ITS and connected cars

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "ITS and connected cars"

Marcus Goodwin
6 years ago
Views:

1 Säkra Nordiska tunnlar - med ITS Copenhagen, 21 May 2015 ITS and connected cars Jacob Bangsgaard Director General, FIA Region I

2 FIA REGION I FIA Region I is a consumer body representing 111 Mobility Clubs and their 38 million members from across Europe, the Middle East and Africa. FIA Region I is working to ensure safe, affordable, clean and efficient mobility for all.

3 EU Directive on tunnels safety EU Directive 2004/54/EC Ensure safety by preventing critical events Mitigate the consequences of critical events Commission s plan Revise and merge the tunnels and infrastructure Directives in 2016

4 Mid-term evaluation of the Directive 2014: Commission s mid-term evaluation Analysis of the implementation by Member States Cost-benefit analysis of the requirements Focus on best practices FIA Clubs opinion In general, significant improvement of safety management In particular, major improvements regarding structural measures, emergency stations, control centres and monitoring systems Recommend to extend the scope to include less than 500 metres and non-ten-t tunnels

5 EuroTAP

6 From dreams to reality

Rethinking the sale of mobility solutions

7 Observed changes Internet of everything ITS connectivity services Changes in consumer behaviour Sharing economy sharing of data - trust Mobility as a service Rethinking the sale of mobility solutions Changes in access and pricing Urban restriction - charging

8 Cars are getting connected

9 Key players

10 Data protection, security, access to data

11 Mobility as a service Google Apple Microsoft Uber Blablacar Audi Siemens Ericsson TomTom BMW HERE TfL VR

12 General Safety Regulation TRL was commissioned to deliver a study for the European Commission The study differentiates very likely ( Green ), moderately likely ( orange ) or very unlikely ( red ) to provide a positive cost/benefit This study will now be debated at the European Parliament and the European Council. The Commission is likely to draft a proposal in the course of 2016

13 Measure Feasible? BCR Future? Recommendations/Notes Expansion and enhancement of AEB, BAS and LDW to avoid or mitigate collisions, including inter-urban, city and those with pedestrians/cyclists ~1 Greatest casualty benefit for AEBS for M1 then N1 vehicles, although cost-benefit less clear than for N2/N3. System cost estimates suggest 'city safety' systems may be getting to the breakeven cost point Speed limiters controlled by road speed limit, speed assist, intelligent speed adaptation) >1 BCR>1 for 6 Member States, for voluntary activation (switched on/off by the driver) and mandatory activation, and public acceptability of the systems considered to be growing. BCR higher for mandatory activation system, but both have positive BCR Lane keeping system >1 Costs higher than LDW and similar to LCA, but benefits higher because higher expected effectiveness than LDW/LCA Seat-belt reminder systems in front and rear passenger seating positions >1 Cost-beneficial for M1 driver and outboard passenger seat, M2 andm3 passengers, all seat positions for N1, N2, N3. Could consider legislation for M1 second and other row seats on basis of safety equality and being nearly cost effective

Measure Feasible? BCR Pedestrian/cyclists detection systems <1 Future? Recommendations/Notes No BCR studies were identified and breakeven costs exceed current system costs.

14 Measure Feasible? BCR Pedestrian/cyclists detection systems <1 Future? Recommendations/Notes No BCR studies were identified and breakeven costs exceed current system costs. If other systems that share hardware with PCD systems are mandated and if reliable system cost estimates can be identified, this measure should be reevaluated Night vision systems to detect obstacles and persons in unclear ambient lighting conditions Driver interface provisions and restrictions for onboard infotainment systems; <1? 1 Issues with distraction with always-on systems; warning systems may be helpful, but the BCR is not yet clear Currently handled by voluntary agreements and standards, which allows innovation but also non-standardised, nonintuitive controls that do not necessarily comply with the standards. Suggest development of tests to quantify compliance with the guidelines and continuous monitoring of effect on collision rates as systems become more commonplace

Measure Feasible? BCR Future? Recommendations/Notes Automatic cruise control <1 Do not consider on its own (not cost-beneficial and may have disbenefits in some situations).

15 Measure Feasible? BCR Future? Recommendations/Notes Automatic cruise control <1 Do not consider on its own (not cost-beneficial and may have disbenefits in some situations). Consider if AEBS is mandated (much of the hardware cost would be borne by the AEBS) Lane change assist (incorporating blind spot detection systems) <1 Benefits may be more robust than for LDW, but system costs (based on retail price) currently too high for BCR>1 Increased crash speeds? Traffic sign recognition? Higher speed test unlikely to change vehicle design, because vehicles already meet Euro NCAP; may affect some vehicles where the worst case model (tested in UN Regulations) is significantly different (e.g. much larger engine) than the most popular model (that is tested in Euro NCAP) No appropriate test procedures available from which to set legislative performance requirements and the cost-benefit is not clear (dependence on infrastructure). Recommend encouragement through other means

16 FIA POSITION Driver Assistance Technology FIA Assessment Autonomous Emergency Braking (AEB) Should be mandated Affordable cost, avoids frequent rear-end collisions, high consumer demand. Hardware used for AEB enables deployment of additional systems (ACC, lane keeping, traffic sign recognition). Seat Belt Reminders Lane Support Systems Intelligent Speed Assistance (ISA) Blind Spot Monitoring (BSM) Adaptive Headlights Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC) Should be mandated on all seats (Only mandatory on driver s seat at present). Safety case, but limitations due to lack of driver intention monitoring or poor road markings. Safety case but technology depends on up-to-date digital maps with reliable speed limit data, or physical traffic signs. Technology not infallible for detecting PTWs. More relevant for larger vehicles, should not be mandated on passenger cars. No compelling case to mandate, but high consumer demand. No compelling case to mandate, only suitable for non-congested highway driving.

17 Euro NCAP Safety Assist

18 Activity areas Development of automated driving

19 Activity areas Levels of automated driving

20 Costs for infrastructure operators Dedicated lanes Harmonisation and improvements of road markings and traffic signs Winter maintenance Investments for private roads Availability of I2V and V2I (DSRC, cellular 3,4,5G)

21 Benefits to consumers Safety Congestion reduction Optimised use of scarce infrastructure Emission reduction and increased energy efficiency Opportunity to better use travel time Comfort and reduced workload

22 Main consumer concerns Trust and reliability Data protection and privacy Security Safety Impact on congestion Responsibility / liability Transition from manual to automated and back Driver training - or no training? Non-equipped vehicles and road users Purchase cost and service contracts

23 Raising awareness Activity areas

24 Thank you! Activity areas

Status of the review of the General Safety and Pedestrian Safety Regulations

Submitted by expert from EC Informal document GRFF-83-19 83rd GRRF, 23-27 January 2017, Agenda item 11 AC.nl Status of the review of the General Safety and Pedestrian Safety Regulations Reporting on new