pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.12293 · v2 · submitted 2026-04-14 · 💻 cs.RO

Defining an Evaluation Method for External Human-Machine Interfaces

Jose Gonzalez-Belmonte , Jaerock Kwon This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 16:02 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.RO
keywords external human-machine interfaceseHMIautonomous vehiclesevaluation methodvehicle communicationstandardizationreadabilitypedestrian safety
0
0 comments X

The pith

A questionnaire of 223 questions across seven categories offers an objective way to evaluate and rank external human-machine interfaces for autonomous vehicles.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper sets out to create a universal evaluation tool because autonomous vehicles are increasing in number and fatalities involving them are rising, yet no agreed-upon way exists for vehicles to signal their intentions to pedestrians and other drivers. The authors assembled 223 questions split into seven categories that cover standardization, cost, accessibility, understanding, communication breadth, positioning, and readability. They then applied the questionnaire to four published eHMI designs plus a baseline that relies only on vehicle motion, producing scores that favor a hybrid of deliberate kinematics and well-placed text displays. The work also flags remaining uncertainties about how easily people read the signals and how fast they learn them.

Core claim

The paper establishes a standardized evaluation framework consisting of 223 questions in seven categories—ease of standardization, cost effectiveness, accessibility, ease of understanding, multifacetedness in communication, positioning, and readability—to assess any eHMI proposal objectively. When tested on four existing proposals and a kinematics-only baseline, the method identifies that combining designed vehicle kinematics with well-placed text-based displays scores highest for effective machine-to-human communication.

What carries the argument

The 223-question questionnaire divided into seven categories that evaluates different aspects of any eHMI proposal.

If this is right

  • Any new eHMI proposal can be scored and compared directly against existing ones using the same fixed set of criteria.
  • A hybrid system that pairs intentional vehicle movements with distributed text displays receives the highest marks among the designs tested.
  • Clear gaps remain in understanding how readable individual eHMI elements are and how quickly different observers learn their meanings.
  • Future studies can use the questionnaire to measure learning speed and readability under controlled conditions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Regulatory agencies could adopt the questionnaire as a standardized approval checklist for new vehicle communication systems.
  • Testing the method across different age groups or cultural backgrounds might expose variations in how quickly signals are learned.
  • Embedding the 223 questions into virtual-reality driving simulators would let designers iterate on interfaces before physical prototypes are built.

Load-bearing premise

The authors' choice of exactly seven categories and 223 specific questions supplies an objective, bias-free, and complete basis for evaluating any eHMI proposal.

What would settle it

Independent teams applying the same questionnaire to the same set of eHMI designs produce markedly different rankings, or real-world trials show that the highest-scoring hybrid design does not reduce pedestrian-vehicle conflicts compared with current practice.

read the original abstract

As the number of fatalities involving Autonomous Vehicles increase, the need for a universal method of communicating between vehicles and other agents on the road has also increased. Over the past decade, numerous proposals of external Human-Machine Interfaces (eHMIs) have been brought forward with the purpose of bridging this communication gap, with none yet to be determined as the ideal one. This work proposes a universal evaluation method conformed of 223 questions to objectively evaluate and compare different proposals and arrive at a conclusion. The questionnaire is divided into 7 categories that evaluate different aspects of any given proposal that uses eHMIs: ease of standardization, cost effectiveness, accessibility, ease of understanding, multifacetedness in communication, positioning, and readability. In order to test the method it was used on four existing proposals, plus a baseline using only kinematic motions, in order to both exemplify the application of the evaluation method and offer a baseline score for future comparison. The result of this testing suggests that the ideal method of machine-human communication is a combination of intentionally-designed vehicle kinematics and distributed well-placed text-based displays, but it also reveals knowledge gaps in the readability of eHMIs and the speed at which different observers may learn their meaning. This paper proposes future work related to these uncertainties, along with future testing with the proposed method.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a 223-question questionnaire divided into seven categories (ease of standardization, cost effectiveness, accessibility, ease of understanding, multifacetedness in communication, positioning, and readability) as a universal method to objectively evaluate and compare external Human-Machine Interface (eHMI) proposals for autonomous vehicles. It applies this method to four existing proposals plus a kinematic baseline to exemplify its use and establish baseline scores. The results suggest that the ideal machine-human communication combines intentionally-designed vehicle kinematics with distributed well-placed text-based displays, while revealing gaps in eHMI readability and observer learning speed. Future work on these areas is proposed.

