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

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 = 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.

Seating configuration and position preferences in fully automated vehicles.

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.