Title User related results from DRIVE C2X test sites Date Name Kerry Malone, Joerg Rech Position WP45 Impact Assessment Leader Organisation TNO, FACIT
Outline DRIVE C2X approach to impact assessment Results to date Challenges in DRIVE C2X Value of DRIVE C2X results outside the project: deployment
Central to DRIVE C2X: the future user
DRIVE C2X test sites Seven Test Sites: System Test Site: Helmond/Eindhoven, The Netherlands Functional Test Sites: Tampere, Finland, Yvelines, France, Frankfurt, Germany, Brennero, Italy, Gothenburg, Sweden Vigo, Spain SCORE-F Yvelines Siscoga Vigo Helmond System TS Test Site Sweden Gothenburg Autobrennero Brennero-Trento sim TD Frankfurt Coop TS Finland Tampere
SP4: Evaluation Results and solutions Technical evaluation Impact assessment User acceptance and recommendations Verify systems Driver behavior in real use Identify value improve through technical and practical knowledge
WP45 Overview Tools &Models Safety Traffic Emissions Scaling up
Draw Conclusions about impacts Safety: Number of avoided fatalities and injuries as a result of [RWW] in the EU-27 Traffic Efficiency: Change in travel time as a result of using [TJAW] Environment: Change in fuel consumption, Co2 emissions, pollutant emissions (NOx, PM) Mobility: Changes travel behaviour (mostly questionnaire results), driver behaviour (during events) and user uptake issues related to journey quality etc.
Relationship between user assessment and other impact areas HMI How functions work FOT Framework (SP2) Data Specification Event Definitions Match of Questionnaire to WP45 Hypotheses Data Task Force (WP 35 and 43) Impacts on driver behaviour (WP45) User Acceptance (WP46) Test Sites Harmonization Functions for full Impact assessment Situational Variables safety, environment, efficiency, mobility Societal CBA (WP 56) Scenarios Common assumptions Outputs Business Models (WP 56) User Acceptance
Results to date summary of pre validation results Car2X technology is very well received among the participants. In particular, participants who have an affinity with technology and innovations are very open to this technology. More than two thirds of participants claim that they are even excited about C2X technology. Safety-related use cases are of the highest importance. Information and warnings after an accident, before the end of a traffic jam, in bad weather, and in the event of obstacles on the road are regarded as the most important. This also has an effect on the cost model regarding the C2X functions: 54% of customers state that the basic safety functions should be available as standard; however, additional functions should be activatable at a one-off surcharge. A higher procurement price is therefore accepted, while additional costs are viewed critically.
Acceptance Car2X technology Frequencies level of agreement by question The Car 2 x Technology agree (4, 5 on the scale) disagree (1, 2, 3 on the scale) Mean increases my safety. 89 11,5 4.36 If this were standard equipment, I would use it regularly. 88 11,6 4.42 is very innovative. 86 14,1 4.25 is useful. 85 15,0 4.24 increases my comfort. 77 23,5 4.00 is exciting. 75 25,2 4.03 makes driving less stressful. 67 33,3 3.78 I would purchase this system if it were optional equipment. doubtfully works reliably and faultlessly. 12 47 88,1 53,3 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 3.38 2.33 10
WP46, Pre validation Results: Acceptance of the use cases Acceptance Score low acceptance high acceptance 1 2 3 4 5 Post Crash Warning Traffic Jam Ahead Warning Weather Warning Obstacles Warning Car Breakdown Warning Traffic Information Emergency Vehicle Warning Slow Vehicle Warning Emergency Electr. Brakelight In Vehicle Signage Road Works Warning Green Light Speed Advisory Wrong way in Gas Stations Motorcycle Warning POI Notification Usage Based Car Rental Service Module Transparent Leasing Insurance Service Cluster 1 * Cluster 2 Overall acceptance score: I think this system is useful (perceived usefulness). This system is exciting (excitement). If this system were standard equipment in my car, I would use it regularly (anticipated usage behavior). I would purchase this system if it were optional equipment (purchase intention ). High acceptance score for safety use cases. Low acceptance for use cases, fits for special customer groups. 12.06.2013