Significance. Should the questionnaire be validated, this could provide a valuable standardized tool for the field to compare eHMI designs systematically, potentially accelerating the selection of effective interfaces for safer AVs. The use of a kinematic baseline is a positive step for grounding comparisons, and the application to multiple proposals offers concrete data points. The paper also usefully flags open questions about readability and learning, which could guide empirical studies. Currently, however, the significance is constrained by the unvalidated nature of the instrument.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3 (Evaluation Method)] §3 (Evaluation Method): The 223 questions are introduced as an objective instrument without any reported process for their generation (e.g., literature mapping, Delphi method, or pilot testing) or reliability metrics. This is a load-bearing issue for the central claim, as the rankings and recommendation for kinematics plus text displays depend on the unexamined assumption that the seven categories and specific questions are comprehensive and bias-free.
  2. [§5 (Testing and Results)] §5 (Testing and Results): The evaluation is performed on only five test cases, and the conclusion that this combination is ideal is drawn directly from the scores without sensitivity analysis on question rephrasing or reweighting. No external grounding, such as correlation with user studies, is provided to support the derived recommendation.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The phrasing 'objectively evaluate' should be qualified to reflect that validation of the instrument remains future work.
  2. [Results tables] Results tables: Explicitly state the aggregation rule from individual questions to category scores to improve reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed comments, which identify key areas where the manuscript can be strengthened. We address each major comment below and outline the revisions we will make.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3 (Evaluation Method)] §3 (Evaluation Method): The 223 questions are introduced as an objective instrument without any reported process for their generation (e.g., literature mapping, Delphi method, or pilot testing) or reliability metrics. This is a load-bearing issue for the central claim, as the rankings and recommendation for kinematics plus text displays depend on the unexamined assumption that the seven categories and specific questions are comprehensive and bias-free.

    Authors: We agree that the manuscript does not explicitly document the process used to generate the 223 questions or the seven categories, nor does it report reliability metrics. The questions were developed through a systematic review of the eHMI literature, incorporating recurring themes from standardization efforts (e.g., ISO and SAE guidelines), accessibility standards, and prior studies on communication effectiveness and cost. To address this point directly, we will revise §3 by adding a dedicated subsection that describes this literature-driven development process, including how the categories were selected to cover core evaluation dimensions and how question phrasing aimed to minimize bias. We will also add an explicit statement that formal reliability testing (such as pilot studies or inter-rater metrics) lies outside the scope of this proposal and is identified as future work. These changes will clarify the method's foundational status without altering the reported scores or recommendation. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [§5 (Testing and Results)] §5 (Testing and Results): The evaluation is performed on only five test cases, and the conclusion that this combination is ideal is drawn directly from the scores without sensitivity analysis on question rephrasing or reweighting. No external grounding, such as correlation with user studies, is provided to support the derived recommendation.

    Authors: The five test cases were selected to demonstrate the method's application on representative existing proposals plus a kinematic baseline, as stated in the manuscript. The hybrid kinematics-plus-text suggestion is presented as an observation from the comparative scores, not as a definitive conclusion, and the text already flags open questions on readability and learning speed. We accept that sensitivity analysis on rephrasing or reweighting and external validation against user studies would provide stronger support. In the revised version, we will expand §5 with a new limitations subsection that discusses the illustrative nature of the five cases, the absence of sensitivity testing, and the need for future empirical grounding through user studies. This will temper the recommendation language while preserving the demonstration of the method. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; questionnaire is a direct definitional proposal

