestrians. Master’s Thesis, Chalmers University of
Technology, Göteborg, Sweden, 2015.
119. Li, B. A model of pedestrians’ intended waiting times for street crossings at signalized intersections. Transp. Res. Part B Methodol.
2013, 51, 17–28. [CrossRef]
120. Li, B. A bilevel model for multivariate risk analysis of pedestrians’ crossing behavior at signalized intersections. Transp. Res. Part
B Methodol. 2014, 65, 18–30. [CrossRef]
121. Faria, J.J.; Krause, S.; Krause, J. Collective behavior in road crossing pedestrians: The role of social information. Behav. Ecol. 2010,
21, 1236–1242. [CrossRef]
122. Guéguen, N.; Meineri, S.; Eyssartier, C. A pedestrian’s stare and drivers’ stopping behavior: A field experiment at the pedestrian
crossing. Saf. Sci. 2015, 75, 87–89. [CrossRef]
123. Nathanael, D.; Portouli, E.; Papakostopoulos, V.; Gkikas, K.; Amditis, A. Naturalistic observation of interactions between
car drivers and pedestrians in high density urban settings. In Proceedings of the Congress of the International Ergonomics
Association, Florence, Italy, 26–30 August 2018; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 389–397.
124. Keferböck, F.; Riener, A. Strategies for negotiation between autonomous vehicles and pedestrians. In Mensch und Computer
2015—Workshopband; Oldenbourg Wissenschaftsverlag: Stuttgart, Germany, 2015.
125. Rezwana, S.; Shaon, M.R.R.; Lownes, N. Understanding the Changes in Public Perception toward Autonomous Vehicles over
Time. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Transportation and Development, Austin, TX, USA, 14–17 June 2023; pp.
361–372.
126. Kitazaki, S.; Myhre, M.J. Effects of non-verbal communication cues on decisions and confidence of drivers at an uncontrolled
intersection. In Proceedings of the Driving Assesment Conference, Salt Lake City, UT, USA, 22–25 June 2015; University of Iowa:
Iowa City, IA, USA, 2015; Volume 8.
127. Brouwer, N.; Kloeden, H.; Stiller, C. Comparison and evaluation of pedestrian motion models for vehicle safety systems. In
Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE 19th International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil,
1–4 November 2016; pp. 2207–2212.
128. Mahadevan, K.; Somanath, S.; Sharlin, E. Communicating awareness and intent in autonomous vehicle-pedestrian interaction. In
Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Montreal, QC, Canada, 21–26 April 2018; pp.
1–12.
Future Transp. 2024, 4 744

129. Rothenbücher, D.; Li, J.; Sirkin, D.; Mok, B.; Ju, W. Ghost driver: A field study investigating the interaction between pedestrians
and driverless vehicles. In Proceedings of the 2016 25th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive
Communication (RO-MAN), New York, NY, USA, 26–31 August 2016; pp. 795–802.
130. The Smiling Car. Available online: https://semcon.com/smilingcar/ (accessed on 23 January 2022).
131. Joisten, P.; Liu, Z.; Theobald, N.; Webler, A.; Abendroth, B. Communication of automated vehicles and pedestrian groups: An
intercultural study on pedestrians’ street crossing decisions. In Proceedings of the Mensch und Computer, Ingolstadt, Germany,
5–8 September 2021; pp. 49–53.
132. Fridman, L.; Mehler, B.; Xia, L.; Yang, Y.; Facusse, L.Y.; Reimer, B. To walk or not to walk: Crowdsourced assessment of external
vehicle-to-pedestrian displays. arXiv 2017, arXiv:1707.02698 2017.
133. Clamann, M.; Aubert, M.; Cummings, M.L. Evaluation of vehicle-to-pedestrian communication displays for autonomous vehicles.
In Proceedings of the 96th Annual Transportation Research Board Meeting, Washington, DC, USA, 8–12 January 2017 . No.
17-02119.
134. Deb, S.; Carruth, D.W.; Sween, R.; Strawderman, L.; Garrison, T.M. Efficacy of virtual reality in pedestrian safety research. Appl.
Ergon. 2017, 65, 449–460. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
135. Furuya, H.; Kim, K.; Bruder, G.; Wisniewski, P.J.; Welch, G.F. Autonomous vehicle visual embodiment for pedestrian interactions
in crossing scenarios: Virtual drivers in AVs for pedestrian crossing. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human
Factors in Computing Systems, Online, 8–13 May 2021. Extended Abstracts.
136. Tran, T.T.M.; Parker, C.; Tomitsch, M. A review of virtual reality studies on autonomous vehicle–pedestrian interaction. IEEE
Trans. Hum.-Mach. Syst. 2021, 51, 641–652. [CrossRef]
137. Kutela, B.; Das, S.; Dadashova, B. Mining patterns of autonomous vehicle crashes involving vulnerable road users to understand
the associated factors. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2022, 165, 106473. [CrossRef]
138. Zou, F.; Ogle, J.H.; Gerard, P.; Jin, W. How Do Pedestrians’ Perception Change toward Autonomous Vehicles during Unmarked
Midblock Multilane Crossings: Role of AV Operation and Signal Indication. arXiv 2024, arXiv:2401.02339 2024.
