How do drivers negotiate intersections with pedestrians? The importance of pedestrian time-to-arrival and visibility

•94 drivers negotiated an intersection with a pedestrian in a driving simulator.•A fractional factorial design tested the effect of 8 factors on driver response.•Driver response mainly depended on pedestrian time-to-arrival and visibility.•OpenDS may enable crowdsourcing and favor repeatability across studies.•The results help Euro NCAP and design of collision warnings and emergency braking. Forward collision warning (FCW) and autonomous emergency braking (AEB) systems are increasingly available and prevent or mitigate collisions by alerting the driver or autonomously braking the vehicle. Threat-assessment and decision-making algorithms for FCW and AEB aim to find the best compromise for safety by intervening at the “right” time: neither too early, potentially upsetting the driver, nor too late, possibly missing opportunities to avoid the collision. Today, the extent to which activation times for FCW and AEB should depend on factors such as pedestrian speed and lane width is unknown. To guide the design of FCW and AEB intervention time, we employed a fractional factorial design, and determined how seven factors (crossing side, car speed, pedestrian speed, crossing angle, pedestrian size, zebra-crossing presence, and lane width) affect the driver’s response process and comfort zone when negotiating an intersection with a pedestrian. Ninety-four volunteers drove through an intersection in a fixed-base driving simulator, which was based on open-source software (OpenDS). Several parameters, including pedestrian time-to-arrival and driver response time, were calculated to describe the driver response process and define driver comfort boundaries. Linear mixed-effect models showed that driver responses depended mainly on pedestrian time-to-arrival and visibility, whereas factors such as pedestrian size, zebra-crossing presence, and lane width did not significantly influence the driver response process. Drivers released the accelerator pedal in 99.8 % of the trials and braked in 89 % of the trials. Forty-six percent of the drivers changed their negotiation strategy (proportion of pedal braking to engine braking) to minimize driving effort over the course of the experiment. In fact, 51 % of the of the inexperienced drivers changed their response strategy whereas only 40 % of the experienced drivers did; nevertheless, all drivers behaved similarly, independent of driving experience. The flexible and customizable driving environment provided by OpenDS may be a viable