As automation advances and occupants transition from active drivers to passive passengers, understanding how automated driving behavior is evaluated becomes increasingly important. While longitudinal and lateral vehicle dynamics are known to influence perceived comfort and safety, it remains unclear to what extent motion–perception relationships remain stable across urban traffic contexts.
This study compares two real-world investigations of automated driving: a left-turn maneuver at a signalized intersection on a test track and a roundabout maneuver with a shuttle in public traffic. Both datasets include high-resolution vehicle dynamics and structured subjective ratings. A consistent objectification approach was applied to examine the transferability of motion–perception relationships across contexts. However, differences in vehicle platform, automation level, trajectory characteristics, and study design limit direct comparability and require cautious interpretation.
Despite partially overlapping ranges in selected peak-based dynamic parameters, such as longitudinal acceleration, subjective comfort and safety ratings were consistently higher in the roundabout scenario. Furthermore, strong associations were observed between motion parameters and subjective evaluations in the intersection context (adj. R2 up to 0.891), whereas objective parameters showed only limited explanatory power in the roundabout scenario (adj. R2 ≤ 0.06).
The results indicate that motion–perception relationships derived within a specific context may not be directly transferable across different traffic scenarios. The findings highlight limitations of globally derived motion-based evaluation models and underline the importance of validating objectification approaches across diverse operational environments.