Brain on Board: From safety features to driverless cars

Transcription

1 Brain on Board: From safety features to driverless cars Robyn Robertson, M.C.A. President & CEO Traffic Injury Research Foundation 18 th Annual Not By Accident Conference. London, ON, October 18 th, 2016

2 About TIRF > National, independent road safety research institute > Registered charity > Governance > Staff > Funding > Focus on road users 2

3 Overview > Automated vehicles 101. > Driver attitudes and behaviours related to safety features. > Misconceptions about safety features. > Educational program about safety features. > Implications for use of automated vehicles. 3

4 Technology: Unintended consequences 4

5 Background: Levels of automation Level 0: No automation Level 1: Function-specific automation Level 2: Combined-function automation Level 3: Limited self-driving automation (Source: NHTSA 2013) Level 4: Full self-driving automation 5

6 Automation forecast by experts 6

7 Advantages of automation > Reduce deaths and injuries since 90% of vehicle crashes are due to driver error. > Reduce number of cars on the road. > Reduce traffic congestion & pollution. > Higher speeds. > Reduce car theft. > Potential billions in economic savings. 7

8 Challenges of automation > Reliability in different situations, weather conditions. > Potential for technology to be compromised (hacked); privacy concerns. > Slow regulatory response. > Inexperienced drivers with standardization technology. > Achieving consumer uptake and critical mass. of of 8

9 Automation and safety features > In the past decade new safety features to assist drivers have demonstrated the potential of vehicle automation:» electronic stability control» lane departure warning systems» brake assist» traction control > There is evidence that features have tremendous potential to increase road safety, if used properly. 9

10 Driver behaviour > Behavioural adaptation:» Drivers modify driving habits in response to new information about safety features that they think influences their crash risk.» Drivers may drive less safely because they believe they are safer.» Human responses to safety features have greatest influence on whether technological advances translate to increased safety. 10

11 Driver behaviour > Risk homeostasis:» Drivers modify their driving to adjust to a risk level with which they are comfortable.» Trade off between risks vs rewards.» Drivers are willing to take greater risks because they believe they are better protected by safety features. 11

12 Study > TIRF undertook a research study to explore driver knowledge, attitudes and behaviours regarding safety features:» extensive literature review to gauge scope of issue;» environmental scan; and,» public opinion survey (2,500 Canadians, 25 minute survey; analysis accounted for stratification and used weights). 12

13 Familiarity with features Anti-lock braking system 80.4 Traction control 53.5 Brake assist Electronic stability control Electronic brake force distribution Adaptive headlights Collision warning systems Lane departure warning systems Brake override Driver monitoring systems Percent familiar with this feature 13

14 Ease of use Anti-lock braking system 79.7 Traction control Adaptive headlights Lane departure warning systems Brake assist Electronic brake force distribution Collision warning systems Electronic stability control Brake override Driver monitoring systems Percent think feature would be easy to use 14

15 Make them a better driver Anti-lock braking system 58.9 Traction control Adaptive headlights Collision warning systems Brake assist Electronic brake force distribution Lane departure warning systems Electronic stability control Driver monitoring systems Brake override Percent agree feature would make them better driver 15

16 Driver would take risks Drive well over the speed limit Drive when distracted Drive when tired or fatigued % who would do it with safety features: 19.2% 20.0% Tailgate % Fall asleep/nod off at the wheel 3.6 Drink and drive % Percent who do it 16

17 Misperceptions - safety features > Limited knowledge about vehicle safety systems has contributed to myths about their use:» Features allow me to drive faster and make it less likely I will crash.» Features help me stop sooner so I can follow other vehicles more closely.» Safety features protect occupants so seatbelts are not important.» Safety features allow me to pay less attention when I drive. 17

18 Implications for road safety > Survey results revealed incongruity between:» the desire to be safe on the road;» perceptions about how well safety features work; and,» existing beliefs about the relationship between driver behaviour and vehicle safety systems. 18

19 Road safety program > To help overcome knowledge gaps and increase benefits of safety features, TIRF created Brain on Board ( > The program identifies the brain as the ultimate safety feature and challenges drivers to stay focused on the road. > Your brain is your most important safety feature. 19

