Seating configuration and position preferences in fully automated vehicles

Sjaan Koppel, Jesús Jiménez Octavio, Katarina Bohman, David Logan, Wassim Raphael, Leonardo Quintana Jimenez, Francisco Lopez-Valdes

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to understand seating configuration and position preferences in a fully automated vehicle (FAV) across 7 hypothetical traveling scenarios. Methods: Participants completed an online survey in which they were asked to imagine traveling in an FAV across 7 hypothetical traveling scenarios and asked to select 1 of 5 seating configurations and 1 of 4 seating positions for themselves and for any additional occupants. Furthermore, participants were asked to indicate any activities that they and any additional occupants would engage in and whether they would be willing to wear a different seat belt in an FAV while seated in a non-forward-facing mode or while reclined. Results: Five hundred and fifty-two participants (male = 50.5%; mean = 36.6 years, SD = 14.0 years) completed the online survey. Most participants resided in Australia (40.9%), Spain (16.5%), Sweden (15.6%), or Lebanon (19.4%). Most participants drove on a daily basis (60.0%), had driven between 5,000 and 15,000 km in the previous year (33.2%), and reported that they always or almost always wear a seat belt while traveling in a motor vehicle (98.2%). Across all scenarios, participants were most likely to prefer a conventional seating configuration (i.e., all seats facing forward; between 40.0 and 76.3%). In terms of seating position preferences, participants preferred seating position A (i.e., the conventional driver’s seat; between 54.6 and 68.3%), regardless of with whom they were traveling. The most common activity while traveling alone was reading (25.0%). However, when traveling with other occupants, talking was the most common activity (41.0–63.0%), even with someone they did not know (31.0%). Most participants predicted that they would always or almost always wear a seat belt when traveling in an FAV (95.9%). Most participants also reported that they would be very willing or willing to wear a different seat belt configuration in an FAV while seated in a non-forward-facing mode or while reclined (73.8 and 80.7%, respectively). Conclusions: This study has provided valuable insight regarding seating configuration and position preferences in an FAV, as well as predicted activities and restraint use. Future research will use this information to simulate likely injury outcomes of these preferences in the event of a motor vehicle crash and provide a basis for the design of occupant protection systems for FAVs.

Original languageEnglish
Number of pages7
JournalTraffic Injury Prevention
DOIs
Publication statusAccepted/In press - 2019

Keywords

  • fully automated vehicles
  • road safety
  • Seating configurations
  • seating positions

Cite this

Koppel, S., Jiménez Octavio, J., Bohman, K., Logan, D., Raphael, W., Quintana Jimenez, L., & Lopez-Valdes, F. (Accepted/In press). Seating configuration and position preferences in fully automated vehicles. Traffic Injury Prevention. https://doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2019.1625336
Koppel, Sjaan ; Jiménez Octavio, Jesús ; Bohman, Katarina ; Logan, David ; Raphael, Wassim ; Quintana Jimenez, Leonardo ; Lopez-Valdes, Francisco. / Seating configuration and position preferences in fully automated vehicles. In: Traffic Injury Prevention. 2019.
@article{422b840a8eac48beba660a81989f4037,
title = "Seating configuration and position preferences in fully automated vehicles",
abstract = "Objective: This study aimed to understand seating configuration and position preferences in a fully automated vehicle (FAV) across 7 hypothetical traveling scenarios. Methods: Participants completed an online survey in which they were asked to imagine traveling in an FAV across 7 hypothetical traveling scenarios and asked to select 1 of 5 seating configurations and 1 of 4 seating positions for themselves and for any additional occupants. Furthermore, participants were asked to indicate any activities that they and any additional occupants would engage in and whether they would be willing to wear a different seat belt in an FAV while seated in a non-forward-facing mode or while reclined. Results: Five hundred and fifty-two participants (male = 50.5{\%}; mean = 36.6 years, SD = 14.0 years) completed the online survey. Most participants resided in Australia (40.9{\%}), Spain (16.5{\%}), Sweden (15.6{\%}), or Lebanon (19.4{\%}). Most participants drove on a daily basis (60.0{\%}), had driven between 5,000 and 15,000 km in the previous year (33.2{\%}), and reported that they always or almost always wear a seat belt while traveling in a motor vehicle (98.2{\%}). Across all scenarios, participants were most likely to prefer a conventional seating configuration (i.e., all seats facing forward; between 40.0 and 76.3{\%}). In terms of seating position preferences, participants preferred seating position A (i.e., the conventional driver’s seat; between 54.6 and 68.3{\%}), regardless of with whom they were traveling. The most common activity while traveling alone was reading (25.0{\%}). However, when traveling with other occupants, talking was the most common activity (41.0–63.0{\%}), even with someone they did not know (31.0{\%}). Most participants predicted that they would always or almost always wear a seat belt when traveling in an FAV (95.9{\%}). Most participants also reported that they would be very willing or willing to wear a different seat belt configuration in an FAV while seated in a non-forward-facing mode or while reclined (73.8 and 80.7{\%}, respectively). Conclusions: This study has provided valuable insight regarding seating configuration and position preferences in an FAV, as well as predicted activities and restraint use. Future research will use this information to simulate likely injury outcomes of these preferences in the event of a motor vehicle crash and provide a basis for the design of occupant protection systems for FAVs.",
keywords = "fully automated vehicles, road safety, Seating configurations, seating positions",
author = "Sjaan Koppel and {Jim{\'e}nez Octavio}, Jes{\'u}s and Katarina Bohman and David Logan and Wassim Raphael and {Quintana Jimenez}, Leonardo and Francisco Lopez-Valdes",
year = "2019",
doi = "10.1080/15389588.2019.1625336",
language = "English",
journal = "Traffic Injury Prevention",
issn = "1538-9588",
publisher = "Taylor & Francis",

}

Seating configuration and position preferences in fully automated vehicles. / Koppel, Sjaan; Jiménez Octavio, Jesús; Bohman, Katarina; Logan, David; Raphael, Wassim; Quintana Jimenez, Leonardo; Lopez-Valdes, Francisco.