full rationale

The paper proposes a 223-question instrument across seven categories as a new evaluation method for eHMIs and applies it to four existing proposals plus a kinematic baseline. No equations, fitted parameters, predictions, or self-citations appear in the derivation chain. The central result (kinematics plus distributed text displays scoring highest) is the direct output of scoring the proposals against the stated questions; it does not reduce to any prior input by construction. The framework is self-contained as an explicit proposal without internal circular steps.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the premise that the chosen seven categories and 223 questions form a complete and objective universal standard; no external validation data or derivation process for the questions is supplied in the abstract.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The seven categories comprehensively capture all key aspects of eHMI effectiveness.
    The paper divides the questionnaire into these categories without external justification or completeness proof.
  • domain assumption Answers to the 223 questions can be given objectively for any proposal.
    Assumes minimal subjectivity in how different evaluators would score the same design.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5528 in / 1406 out tokens · 82800 ms · 2026-05-10T16:02:23.183488+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 65 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    https://web

    Tardo, F., Stickel, M.: IEEE - News Releases (2012). https://web. archive.org/web/20180408205957/https://www.ieee.org/about/news/2012/ 56 5september-2-2012.html Accessed 2024-03-16

    work page arXiv 2012

  2. [2]

    Section: Green Tech (2012)

    Motavalli, J.: Self-Driving Cars Will Take Over By 2040. Section: Green Tech (2012). https://www.forbes.com/sites/eco-nomics/2012/09/25/ self-driving-cars-will-take-over-by-2040/ Accessed 2024-03-16

    work page 2040

  3. [3]

    Wired: You won’t need a driver’s license by 2040|CNN Busi- ness (2012)

    Newcomb, D. Wired: You won’t need a driver’s license by 2040|CNN Busi- ness (2012). https://www.cnn.com/2012/09/18/tech/innovation/ieee-2040-cars/ index.html Accessed 2024-03-16

    work page 2040

  4. [4]

    https://www.webpronews.com/ self-driving-cars-to-account-for-75-of-traffic-by-2040-says-ieee/ Accessed 2024-03-16

    Wolford, J.: Self-Driving Cars to Account for 75% of Traf- fic by 2040, Says IEEE (2012). https://www.webpronews.com/ self-driving-cars-to-account-for-75-of-traffic-by-2040-says-ieee/ Accessed 2024-03-16

    work page 2040

  5. [5]

    Auto Tech Review4(12), 18–23 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1365/s40112-015-1049-8

    Viereckl, R., Ahlemann, D., Koster, A., Jursch, S.: Racing Ahead with Autonomous Cars and Digital Innovation. Auto Tech Review4(12), 18–23 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1365/s40112-015-1049-8 . Accessed 2024-03-16

    work page doi:10.1365/s40112-015-1049-8 2015

  6. [6]

    https://www.slashgear.com/1202594/ how-many-people-have-actually-been-killed-by-self-driving-cars/ Accessed 2024-03-16

    Salter, M.: How Many People Have Actually Been Killed By Self-Driving Cars? (2023). https://www.slashgear.com/1202594/ how-many-people-have-actually-been-killed-by-self-driving-cars/ Accessed 2024-03-16

    work page arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    https://money.cnn.com/2018/03/19/technology/ uber-autonomous-car-fatal-crash/index.html Accessed 2024-03-16

    McFarland, M.: Uber pulls self-driving cars after first fatal crash of autonomous vehicle (2018). https://money.cnn.com/2018/03/19/technology/ uber-autonomous-car-fatal-crash/index.html Accessed 2024-03-16

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    https://www.who.int/publications-detail-redirect/9789240086517 Accessed 2024-03-16

    World Health Organization: Global status report on road safety 2023 (2023). https://www.who.int/publications-detail-redirect/9789240086517 Accessed 2024-03-16

    work page arXiv 2023

  9. [9]

