Researchers at Loughborough University have been using immersive virtual reality (VR) to explore these questions and help the Department for Transport (DfT) and the Government’s Centre for Connected and Autonomous Vehicles (CCAV) understand how future self-driving taxis should be designed to keep passengers with different needs safe and supported in emergencies.
Professor Gary Burnett, an expert in digital creativity at Loughborough, and a team of researchers have developed a series of VR simulations that place participants together as avatars inside a self-driving taxi during emergency situations. The team at Loughborough can then directly observe how people respond socially when there is no human driver present in these safety-critical scenarios.
Ninety-one people with a range of protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 (including 81 adults and 10 children aged eight to 17) experienced the scenarios wearing VR headsets - and were asked what actions they would take, what information or features they would need to manage the situation, and how safe they felt in each emergency scenario.
“Participants experienced scenarios including a medical emergency involving another passenger, a fire inside the vehicle, flooding on the route, a collision, and a pedestrian attempting to open the taxi door”, said Professor Burnett.
“By using VR, researchers were able to safely recreate high-risk situations that would be impossible to test in the real world, while still capturing authentic emotional and behavioural responses.”
The research, funded by the Department for Transport, has been published in an online report. The findings highlight that barriers in emergencies are not only practical – such as those due to physical or sensory limitations – but are also shaped by how safe people feel, with gender, age, disability and other protected characteristics influencing how confidently passengers are able to act or seek help.
Project Director Dr Clare Mutzenich – who has recently joined Loughborough University as a Professor of Human and AI Interaction – said: “Without a human driver to guide or reassure, automated systems will need to take on a more active role in supporting people, particularly in moments of uncertainty or emergency.
“By bringing together voices that are often overlooked in transport planning, including those of disabled people, neurodivergent users, and individuals with gender or faith-related needs, this study helps lay the foundations for self-driving taxis that are not only technically capable, but genuinely inclusive, trusted and safe for everyone."
How everyday activities affect taking back control in self-driving vehicles
Alongside this work, Loughborough researchers have contributed to a second DfT and CCAV-funded project examining which non-driving activities people can safely carry out while a self-driving vehicle is driving itself, without compromising their ability to take back control when required to by the automated system.
The research, carried out in collaboration with University College London, involved 87 participants taking part in controlled driving simulator trials. During periods of self-driving, participants completed everyday non-driving related activities – such as watching videos, reading, completing puzzles, and eating or drinking – before receiving a prompt to take back control of the vehicle.
Take-back control was assessed by examining how quickly and safely participants resumed control of the vehicle, including whether they regained situational awareness by scanning mirrors and the road before starting driving and their steering, braking and lane-keeping performance once they took manual control.
A person sits behind the wheel of the Loughborough University driving simulator, which was used to explore which non-driving activities people can safely carry out while a self-driving vehicle is driving itself, without compromising their ability to take back control when required to by the automated system.
The findings, which have also been published in an online report, show that taking back control quickly does not always mean taking back control safely, with some activities affecting how well participants were able to rebuild awareness of their surroundings before resuming driving.
Dr Mutzenich said: “We found that some non-driving related activities, such as eating and drinking, were relatively easy for participants to disengage from after a takeover request. Others, however, proved much harder. In some cases, participants continued mobile phone tasks, like watching a film, even after starting manual driving.
“We also observed that very few participants looked in their mirrors before taking control, which is a crucial element of understanding the driving environment.
“Phase 2 of this research is now underway, and the focus is on testing clearer guidance for users-in-charge on what constitutes a safe and effective takeover.”
Together, the projects demonstrate how immersive technologies such as VR and driving simulators can help policymakers and designers anticipate human behaviour and design safer, more inclusive self-driving transport before such systems are introduced on UK roads.