In: Traffic Injury Prevention, 2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Seating configuration and position preferences in fully automated vehicles

AU - Koppel, Sjaan

AU - Jiménez Octavio, Jesús

AU - Bohman, Katarina

AU - Logan, David

AU - Raphael, Wassim

AU - Quintana Jimenez, Leonardo

AU - Lopez-Valdes, Francisco

PY - 2019

Y1 - 2019

N2 - Objective: This study aimed to understand seating configuration and position preferences in a fully automated vehicle (FAV) across 7 hypothetical traveling scenarios. Methods: Participants completed an online survey in which they were asked to imagine traveling in an FAV across 7 hypothetical traveling scenarios and asked to select 1 of 5 seating configurations and 1 of 4 seating positions for themselves and for any additional occupants. Furthermore, participants were asked to indicate any activities that they and any additional occupants would engage in and whether they would be willing to wear a different seat belt in an FAV while seated in a non-forward-facing mode or while reclined. Results: Five hundred and fifty-two participants (male = 50.5%; mean = 36.6 years, SD = 14.0 years) completed the online survey. Most participants resided in Australia (40.9%), Spain (16.5%), Sweden (15.6%), or Lebanon (19.4%). Most participants drove on a daily basis (60.0%), had driven between 5,000 and 15,000 km in the previous year (33.2%), and reported that they always or almost always wear a seat belt while traveling in a motor vehicle (98.2%). Across all scenarios, participants were most likely to prefer a conventional seating configuration (i.e., all seats facing forward; between 40.0 and 76.3%). In terms of seating position preferences, participants preferred seating position A (i.e., the conventional driver’s seat; between 54.6 and 68.3%), regardless of with whom they were traveling. The most common activity while traveling alone was reading (25.0%). However, when traveling with other occupants, talking was the most common activity (41.0–63.0%), even with someone they did not know (31.0%). Most participants predicted that they would always or almost always wear a seat belt when traveling in an FAV (95.9%). Most participants also reported that they would be very willing or willing to wear a different seat belt configuration in an FAV while seated in a non-forward-facing mode or while reclined (73.8 and 80.7%, respectively). Conclusions: This study has provided valuable insight regarding seating configuration and position preferences in an FAV, as well as predicted activities and restraint use. Future research will use this information to simulate likely injury outcomes of these preferences in the event of a motor vehicle crash and provide a basis for the design of occupant protection systems for FAVs.

AB - Objective: This study aimed to understand seating configuration and position preferences in a fully automated vehicle (FAV) across 7 hypothetical traveling scenarios. Methods: Participants completed an online survey in which they were asked to imagine traveling in an FAV across 7 hypothetical traveling scenarios and asked to select 1 of 5 seating configurations and 1 of 4 seating positions for themselves and for any additional occupants. Furthermore, participants were asked to indicate any activities that they and any additional occupants would engage in and whether they would be willing to wear a different seat belt in an FAV while seated in a non-forward-facing mode or while reclined. Results: Five hundred and fifty-two participants (male = 50.5%; mean = 36.6 years, SD = 14.0 years) completed the online survey. Most participants resided in Australia (40.9%), Spain (16.5%), Sweden (15.6%), or Lebanon (19.4%). Most participants drove on a daily basis (60.0%), had driven between 5,000 and 15,000 km in the previous year (33.2%), and reported that they always or almost always wear a seat belt while traveling in a motor vehicle (98.2%). Across all scenarios, participants were most likely to prefer a conventional seating configuration (i.e., all seats facing forward; between 40.0 and 76.3%). In terms of seating position preferences, participants preferred seating position A (i.e., the conventional driver’s seat; between 54.6 and 68.3%), regardless of with whom they were traveling. The most common activity while traveling alone was reading (25.0%). However, when traveling with other occupants, talking was the most common activity (41.0–63.0%), even with someone they did not know (31.0%). Most participants predicted that they would always or almost always wear a seat belt when traveling in an FAV (95.9%). Most participants also reported that they would be very willing or willing to wear a different seat belt configuration in an FAV while seated in a non-forward-facing mode or while reclined (73.8 and 80.7%, respectively). Conclusions: This study has provided valuable insight regarding seating configuration and position preferences in an FAV, as well as predicted activities and restraint use. Future research will use this information to simulate likely injury outcomes of these preferences in the event of a motor vehicle crash and provide a basis for the design of occupant protection systems for FAVs.

KW - fully automated vehicles

KW - road safety

KW - Seating configurations

KW - seating positions

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85068239683&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/15389588.2019.1625336

DO - 10.1080/15389588.2019.1625336

M3 - Article

JO - Traffic Injury Prevention

JF - Traffic Injury Prevention

SN - 1538-9588

ER -