    Sensors21(9), 2912 (2021) https://doi

    Carmona, J., Guindel, C., Garcia, F., Escalera, A.: eHMI: Review and Guidelines for Deployment on Autonomous Vehicles. Sensors21(9), 2912 (2021) https://doi. org/10.3390/s21092912 . Number: 9. Accessed 2024-03-16

    work page doi:10.3390/s21092912 2021

  10. [10]

    Frontiers in Robotics and AI6(117) (2019) https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2019.00117

    Jayaraman, S.K., Creech, C., Tilbury, D.M., Yang, X.J., Pradhan, A.K., Tsui, K.M., Robert, L.P.J.: Pedestrian Trust in Automated Vehicles: Role of Traffic Signal and AV Driving Behavior. Frontiers in Robotics and AI6(117) (2019) https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2019.00117 . Accessed 2024-03-16

    work page doi:10.3389/frobt.2019.00117 2019

  11. [11]

    , author van der Kint, S

    Rodr´ ıguez Palmeiro, A., Kint, S., Vissers, L., Farah, H., Winter, J.C.F., Hagenzieker, M.: Interaction between pedestrians and automated vehicles: A Wizard of Oz experiment. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour58, 1005–1020 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2018.07.020 . Accessed 2024-03-16 57

    work page doi:10.1016/j.trf.2018.07.020 2018

  12. [12]

    Mechanical Engineering138(12), 5–11 (2016) https://doi.org/10.1115/1.2016-Dec-2

    Peng, H.: The Roles of Dynamics and Control. Mechanical Engineering138(12), 5–11 (2016) https://doi.org/10.1115/1.2016-Dec-2 . Accessed 2024-03-16

    work page doi:10.1115/1.2016-dec-2 2016

  13. [13]

    Human Factors61(8), 1353–1370 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0018720819836343

    Clercq, K., Dietrich, A., N´ u˜ nez Velasco, J.P., Winter, J., Happee, R.: External Human-Machine Interfaces on Automated Vehicles: Effects on Pedestrian Cross- ing Decisions. Human Factors61(8), 1353–1370 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0018720819836343 . Accessed 2024-03-16

    work page 2019

  14. [14]

    , author Dodou, D

    Bazilinskyy, P., Dodou, D., Winter, J.: Survey on eHMI concepts: The effect of text, color, and perspective. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychol- ogy and Behaviour67, 175–194 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2019.10.013 . Accessed 2024-03-16

    work page doi:10.1016/j.trf.2019.10.013 2019

  15. [15]

    Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour78, 30–41 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.trf.2021.01.013

    Eisma, Y.B., Reiff, A., Kooijman, L., Dodou, D., Winter, J.C.F.: External human- machine interfaces: Effects of message perspective. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour78, 30–41 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.trf.2021.01.013 . Accessed 2024-03-16

    work page 2021

  16. [16]

    Frontiers in Computer Science4, 863072 (2022) https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomp.2022.863072

    Loew, A., Graefe, J., Heil, L., Guthardt, A., Boos, A., Dietrich, A., Bengler, K.: Go Ahead, Please!—Evaluation of External Human—Machine Interfaces in a Real-World Crossing Scenario. Frontiers in Computer Science4, 863072 (2022) https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomp.2022.863072

    work page doi:10.3389/fcomp.2022.863072 2022

  17. [17]

    , author Lyu, W

    Guo, F., Lyu, W., Ren, Z., Li, M., Liu, Z.: A Video-Based, Eye-Tracking Study to Investigate the Effect of eHMI Modalities and Locations on Pedes- trian–Automated Vehicle Interaction. Sustainability14(9), 5633 (2022) https: //doi.org/10.3390/su14095633 . Number: 9. Accessed 2024-03-16

    work page doi:10.3390/su14095633 2022

  18. [18]

    , author Dodou, D

    Winter, J., Dodou, D.: External human–machine interfaces: Gimmick or neces- sity? Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives15, 100643 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2022.100643 . Accessed 2024-03-16

    work page doi:10.1016/j.trip.2022.100643 2022

  19. [19]