139. Alozi, A.R.; Hussein, M. Evaluating the safety of autonomous vehicle–pedestrian interactions: An extreme value theory approach.
Anal. Methods Accid. Res. 2022, 35, 100230. [CrossRef]
140. Zhu, Z.; Hu, Z.; Dai, W.; Chen, H.; Lv, Z. Deep learning for autonomous vehicle and pedestrian interaction safety. Saf. Sci. 2022,
145, 105479. [CrossRef]
141. Aleva, T.K.; Tabone, W.; Dodou, D.; de Winter, J.C.F. Augmented reality for supporting the interaction between pedestrians and
automated vehicles: An experimental outdoor study. Front. Robot. AI 2024, 11, 1324060. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
142. Teknomo, K. Application of microscopic pedestrian simulation model. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2006, 9, 15–27.
[CrossRef]
143. Chen, X.; Li, S.; Yang, W.; Chen, Y.; Wang, H. Enhanced microsimulation framework for right-turning vehicle-pedestrian
interactions at signalized intersection. Simul. Model. Pract. Theory 2024, 134, 102930. [CrossRef]
144. Dey, D.; Martens, M.; Eggen, B.; Terken, J. Pedestrian road-crossing willingness as a function of vehicle automation, external
appearance, and driving behaviour. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2019, 65, 191–205. [CrossRef]
145. Madigan, R.; Nordhoff, S.; Fox, C.; Amini, R.E.; Louw, T.; Wilbrink, M.; Schieben, A.; Merat, N. Understanding interactions
between Automated Road Transport Systems and other road users: A video analysis. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav.
2019, 66, 196–213. [CrossRef]
146. Haspiel, J.; Du, N.; Meyerson, J.; Robert, L.P., Jr.; Tilbury, D.; Yang, X.J.; Pradhan, A.K. Explanations and expectations: Trust
building in automated vehicles. In Proceedings of the Companion of the 2018 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-
Robot Interaction, Chicago, IL, USA, 5–8 March 2018; pp. 119–120.
147. Salem, M.; Lakatos, G.; Amirabdollahian, F.; Dautenhahn, K. Would you trust a (faulty) robot? Effects of error, task type and
personality on human-robot cooperation and trust. In Proceedings of the 2015 10th ACM/IEEE International Conference on
Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), Portland, OR, USA, 2–5 March 2015; pp. 1–8.
148. Rossi, A.; Holthaus, P.; Dautenhahn, K.; Koay, K.L.; Walters, M.L. Getting to know Pepper: Effects of people’s awareness of a
robot’s capabilities on their trust in the robot. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Human-Agent Interaction,
Southampton, UK, 15–18 December 2018; pp. 246–252.
149. Solmazer, G.; Azık, D.; Fındık, G.; Üzümcüoğlu, Y.; Ersan, Ö.; Kaçan, B.; Özkan, T.; Lajunen, T.; Öz, B.; Pashkevich, A.; et al.
Cross-cultural differences in pedestrian behaviors in relation to values: A comparison of five countries. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2020,
138, 105459. [CrossRef]
150. Lee, Y.M.; Madigan, R.; Giles, O.; Garach-Morcillo, L.; Markkula, G.; Fox, C.; Camara, F.; Rothmueller, M.; Vendelbo-Larsen,
S.A.; Rasmussen, P.H.; et al. Road users rarely use explicit communication when interacting in today’s traffic: Implications for
automated vehicles. Cogn. Technol. Work. 2021, 23, 367–380. [CrossRef]
151. Adnan, N.; Nordin, S.M.; bin Bahruddin, M.A.; Ali, M. How trust can drive forward the user acceptance to the technology?
In-vehicle technology for autonomous vehicle. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2018, 118, 819–836. [CrossRef]
152. Thomson, J.J. The trolley problem. Yale Law J. 1985, 94, 1395–1415. [CrossRef]
153. Goodall, N.J. Machine ethics and automated vehicles. In Road Vehicle Automation; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2014; pp. 93–102.
Future Transp. 2024, 4 745

154. Applin, S.A.; Fischer, M.D. New technologies and mixed-use convergence: How humans and algorithms are adapting to each
other. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE International Symposium on Technology and Society (ISTAS), Dublin, Ireland, 11–12
November 2015; pp. 1–6.
155. Hevelke, A.; Nida-Rümelin, J. Responsibility for crashes of autonomous vehicles: An ethical analysis. Sci. Eng. Ethics 2015, 21,
619–630. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
156. Gerdes, J.C.; Thornton, S.M. Implementable ethics for autonomous vehicles. In Autonomes Fahren; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg,
Germany, 2015; pp. 87–102.
157. Luetge, C. The German ethics code for automated and connected driving. Philos. Technol. 2017, 30, 547–558. [CrossRef]
158. Song, Y.; Jiang, Q.; Chen, W.; Zhuang, X.; Ma, G. Pedestrians’ road-crossing behavior towards eHMI-equipped autonomous
vehicles driving in segregated and mixed traffic conditions. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2023, 188, 107115. [CrossRef]
159. Lownes, N.; Rezwana, S.; Shaon, R.; Razaur, M.; Jackson, E. Pedestrian Behavior and Interaction with Autonomous Vehicles (Phase II);
Center for Advanced Multimodal Mobility Solutions and Education: Charlotte, NC, USA, 2023.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.