Article Sidebar

Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 586 Download : 334

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Main Article Content

Abstract

The advancement of automotive technology has led to the development of automated vehicles. The trend of passengers performing non-driving-related activities during travel was expected to continue in the future of automated vehicles. It is essential to discover the type of activities that the users prefer to improve the interior design of an automated vehicle. Past studies show that every country has different preferred non-driving related activities. The main objective of this study is to collect data on preferred non-driving related activities, specifically by Malaysians, using online questionnaires. 293 respondents answered the questionnaires in six (6) months. As a result, the top three (3) non-driving related activities in Malaysia are listening to music, calling or texting, and interacting with others. In addition, the most preferred seating position as a passenger, the most suitable travel duration to perform non-driving related activities uninterrupted, and the preferred seating configuration of the automated vehicle were also discovered. The outcome of this study will add knowledge for designing better future automated vehicles suitable for Malaysian users.

Keywords

NDRA automated vehicle vehicle passenger

Article Details

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

References

  1. SAE International, Summary Of SAE International’s Levels of Driving Automation For On-Road Vehicles. Warrendale, PA: SAE International, 2014.
  2. Department for Transport, The Pathway to Driverless Cars: Summary report and action plan. London, UK: Department for Transport, 2015.
  3. UDRIVE, “European drivers spend 10% of the ride on secondary tasks,” erticonetwork.com, 2017. https://erticonetwork.com/european-drivers-spend-10-ride-secondary-tasks/ (accessed Jan. 19, 2022).
  4. E. Dogan, M.-C. Rahal, R. Deborne, P. Delhomme, A. Kemeny, and J. Perrin, “Transition of control in a partially automated vehicle: Effects of anticipation and non-driving-related task involvement,” Transportation research part F: traffic psychology and behaviour, vol. 46, pp. 205–215, 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.trf.2017.01.012.
  5. M. N. A. M. Norzam, J. Karjanto, N. M. Yusof, M. Z. Hassan, and A. A. Ab Rashid, “Analysis of user’s comfort on automated vehicle riding simulation using subjective and objective measurements,” Automotive Experiences, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 238–250, 2022, doi: 10.31603/ae.6913.
  6. M. L. H. Jones, V. C. Le, S. M. Ebert, K. H. Sienko, M. P. Reed, and J. R. Sayer, “Motion sickness in passenger vehicles during test track operations,” Ergonomics, vol. 62, no. 10, pp. 1357–1371, 2019, doi: 10.1080/00140139.2019.1632938.
  7. A. Koohestani et al., “A knowledge discovery in motion sickness: a comprehensive literature review,” IEEE access, vol. 7, pp. 85755–85770, 2019, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2922993.
  8. D. Paddeu, G. Parkhurst, and I. Shergold, “Passenger comfort and trust on first-time use of a shared autonomous shuttle vehicle,” Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, vol. 115, p. 102604, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.trc.2020.02.026.
  9. A. Dam and M. Jeon, “A review of motion sickness in automated vehicles,” in 13th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications, 2021, pp. 39–48, doi: 10.1145/3409118.3475146.
  10. M. L. Cunningham, M. A. Regan, T. Horberry, K. Weeratunga, and V. Dixit, “Public opinion about automated vehicles in Australia: Results from a large-scale national survey,” Transportation research part A: policy and practice, vol. 129, pp. 1–18, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.tra.2019.08.002.
  11. Z. Wadud and F. Y. Huda, “Fully automated vehicles: the use of travel time and its association with intention to use,” in Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Transport, 2019, vol. 176, no. 3, pp. 127–141, doi: 10.1680/jtran.18.00134.
  12. B. Pfleging, M. Rang, and N. Broy, “Investigating user needs for non-driving-related activities during automated driving,” in Proceedings of the 15th international conference on mobile and ubiquitous multimedia, 2016, pp. 91–99, doi: 10.1145/3012709.3012735.
