INTERACTION WP1/WP2Speed Regulating Systems     Users and motives of use               Anabela Simões (ADI)
Summary: 1. Introduction 2. Questionnaire sample 3. Speed regulating systems users (CC,SL,SA)    - Age    - Gender    - Co...
1. IntroductionQualitative                       WP1- Focus Groups analysis                •Outputs for questionnaire     ...
Focus Groups• FG aimed at understanding why, when, where and how  drivers   – interact with four different IVT,   – gather...
FG results for CC and SL Despite the broad variety of answers given regarding the choice of  speed, the CC had higher spe...
2. Questionnaire sample                      Gender (%)               Age group (%)                                       ...
3. Speed regulating systems users        Age groups            CC            SL            SA            <26              ...
3. Speed regulating systems users      Gender               CC             SL             SA      Female              1305...
3. Speed regulating systems users   Country             CC            SL             SA           SA function             ...
4. Motives of cruise control usage                               Benefits of Cruise Control   It helps to control         ...
4. Motives of cruise control usage The main benefits of Cruise Control    it helps to control speed,    It improves the...
4. Motives for speed limiter usage                                     Benefits of Speed Limiter     It helps to control  ...
4. Motives for speed limiter usage The main identified benefits of the Speed Limiter  are:    Helping to control speed (...
4. Motives of speed alert usage                                    Benefits of Speed Alert    It helps to reduce         s...
4. Motives of speed alert usage Speed Alert was considered to have the same  benefits as Speed Limiter, and it was as use...
Conclusions The collected outputs should not be considered as  representative of a population    they give an overview a...
Conclusions Opinions about SL were less positive than about CC, but the  users considered it useful and gave high ratings...
Thank you for your attention                 Questions?INTERACTION Final event – November 22, 2012 - Brussels   18
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

(3) INTERACTION Final event - Speed regulation systems users

95

Published on

Interaction FP7 project aims to understand driver interactions with in-vehicle technology. Four systems have been investigated : Cruise control, speed limiter, navigation system and mobile phone. This presentation explains who are the users of speed regulation systems.

Published in: Automotive
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
95
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