20 20

21 21

22 22

23 Lessons learned > Vehicle safety features may have great potential, but if not used properly, benefits are less likely to accrue. > Research suggests that the mere presence of safety features alone may not translate into gains in reducing road crashes. 23

24 Lessons learned > There are some cautionary tales with safety technologies that are relevant to safety features and future automation. 24

25 Lessons learned > There is considerable interest in vehicle automation and its potential benefits. > But there are some barriers to address.» Every moving vehicle or combination of vehicles shall have a driver. - (1968 Vienna Convention on Road Traffic)» Drivers play a critical role in the transition to automated vehicles.» Knowledge and acceptance of technologies must keep pace with automation efforts. 25

26 New TIRF study on AVs > Random, representative sample of 2,662 Canadians stratified by region:» valid licence» driven in past 30 days > Demographics:» males (53.0%) & females (47.0%)» age range of 16 to 93 years» 95% CI, ±1.9% (margin of error) > Four focus groups (drivers and non-drivers). 26

27 New TIRF study on AVs > Two types of self-driving vehicles explored:» limited self-driving vehicles (LSDVs); and,» fully self-driving vehicles (FSDVs). > Driver knowledge, attitudes, practices/behaviour (KAP). > Features of driver behaviour:» technology acceptance in relation to perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness;» trust in automation; and,» behavioural adaptation. 27

28 Driver KAP > Familiar with automated vehicle technology: 63%. > Familiar with SDV technology: 39%. > Enjoys driving: 69%.» Increased by age, if male, and drove longer distances. > Think SDVs will be very relaxing: 22% > Think SDVs will be very stressful: 41%. 28

29 Driver KAP Driver would use LSDVs and FSDVs if available today Strongly agree Percent Somewhat to strongly disagree Don't know 0.0 LSDVs FSDVs 29

30 Technology acceptance: Ease of use Believe SDVs would be to easy to use. Percent strongly agree LSDVs would be easy to use 38 Current knowledge sufficient to operate LSDV 40 FSDVs would be easy to use 36 Current knowledge sufficient to operate FSDV 30

31 Trust in automation SDV safety. > Would feel safe using a vehicle:» LSDV (28%) vs FSDV (21%). > Driver characteristics:» trust decreased as drivers aged.» trust increased if male and higher education levels. I want a full day s notice. I want vehicle to pull over. > Only 31% think warning systems will provide enough notice. 31

32 Trust in automation Percent strongly agree SDV performance. Think LSDVs will perform better than respondent in certain situations LSDVs will respond better to VRUs than myself 26 LSDVs will respond better to hazards than myself 29 LSDVs will drive more safely in poor conditions than myself 32

33 Behavioural adaptation What drivers reported currently doing versus what they think they will do using LSDVs. Currently do this Would do this using LSDV Difference Continue to watch road -- 77% -- Drive tired or fatigued 5% 24% 19%* Non-driving activity / distracted 4% 17% 13%* Sleep or nap -- 10% -- Set vehicle to drive over speed limit 8% 9% 1% Drink and drive 3% 9% 6%* *Difference significant p<

34 Behavioural adaptation Percent very likely to disengage LSDV in order to drive faster or run a red light. Percent very likely to do Good road and weather conditions Driver familiar with the roads Late for appointment Poor road and weather conditions Drive faster Run red light 34

35 Policy implications > Education is essential to prepare drivers!» Misconceptions exist regarding role of driver attention and response time to warnings.» Technology limitations are under-estimated. > Early adopters must know how to properly use technology. > The ability to turn off technology will have important implications for safety. > Expectation that occupants will be protected in an unavoidable collision. 35

36 Conclusions > Some important measures that speak to the behavioural challenges:» 4» 7.2» 68 36

37 > Sponsored by Toyota Canada Foundation > TIRF: Dr. Ward Vanlaar, Shawna Meister 37

38 38

39 Stay informed! Connect with us! traffic-injury-research-foundation-tirf 39