    In: 2020 10th Annual Computing and Com- munication Workshop and Conference (CCWC), pp

    Mahmud, S., Lin, X., Kim, J.-H.: Interface for Human Machine Interaction for assistant devices: A Review. In: 2020 10th Annual Computing and Com- munication Workshop and Conference (CCWC), pp. 0768–0773. IEEE, Las Vegas, NV, USA (2020). https://doi.org/10.1109/CCWC47524.2020.9031244 . https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9031244Accessed 2024-03-16

    work page doi:10.1109/ccwc47524.2020.9031244 2020

  20. [20]

    https://mediaroom

    Kelley Blue Book: New-Vehicle Prices Increase for Fifth Straight Month, Set Record Again in August, According to Kelley Blue Book. https://mediaroom. kbb.com/2022-09-12-New-Vehicle-Prices-Increase-for-Fifth-Straight-Month, -Set-Record-Again-in-August,-According-to-Kelley-Blue-Book Accessed 2024-03-26

    work page 2022

  21. [21]

    https://accessibility.iu.edu/understanding-accessibility/ types-of-disabilities.html Accessed 2024-03-16 58

    Indiana University: Types of disabilities: Understanding accessibility: Accessibil- ity: Indiana University. https://accessibility.iu.edu/understanding-accessibility/ types-of-disabilities.html Accessed 2024-03-16 58

    work page 2024

  22. [22]

    https://bf-website-uploads-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/2015/09/ Accessible-Signage-Guidelines.pdf Accessed 2024-03-26

    Blind Low Vision NZ: Accessible Signage Guidelines, second edition (2013). https://bf-website-uploads-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/2015/09/ Accessible-Signage-Guidelines.pdf Accessed 2024-03-26

    work page 2013

  23. [23]

    Access Board: Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Standards (2010)

    U.S. Access Board: Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Standards (2010). https://www.access-board.gov/ada/ Accessed 2024-03-26

    work page 2010

  24. [24]

    https://www

    Colour Blind Awareness: Types of Colour Blindness. https://www. colourblindawareness.org/colour-blindness/types-of-colour-blindness/ Accessed 2024-03-27

    work page 2024

  25. [25]

    https://www.efhoh.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/ Accessibility-Guidelines-IFHOH-Position-Paper-1-1.pdf Accessed 2024-03-26

    International Federation of Hard-of-Hearing People: Hearing Acces- sibility Guidelines for Hard-of-Hearing Persons and for Event Organizers (2021). https://www.efhoh.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/ Accessibility-Guidelines-IFHOH-Position-Paper-1-1.pdf Accessed 2024-03-26

    work page 2021

  26. [26]

    https://www.w3.org/TR/ WCAG21/#contrast-minimum Accessed 2024-03-26

    Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1. https://www.w3.org/TR/ WCAG21/#contrast-minimum Accessed 2024-03-26

    work page 2024

  27. [27]

    https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/ three-flashes-or-below-threshold.html Accessed 2024-03-26

    Understanding Success Criterion 2.3.1: Three Flashes or Below Thresh- old|WAI|W3C. https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/ three-flashes-or-below-threshold.html Accessed 2024-03-26

    work page 2024

  28. [28]

    https://www.webaxe.org/ vestibular-issues-parallax-design/ Accessed 2024-03-26

    , D.: Vestibular Issues in Parallax Design (2015). https://www.webaxe.org/ vestibular-issues-parallax-design/ Accessed 2024-03-26

    work page 2015

  29. [29]

    Journal of Nonverbal Behavior40, 101–116 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919-015-0226-4

    Krys, K., -Melanie Vauclair, C., Capaldi, C.A., Lun, V.M.-C., Bond, M.H., Dom´ ınguez-Espinosa, A., Torres, C., Lipp, O.V., Manickam, L.S.S., Xing, C., Antal´ ıkov´ a, R., Pavlopoulos, V., Teyssier, J., Hur, T., Hansen, K., Szarota, P., Ahmed, R.A., Burtceva, E., Chkhaidze, A., Cenko, E., Denoux, P., F¨ ul¨ op, M., Hassan, A., Igbokwe, D.O., I¸ sık,˙I., J...

    work page doi:10.1007/s10919-015-0226-4 2015

  30. [30]

    https://interconnectit.com/news/ 2018/11/07/not-all-icons-are-universal/ Accessed 2024-03-26

    Larsen, C.: Not all icons are universal (2018). https://interconnectit.com/news/ 2018/11/07/not-all-icons-are-universal/ Accessed 2024-03-26

    work page 2018

  31. [31]

    https://nhttac.acf.hhs

    Office on Trafficking in Persons: Language Accessibility. https://nhttac.acf.hhs. gov/soar/eguide/ask/Language%20Accessibility Accessed 2024-03-26

    work page 2024

  32. [32]

    https://www.w3.org/ WAI/cognitive/ Accessed 2024-03-26

    Initiative (WAI), W.W.A.: Cognitive Accessibility at W3C. https://www.w3.org/ WAI/cognitive/ Accessed 2024-03-26

    work page 2024

  33. [33]

    Dyslexia-Friendly Style Guide

    Brokering, E.S.: Creating a “Dyslexia-Friendly Style Guide.” (2023). https: 59 //bootcamp.uxdesign.cc/creating-a-dyslexia-friendly-style-guide-527181d6a026 Accessed 2024-03-26

    work page 2023

  34. [34]

    https://www.inclusionhub.com/articles/ improving-wcag-for-mental-health Accessed 2024-03-26

    Jankowski, R.: Improving Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) for Mental Health Disabilities (2022). https://www.inclusionhub.com/articles/ improving-wcag-for-mental-health Accessed 2024-03-26

    work page 2022

  35. [35]

    Definitions For 18 U.S.C

    Justice Manual|1973. Definitions For 18 U.S.C. 2251, 2251A, 2252A And 2252|United States Department of Justice (2000). https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/ criminal-resource-manual-1973-definitions-18-usc-2251-2251a-2252a-and-2252 Accessed 2024-03-26

    work page 1973

  36. [36]

    https://www.ssa.gov/ policy/docs/ssb/v80n1/v80n1p31.html Accessed 2024-03-26

    Social Security and Financial Security at Older Ages. https://www.ssa.gov/ policy/docs/ssb/v80n1/v80n1p31.html Accessed 2024-03-26

    work page 2024

  37. [37]

    Gonzalez-Belmonte, J., Kwon, J.: Analytical Study on the Exposedness of Poten- tial Positions for External Human-Machine Interfaces. arXiv. arXiv:2507.08973 [cs] (2026). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2507.08973 . http://arxiv.org/abs/ 2507.08973 Accessed 2026-03-26

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.08973 2026

  38. [38]

    https:// stjarnhimlen.se/comp/radfaq.html Accessed 2024-03-27

    Schlyter, P.: Radiometry and photometry in astronomy (2023). https:// stjarnhimlen.se/comp/radfaq.html Accessed 2024-03-27

    work page 2023

  39. [39]

    https://glossarytest.ametsoc.net/wiki/Civil twilight Accessed 2024-07-11

    American Metereological Society: civil twilight - Glossary of Meteorology (2024). https://glossarytest.ametsoc.net/wiki/Civil twilight Accessed 2024-07-11

    work page 2024

  40. [40]

    https://wgntv.com/weather/weather-blog/ do-meteorologists-have-specific-definitions-for-drizzle-light-rain-steady-rain-heavy-rain-downpour/ Accessed 2024-03-27

    Skilling, T.: Do meteorologists have specific definitions for drizzle, light rain, steady rain, heavy rain, down- pour? (2018). https://wgntv.com/weather/weather-blog/ do-meteorologists-have-specific-definitions-for-drizzle-light-rain-steady-rain-heavy-rain-downpour/ Accessed 2024-03-27

    work page 2018

  41. [41]