  13. C. Wilson, D. Gyi, A. Morris, R. Bateman, and H. Tanaka, “Non-Driving Related tasks and journey types for future autonomous vehicle owners,” Transportation research part F: traffic psychology and behaviour, vol. 85, pp. 150–160, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.trf.2022.01.004.
  14. E. Shi and A. T. Frey, “Non-Driving-Related Tasks During Level 3 Automated Driving Phases—Measuring What Users Will Be Likely to Do,” Technology, Mind and Behaviour, vol. 2, no. 2, 2021, doi: 10.1037/tmb0000006.
  15. M. Kyriakidis, R. Happee, and J. C. F. de Winter, “Public opinion on automated driving: Results of an international questionnaire among 5000 respondents,” Transportation research part F: traffic psychology and behaviour, vol. 32, pp. 127–140, 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.trf.2015.04.014.
  16. T. Hecht, E. Darlagiannis, and K. Bengler, “Non-driving related activities in automated driving–an online survey investigating user needs,” in Human Systems Engineering and Design II: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Human Systems Engineering and Design (IHSED2019): Future Trends and Applications, September 16-18, 2019, Universität der Bundeswehr München, Munich, Germany, 2020, pp. 182–188, doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-27928-8_28.
  17. B. Schoettle and M. Sivak, “Public opinion about self-driving vehicles in China, India, Japan, the US, the UK, and Australia,” University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Transportation Research Institute, 2014.
  18. P. Bansal and K. M. Kockelman, “Are we ready to embrace connected and self-driving vehicles? A case study of Texans,” Transportation, vol. 45, pp. 641–675, 2018, doi: 10.1007/s11116-016-9745-z.
  19. S. Koppel et al., “Seating configuration and position preferences in fully automated vehicles,” Traffic injury prevention, vol. 20, no. sup2, pp. S103–S109, 2019, doi: 10.1080/15389588.2019.1625336.
  20. F. J. Lopez-Valdes et al., “Understanding users’ characteristics in the selection of vehicle seating configurations and positions in fully automated vehicles,” Traffic injury prevention, vol. 21, no. sup1, pp. S19–S24, 2020, doi: 10.1080/15389588.2020.1810245.
  21. B. Nie, S. Gan, W. Chen, and Q. Zhou, “Seating preferences in highly automated vehicles and occupant safety awareness: A national survey of Chinese perceptions,” Traffic injury prevention, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 247–253, 2020, doi: 10.1080/15389588.2020.1738013.
  22. M. Östling and A. Larsson, “Occupant activities and sitting positions in automated vehicles in China and Sweden,” in 26th International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles (ESV), Eindhoven, Netherlands, 2019, pp. 10–13.
  23. M. R. Endsley, “Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems,” Human factors, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 32–64, 1995, doi: 10.1518/001872095779049543.
  24. J. Cohen, “Statistical power analysis for the social sciences,” 1988.
  25. Statista, “Smartphone penetration rate as share of the population in Malaysia from 2010 to 2020 and a forecast up to 2025,” statista.com, 2021. .
  26. Y. Wu et al., “Age-related differences in effects of non-driving related tasks on takeover performance in automated driving,” Journal of safety research, vol. 72, pp. 231–238, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.jsr.2019.12.019.
  27. M. Miksch, M. Steiner, M. Miksch, and A. Meschtscherjakov, “Motion Sickness Prevention System (MSPS) Reading Between the Lines,” in Adjunct Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications, 2016, pp. 147–152, doi: 10.1145/3004323.3004340.
  28. E. Hanau and V. Popescu, “Motionreader: visual acceleration cues for alleviating passenger e-reader motion sickness,” in Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications Adjunct, 2017, pp. 72–76, doi: 10.1145/3131726.3131741.
  29. T. Van Veen, J. Karjanto, and J. Terken, “Situation awareness in automated vehicles through proximal peripheral light signals,” in Proceedings of the 9th international conference on automotive user interfaces and interactive vehicular applications, 2017, pp. 287–292, doi: 10.1145/3122986.3122993.
  30. O. X. Kuiper, J. E. Bos, E. A. Schmidt, C. Diels, and S. Wolter, “Knowing what’s coming: unpredictable motion causes more motion sickness,” Human factors, vol. 62, no. 8, pp. 1339–1348, 2020.

Most read articles by the same author(s)