(3) INTERACTION Final event - Speed regulation systems users

  1. 1. INTERACTION WP1/WP2Speed Regulating Systems Users and motives of use Anabela Simões (ADI)
  2. 2. Summary: 1. Introduction 2. Questionnaire sample 3. Speed regulating systems users (CC,SL,SA) - Age - Gender - Country 4. Motives of Speed regulating systems use - CC - SL - SA INTERACTION Final event – November 22, 2012 - Brussels 2
  3. 3. 1. IntroductionQualitative WP1- Focus Groups analysis •Outputs for questionnaire •Outputs for data coding methodologies Self- reported behaviour WP2- QuestionnaireQuantitative analysis Observed (...) behaviour 3 INTERACTION Final event – November 22, 2012 - Brussels
  4. 4. Focus Groups• FG aimed at understanding why, when, where and how drivers – interact with four different IVT, – gather information to understand more about the moments and modalities the drivers choose to interact with IVT.• The FG sessions were conducted in six different European countries: – Austria, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Portugal and Spain)• FG results express the way drivers think about – the advantages and disadvantages of the systems, – the moments they select to use them in a proper or unattended way, – The reported dangerous situations while interacting with them. INTERACTION Final event – November 22, 2012 - Brussels 4
  5. 5. FG results for CC and SL Despite the broad variety of answers given regarding the choice of speed, the CC had higher speeds reported, confirming also a higher distance from the legal limit. Speeds used for SL were presented as closer and more related with the legal limit imposed to the current stretch of the road. The discussions revealed as well that not everybody knows all the system possibilities:  the activation of the last set speed was not familiar for some drivers (both for CC and SL). The drawbacks considered for the CC were related with lower efficient braking and some monotony that the activation of the system can bring. INTERACTION Final event – November 22, 2012 - Brussels 5
  6. 6. 2. Questionnaire sample Gender (%) Age group (%) Total Country Male Female 14-22 23-35 36-55 56-80 (N) Australia 42 57 3 22 41 34 725 Austria 56 43 4 38 48 11 732 Czech Republic 46 53 19 48 26 7 791 Finland 41 59 11 49 37 3 837 France 41 59 9 66 8 17 1177 Netherlands 34 64 2 21 64 13 774 Portugal 61 39 11 64 21 5 1032 Spain 55 44 8 51 33 8 791 UK 41 59 6 34 32 29 818 total 46 53 8 44 34 14 7677 INTERACTION Final event – November 22, 2012 - Brussels 6
  7. 7. 3. Speed regulating systems users Age groups CC SL SA <26 372 188 364 26-45 1631 693 1251 46-65 714 258 569 >65 144 35 91 Total (N) 2861 1174 2275The ‘middle aged’ group (26–45 years old) was using all the systemsmore than other age groups. INTERACTION Final event – November 22, 2012 - Brussels 7
  8. 8. 3. Speed regulating systems users Gender CC SL SA Female 1305 515 1719 Male 1596 683 1939 Total (N) 2901 1198 3658Male respondents both had and used the systems more than femalerespondents. INTERACTION Final event – November 22, 2012 - Brussels 8
  9. 9. 3. Speed regulating systems users Country CC SL SA SA function of navigation system Australia 491 110 271 76 Austria 294 103 236 175Czech Republic 200 96 248 201 Finland 462 42 244 224 France 472 296 342 243 Netherlands 237 63 214 193 Portugal 414 269 352 197 Spain 343 287 318 149 UK 255 107 271 182 Total (N) 3168 1373 2496 1640 INTERACTION Final event – November 22, 2012 - Brussels 9
  10. 10. 4. Motives of cruise control usage Benefits of Cruise Control It helps to control speed It improves the comfort of driving It helps to reduce speeding first second It reduces fuel third consumptionIt improves the safety of driving Other 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 INTERACTION Final event – November 22, 2012 - Brussels 10
  11. 11. 4. Motives of cruise control usage The main benefits of Cruise Control  it helps to control speed,  It improves the comfort of driving. It was also considered useful in reducing speeding. INTERACTION Final event – November 22, 2012 - Brussels 11
  12. 12. 4. Motives for speed limiter usage Benefits of Speed Limiter It helps to control speed It improves the safety of driving It helps to reduce speeding first second It reduces fuel third consumption It improves the comfort of driving Other 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 INTERACTION Final event – November 22, 2012 - Brussels 12
  13. 13. 4. Motives for speed limiter usage The main identified benefits of the Speed Limiter are:  Helping to control speed (reported to be the most important benefit in Australia, Austria, Portugal, Spain and UK);  Helping to reduce speeding (the most important benefit in Czech Republic, Finland, Netherlands and France). It was also considered as a system that improves the safety of driving. INTERACTION Final event – November 22, 2012 - Brussels 13
  14. 14. 4. Motives of speed alert usage Benefits of Speed Alert It helps to reduce speeding It helps to control speedIt improves the safety of driving first second It reduces fuel third consumption It improves the comfort of drivin Other 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 INTERACTION Final event – November 22, 2012 - Brussels 14
  15. 15. 4. Motives of speed alert usage Speed Alert was considered to have the same benefits as Speed Limiter, and it was as useful in reducing speeding as in controlling speed. It was also thought to improve the safety of driving. Austrian, Portuguese and Spanish users rated ‘It helps to control speed’ as the most important benefit. In other countries ‘It helps to reduce speeding’ was considered the main benefit of the system. INTERACTION Final event – November 22, 2012 - Brussels 15
  16. 16. Conclusions The collected outputs should not be considered as representative of a population  they give an overview about different opinions, attitudes and arguments regarding a topic. The results collected in the FG and the questionnaire were used to design further experiments  NDS and in-depth driving behaviour observations. In general terms, there were some behaviours, strategies and opinions that were observed in every country. INTERACTION Final event – November 22, 2012 - Brussels 16
  17. 17. Conclusions Opinions about SL were less positive than about CC, but the users considered it useful and gave high ratings for its usefulness in several driving situations. Users’ opinions about SA were positive and it also got good ratings for the usefulness in different driving situations. There were some cross-cultural differences in the usage of different in-vehicle technologies.  Some of the differences may be as a result of having slightly different driver population (age, gender, driving experience) participating in the survey in different countries  Some may be due to differences in car feel (age, makes).  The driving conditions (motorways versus rural roads, weather, and traffic situation) also vary between the participating countries. 17
  18. 18. Thank you for your attention Questions?INTERACTION Final event – November 22, 2012 - Brussels 18

×