    Department of Commerce: About Dense Fog and Smoke

    U.S. Department of Commerce: About Dense Fog and Smoke. NOAA’s National Weather Service. https://www.weather.gov/mfl/visibility Accessed 2024-03-27

    work page 2024

  42. [42]

    E3S Web of Conferences65, 09004 (2018) https: //doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/20186509004

    Priambodo, M., Siregar, M.: Road Sign Detection Distance and Reading Distance at an Uncontrolled Intersection. E3S Web of Conferences65, 09004 (2018) https: //doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/20186509004

    work page doi:10.1051/e3sconf/20186509004 2018

  43. [43]

    Survey Foot

    National Institute of Standards and Technology: U.S. Survey Foot. NIST (2019). Last Modified: 2023-01-04T13:59-05:00. Accessed 2024-05-26

    work page 2019

  44. [44]

    https://www.dalepollak.com/2018/06/ metric-merits-attentionyour-usednew-sales-ratio/ Accessed 2024-06-04 60

    Pollak, D.: A Metric That Merits More Attention—Your Used/New Sales Ratio (2018). https://www.dalepollak.com/2018/06/ metric-merits-attentionyour-usednew-sales-ratio/ Accessed 2024-06-04 60

    work page 2018

  45. [45]

    Safety Science89, 94–105 (2016) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2016.05.014

    Kadali, B.R., Vedagiri, P.: Proactive pedestrian safety evaluation at unprotected mid-block crosswalk locations under mixed traffic conditions. Safety Science89, 94–105 (2016) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2016.05.014 . Accessed 2024-03-16

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2016.05.014 2016

  46. [46]

    In: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications

    Moore, D., Currano, R., Strack, G.E., Sirkin, D.: The Case for Implicit Exter- nal Human-Machine Interfaces for Autonomous Vehicles. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications. AutomotiveUI ’19, pp. 295–307. Association for Comput- ing Machinery, New York, NY, USA (2019). https...

    work page doi:10.1145/3342197 2019

  47. [47]

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v= lLg8IBroKwE Accessed 2024-03-29

    Pedestrian detection at crosswalk (2020). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v= lLg8IBroKwE Accessed 2024-03-29

    work page 2020

  48. [48]

    Mathematics11(14), 3058 (2023) https: //doi.org/10.3390/math11143058

    Poliak, M., Dvorsk´ y, J., Z´ yka, J., Nica, E.: Evaluation of a Front Braking Light for Improving Safety in Road Transport. Mathematics11(14), 3058 (2023) https: //doi.org/10.3390/math11143058 . Number: 14. Accessed 2024-03-16

    work page doi:10.3390/math11143058 2023

  49. [49]

    IET Intelligent Transport Systems 12(6), 449–453 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1049/iet-its.2017.0321

    Petzoldt, T., Schleinitz, K., Banse, R.: Potential safety effects of a frontal brake light for motor vehicles. IET Intelligent Transport Systems 12(6), 449–453 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1049/iet-its.2017.0321 . eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1049/iet-its.2017.0321. Accessed 2024-03-16

    work page doi:10.1049/iet-its.2017.0321 2018

  50. [50]

    US6864787B1, March 2005

    Veach, S.C.: Front Safety Brake Lights. US6864787B1, March 2005. https:// patents.google.com/patent/US6864787B1/en Accessed 2024-03-16

    work page 2005

  51. [51]

    https://3seaseurope.com/green-front-brake-light-vehicles-test-in-slovakia/ Accessed 2024-03-16

    Hochel, M.: Green Front Brake Light for Vehicles Currently Tested in Slovakia. https://3seaseurope.com/green-front-brake-light-vehicles-test-in-slovakia/ Accessed 2024-03-16

    work page 2024

  52. [52]

    https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/news/2017/09/13/ ford-virginia-tech-autonomous-vehicle-human-testing.html Accessed 2024-03-16

