Seating configuration and position preferences in fully automated vehicles

Koppel, Sjaan; Octavio, Jesús Jiménez; Bohman, Katarina; Logan, David; Raphaël, Wassim; Quintana, Leonardo; López‐Valdés, Francisco J.

doi:10.1080/15389588.2019.1625336

Cited by 39 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This paper extends the findings recently published by Koppel et al (2019) by using a larger sample size to investigate the influence of users' characteristics and previous traveling experiences in their seat and position configuration preferences.…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 59%

“…Other studies have reported, for instance, that younger users would be more willing to be early adopters of FAV (Haboucha et al 2017), but the study did not analyze other anthropometry variables that are essential to design effective restraint systems. Koppel et al (2019) also identified that younger occupants were more inclined to choose newer seating configurations (FAV configuration #1) compared to the traditional vehicle interior configuration (FAV configuration #3). With the increase of sample size of this study, it is suggested that only FAV configurations #2 and #5 are actually considered by more than 10% of the participants, in addition to the regular FAV configuration #3 ( Table 2).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…The study is an extension of the study reported by Koppel et al (2019). Specifically the current study adds almost 200 new participants and brings a different perspective by exploring the relationships between FAV configuration and seating position preferences and users' characteristics.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Participants were asked to complete an online survey, which took approximately 15 minutes to complete, where they were asked to imagine traveling in a FAV (i.e., where they select their final destination and do not need to drive) across seven hypothetical traveling scenarios (1: by themselves; 2: with a partner; 3: with a child occupant(s); 4: with a partner and child occupant(s); 5: with an older relative(s); 6: with a partner and older relative(s); and 7: with someone they don't know (i.e., a stranger) (see Koppel et al, 2019 for more details on the survey). Only three scenarios are considered in this paper: 1: by themselves; 2: with a partner; and 3: with someone they don't know.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…From a users' perspective, FAV may provide the opportunity of being engaged in other activities than driving, such that the use of the vehicle will be closer to that of other public transportation means (i.e., bus, metro). Note that this is already applicable to the other seating positions in the car, but it is unusual that passengers are reading or working during the commute, one of the potential new activities that FAV could facilitate (Koppel et al 2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Understanding users’ characteristics in the selection of vehicle seating configurations and positions in fully automated vehicles

López‐Valdés

Bohman

Jiménez-Octavio

et al. 2020

Traffic Injury Prevention

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To understand which users' characteristics influence their preferences in the selection of vehicle seating configurations and positions across different traveling scenarios involving a fully automated vehicle (FAV). Methods: Participants (n ¼ 730) completed an online survey in which they were asked to imagine traveling in a FAV across three hypothetical scenarios. Participants were asked to select between five different seating configurations and four positions for each scenario and about their anthropometry and their driving/riding experience. Multinomial regression analyses were conducted to identify the factors that influenced users' preferences. Results: FAV Configuration #3 (traditional light vehicle seating configuration) was the preferred seating configuration for 74% of the participants, followed by FAV #2 (in which the two seating rows face each other, 13%) in Scenario 1 (riding by oneself). Similar numbers were observed in Scenario 3 (riding with an unknown person). In Scenario 2 (riding with their partner), participants preferred FAV #2 (12.5%) and FAV #5 (in which the front seat passengers point toward a common point in the front, conventional rear seat configuration, 17.5%). Having close family was significant to choose the traditional vehicle configuration over other vehicle configurations, but only when the participants were driving by themselves. Having previously experienced motion sickness was significant to prefer a forward seating configuration when the trip was shared with partners. Belonging to a particular height or weight group was significantly associated with the preferred seat within the preferred FAV configuration (the driver's position in FAV #3; a rear-facing seat in FAV #2), although there was not a clear trend between increasing weight and/or height and preferring one seating position over the others. Conclusions: Previous work had shown differences in participants' preferences for seating configurations and positions depending on age, sex and country. While increasing the sample size, the current study analyses other factors that were associated with choosing one vehicle configuration and seating position over others. As these factors are directly related to the likelihood of sustaining injuries in the event of a crash, the current study provides important insights regarding the potential risk factors for FAV occupants.

show abstract

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 59%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations