Emergency vehicle lightings (EVL) mitigate the risk of collision and make drivers move over. The present paper explored how new alternative EVL designs can improve driver behavior in different emergency vehicle interaction scenarios. From workshops with 14 emergency responders, three scenarios (Emergency driving, Police pull-over, Emergency vehicle alongside the road) and 19 EVL blink patterns were chosen. These alternative EVLs were presented in an online survey with 2627 Swedish respondents. Alternative EVL affected reported driving behavior. Drivers reported being most certain of what is expected from them in the emergency-driving scenario. It is important to ensure that the EVL is easy to interpret in more unfamiliar emergency-vehicle interactions such as police pull-over. Only a third of drivers had seen the pull-over EVL currently used in Sweden. The current pull-over EVL in combination with a stop sign increased the chance of drivers reporting that they would pull over. 

Emergency vehicles (EVs) are at high risk of accidents during emergency driving. To make use of countermeasures to mitigate these risks, it is important to understand under what circumstances EV-related accidents occur. The common risk factors for EV-related accidents were examined through a systematic literature review. A total of 22 articles were examined for risk factors associated with EV-related accidents. The most reported risk factors were, in order of frequency, intersections, daytime, dry roads, clear weather, urban roads, traffic signals, and angular collisions. The articles were also reviewed for suggested countermeasures to mitigate the risk factors. The most commonly suggested countermeasures were driver training for EV operators, educating the public, exercising caution at intersections, wearing a seatbelt, and intelligent vehicle technologies. Cooperative intelligent transport systems (C-ITSs) have the potential to mitigate the risks of EV-related accidents. Therefore, three C-ITS services were investigated: EV approaching, EV preemption, and geofencing. They could all be used to inform, warn, or control aspects of driving. Each suggested service has the potential to decrease risk factors for EV-related accidents. The current literature review provides guidance on under what circumstance and in what form C-ITSs could be beneficial to prevent EV-related accidents. Further research is needed to examine behavior when drivers are introduced to C-ITSs.

Objective: This study investigated drivers' move-over behavior when receiving an Emergency Vehicle Approaching (EVA) warning. Furthermore, the possible effects of false alarms, driver experience, and modality on move-over behavior were explored.

Background: EVA warnings are one solution to encourage drivers to move over for emergency vehicles in a safe and timely manner. EVA warnings are distributed based on the predicted path of the emergency vehicle causing a risk of false alarms. Previous EVA studies have suggested a difference between inexperienced and experienced drivers' move-over behavior.

Method: A driving simulator study was conducted with 110 participants, whereof 54 inexperienced and 56 experienced drivers. They were approached by an emergency vehicle three times. A control group received no EVA warnings, whereas the experimental groups received either true or false warnings, auditory or visual, 15 seconds before the emergency vehicle overtook them.

Results: Drivers who received EVA warnings moved over more quickly for the emergency vehicle compared to the control group. Drivers moved over more quickly for each emergency vehicle interaction. False alarms impaired move-over behavior. No difference in driver behavior based on driver experience or modality was observed.

Conclusion: EVA warnings positively affect drivers' move-over behavior. However, false alarms can decrease drivers' future willingness to comply with the warning.

Application: The findings regarding measurements of delay can be used to optimize the design of future EVA systems. Moreover, this research should be used to further understand the effect of false alarms in in-car warnings.

The interaction between emergency vehicle drivers and surrounding road users is associated with risks. This study explored the application of geofencing to improve interactions between drivers and emergency vehicles to reduce the risk of collisions in high-risk scenarios. Two high-risk scenarios, an off-ramp collision, and an intersection scenario, were used in two driving simulator experiments with 64 participants in total. Half of the drivers received a geofence-based warning about the upcoming traffic situation. The results indicate that geofencing, when applied to provide warnings in specific locations, improves driver behavior. In the off-ramp experiment, all drivers who received a warning avoided the off-ramp and thereby avoided the collision site, whereas all other drivers took the off-ramp. In the intersection experiment, the warning led to earlier deceleration, allowing the emergency vehicle to pass safely and with minimal delay; whereas nearly half of those who did not get a warning failed to yield to the emergency vehicle. The drivers acted based on the warning they received, even when they had not yet seen the emergency vehicle. The findings suggest that geofencing can improve driver behavior by detecting emergency vehicles early and reliably, thereby improving traffic safety and minimizing delay for emergency vehicles on call. 

This study investigates drivers’ eye gaze behavior in response to Emergency Vehicle Approaching (EVA) warnings. EVA warnings, delivered through in-car alerts, provide advance notice of approaching EVs, enabling drivers to move over in time. Previous research indicates that EVA warnings influence driver behavior positively, promoting safer interactions. This study expands further by exploring the role of system introduction to make drivers benefit from EVA warnings. 

A simulator experiment with 73 participants was conducted. Before driving, half of the participants were introduced to the EVA system. The participants were driving on a highway and were overtaken by EVs twice during a 20-minute drive. During the drive, half of participants received EVA warnings. Gaze distribution was analyzed in three areas of interest (Forward, Mirrors, Dashboards). Analysis of driving simulator data did not reveal any differences in driving behaviors. However, the analysis of drivers’ gaze distribution suggests that EVA warnings contribute to increased mirror usage, indicating early scanning for approaching EVs. Furthermore, drivers who were introduced to the EVA system before driving but never received an EVA warning in the simulator looked through the front windshield less than drivers who were introduced and received an EVA warning. 

This study contributes to understanding the driver gaze behavior when receiving an in-car warning for emergency vehicles and supports previous findings regarding EVA warnings positive impact of driver behavior.