Pre validation Results: Preferred payment models System Included in a higher purchase price, no additional costs. Monthly fee for use of system. System is activated for a one-time fee. Only charged if the system is actually used. I expect this to be standard equipment in the vehicle. I do not want this in my vehicle. Traffic Jam Ahead Warning 41.3 2.8 8.9 5.8 39.2 1.9 Emergency Vehicle Warning 33.7 1.0 12.7 7.1 36.6 9.0 Road Works Warning 36.2 2.7 16.3 9.9 23.6 11.3 Obstacles Warning 40.4 3.9 14.7 6.6 32.4 2.0 Emergency Electronic Brakelight 34.4 1.3 11.3 3.3 42.7 6.9 Car Breakdown Warning 39.5 4.0 13.0 7.1 32.2 4.3 Post Crash Warning 40.0 3.0 15.5 5.4 34.0 2.1 Weather Warning 36.4 4.0 13.6 6.8 37.1 2.1 Slow Vehicle Warning 42.3 3.4 15.7 8.2 23.4 7.0 Wrong Way in Gas Stations Warning 27.1 3.7 16.7 12.3 22.7 17.6 Motorcycle Warning 31.1 3.5 19.9 9.8 17.3 18.5 Green Light Speed Advisory 37.6 4.4 18.4 5.8 20.2 13.6 POI Notification 20.6 6.0 14.2 21.0 19.1 19.1 Insurance Service 8.3 3.1 7.3 8.7 4.3 68.3 Service Module 17.0 5.1 11.4 12.1 14.9 39.4 Traffic Information 33.5 5.8 14.3 14.3 27.9 4.1 12
Challenges in DRIVE MAIN CHALLENGES IN USER ACCEPTANCE MEASUREMENT Prototype Character of the Technology Maximize Participation of Users Harmonize Across Test Sites Minimize Influence on Driver Behaviour SOLUTION SOLUTION SOLUTION SOLUTION Measurement of potential biases Surveys not after every single test drive Projective acceptance questions Point out relevance of tests in communication! Online platform to avoid data loss Test length and usability in piloting Centralized questionnaire and survey tool Communication focus Participation of Test Sites in WP 46 work Check of every question and briefing material by specialized team Reduction of questions before end of test drives
Challenges in DRIVE MAIN CHALLENGES IN IMPACT ASSESSMENT Hyp oth esis Effec t df Err or df p Partial Eta Square d 2013 May June July Aug S6 Tim e 1 41 0.0 31 0.108? 6 FOT Sites Statistically significant Data Quality Results Time Scale of FOTs SOLUTION SOLUTION SOLUTION SOLUTION Harmonization of Test Scenarios over Test Sites STS to validate technology Controlled Tests and Naturalistic Driving Pool data over Test Sites Assist with experimental design Data Flow Task Force to design data flows from TS to Impact assessment, covering preprocessing, data quality checks Controlled Testing can generate data quickly Additional tests can be planned (Weather warning for Finland in fall 2013)
Beyond DRIVE C2X: broadening perspective beyond safety functions to Broad Range of MULTIMODAL PARKING TRAVEL MANAGEMENT Commercial Applications LOCAL ELECTRONIC COMMERCE CONNECTION TO POI FUEL MANAGEMENT POI NOTIFICATION CAR SHARING LEASING INSURANCE INDIVIDUAL DRIVING PROFILE ELECTRONIC TOLL COLLECT CAR RENTAL COMMERCIAL FLEET MANAGEMENT COORDINATION & CONTROLLING TAXI COORDINATION PUBLIC TRANSPORT LOGISTICS MANAGEMENT STOLEN VEHICLE ALTERT REMOTE DIAGNOSIS MAINTENANCE & SECURITY ACCIDENT MANAGEMENT SOS SERVICE MEDIA DOWNLOADS INFOTAINMENT SOCIAL NETWORKING MAP DOWNLOADS & UPDATES INSTANT MESSAGING
Example: COoperative Benefits for Road Authorities (COBRA)
COBRA tool COBRA was funded by the NRAs from BE, CH, DE, NL, NO and UK under the programme ENR MOBILITY Compare cooperative platforms Societal cost and benefits, and costs (savings) for National Road Authorities Choice of business model Support Decision to be taken in next 5-10 years Usable and extendable by National Road Authorities
Thank you Kerry.malone@tno.nl