Fully Autonomous Buses: A Literature Review and Future Research Directions
Table 3
Key studies on safety aspects of autonomous buses.
Author(s) (year)
Type
Location
Methods
Key findings
Lutin & Kornhauser (2014)
Conference proceeding (TRB)
United States
Case study (cost and benefit analysis and capacity analysis for one transit agency)
(i) The implementation of collision avoidance technology on buses can be cost effective
(ii) CACC (Cooperative Adaptive Cruise Control) can increase the capacity of an exclusive bus lane
(iii) Collision avoidance and CACC are promising technologies
Sessa et al. (2015)
Report
Europe, US, and Asia∗
Stated preference survey and workshop with experts (, from academia, automotive industry, city and local authorities)
(i) Two extreme scenarios (“automated private car ownership vs. automated car-fleet sharing”) and four different urban typologies (“urban sprawl, city network, small compact city, and rural/tourist areas”) were considered in this online survey of experts
(ii) Safety impacts are expected to be positive; for example, there could be a 90% reduction in accidents by employing different circulation rules
Lutin et al. (2016)
Conference proceeding (TRB)
United States
Safety analysis and export opinion with road map
(i) Safety analysis showed the number of bus-related injuries, casualties, and liability expenses is currently increasing
(ii) The proposed road map calls for partnerships between stakeholders by educating the industry, creating new programs, and identifying funding sources
Piao et al. (2016)
Conference proceeding
Europe∗
Survey (, La Rochelle, France)
(i) Survey respondents were concerned with passenger security, particularly in the evening and at night
(ii) Onboard security is a major concern
(iii) Onboard employees could reduce safety concerns and increase willingness to use autonomous buses
Montes et al. (2017)
Journal
Europe
Design/experiment (of automatic control for articulated buses)
(i) The experimental testing of three separate control systems (velocity, steering, and safety) yielded good results
(ii) The proposed safety system properly stops the bus or reduces the velocity based on the distance between a bus and an obstacle
Portouli et al. (2017)
Conference proceeding
Europe∗
Survey (, Trikala, Greece)
(i) Survey respondents perceive autonomous minibuses to be somewhat safer than conventional buses in terms of crashes with other vehicles or pedestrians
(ii) Survey respondents perceive autonomous minibuses to be as secure as conventional buses in terms of attacks
Salonen (2018)
Journal
Europe∗
Survey ( in Vantaa, Finland)
(i) Survey respondents perceive traffic safety to be better in driverless shuttle buses than conventional buses
(ii) 64 percent of respondents felt that driverless shuttle buses were worse than conventional buses in terms of in-vehicle security (probably due to a lack of driver)