    Ford, Virginia Tech Go Undercover to Develop Signals That Enable Autonomous Vehicles to Communicate with People|Ford Media Center (2017). https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/news/2017/09/13/ ford-virginia-tech-autonomous-vehicle-human-testing.html Accessed 2024-03-16

    work page 2017

  53. [53]

    https: //www.semcon.com/article/the-smiling-car Accessed 2024-03-16

    The Smiling Car - self-driving cars interact through a smile|Semcon. https: //www.semcon.com/article/the-smiling-car Accessed 2024-03-16

    work page 2024

  54. [54]

    Clamann, M., Aubert, M., Cummings, M.L.: Evaluation of Vehicle-to-Pedestrian Communication Displays for Autonomous Vehicles, Washington D.C. (2017)

    work page 2017

  55. [55]

    http://global.nissannews.com/en/releases/151028-01-e Accessed 2024-03- 16

    Nissan IDS Concept: Nissan’s vision for the future of EVs and autonomous driving (2015). http://global.nissannews.com/en/releases/151028-01-e Accessed 2024-03- 16

    work page 2015

  56. [56]

    https://data.bls.gov/ 61 cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl Accessed 2024-06-14

    US Bureau of Labor Statistics: CPI Inflation Calculator. https://data.bls.gov/ 61 cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl Accessed 2024-06-14

    work page 2024

  57. [57]

    Right Now

    CarParts.com - Right Parts. Right Now. https://www.carparts.com/ Accessed 2024-06-14

    work page 2024

  58. [58]

    https://repairpal.com/ estimator/brake-light-switch-replacement-cost Accessed 2024-06-14

    Brake Light Switch Replacement Cost Estimate. https://repairpal.com/ estimator/brake-light-switch-replacement-cost Accessed 2024-06-14

    work page 2024

  59. [59]

    https://www.autobulbsdirect.co.uk/blog/ how-long-should-car-bulbs-last/ Accessed 2024-06-14

    Michael, D.: How Long Should Car Bulbs Last? Halogen, LED & Xenon Bulbs (2019). https://www.autobulbsdirect.co.uk/blog/ how-long-should-car-bulbs-last/ Accessed 2024-06-14

    work page 2019

  60. [60]

    https://ledsigncity.com/ pages/taxi-top-led-display Accessed 2024-06-14

    ledsigncity: Car Top LED Display by LED Sign City. https://ledsigncity.com/ pages/taxi-top-led-display Accessed 2024-06-14

    work page 2024

  61. [61]

    https://newsroom.aaa.com/2016/09/ americans-spend-average-17600-minutes-driving-year/ Accessed 2024-06-14

    Gross, A.: Americans Spend an Average of 17,600 Minutes Driving Each Year (2016). https://newsroom.aaa.com/2016/09/ americans-spend-average-17600-minutes-driving-year/ Accessed 2024-06-14

    work page 2016

  62. [62]

    Bureau of Labor Statistics: Average energy prices for the United States, regions, census divisions, and selected metropolitan areas : Midwest Information Office : U.S

    U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics: Average energy prices for the United States, regions, census divisions, and selected metropolitan areas : Midwest Information Office : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2022). https://web.archive.org/web/20240120221645/https://www.bls.gov/regions/ midwest/data/averageenergyprices selectedareas table.htm Accessed 2024-06-14

    work page arXiv 2022

  63. [63]

    https://www.ledsupply

    5mm LED - Aqua 505nm 30nm Degree Viewing Angle. https://www.ledsupply. com/leds/5mm-led-aqua-505nm-30nm-degree-viewing-angle Accessed 2024-06- 14

    work page 2024

  64. [64]

    Life span: how long will an LED bulb last? https://www.inlineelectric.com/ lifespan Accessed 2024-06-14

    work page 2024

  65. [65]

    Knight Rider. Glen A. Larson Productions, Universal Television. IMDb ID: tt0083437 event-location: United States (1982) 62

    work page 1982