Paper detail

Wait or cross? Understanding the influence of behavioral tendency, trust, and risk perception on pedestrian gap-acceptance of automated truck platoons

Although automated trucks have the potential to improve freight efficiency, reduce costs, and address driver shortages, organizing two or more trucks in a convoy has raised considerable concerns for pedestrian safety. This study conducted a controlled experiment to examine the influence of behavioral tendency, trust, and risk perception on pedestrian intention to cross in front of an automated truck platoon. A total of 603 subjects participated in the virtual reality video-based questionnaire survey. By fusing the merits of structural equation modeling and artificial neural networks, a two-stage, hybrid model was developed to examine complex relationships between latent variables and gap-acceptance behaviors. Our results indicated that subjects watched an average of five vehicle gaps before starting crossing and the average time gap accepted was about 5.35 seconds. Risk perception not only played the most dominant role in shaping pedestrian crossing decisions, but also served as the strong bone, mediating the effects of behavioral tendency and trust on gap-acceptance. Participants who frequently violated traffic rules were more likely to accept a smaller time gap, while those who showed positive behaviors to other road users tended to wait for a larger time gap. Participants who often committed errors, showed aggressive behaviors, and held greater trust in the safety of automated trucks generally reported a lower level of risk for road-crossing in front of automated truck platoons. Built on these findings, a range of tailored countermeasures were proposed to ensure safer and smother interactions between pedestrians and automated truck platoons.

preprint2026arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access5 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.