Understanding driver interactions        with In-Vehicle Technologies                              Behaviour Observations ...
Behaviour observations – Wiener Fahrprobe• Each test persons observed twice  (with/without system active)• Two observers w...
Sample Cruise Control   Country                   CCCzech Republic               15    Finland                  15    Fran...
Cruise Control• Used on highways• Speed selection variables  – According to the limits  – Higher than the limits (up to 30...
Results Cruise Control• No differences between the rides with and  without activated CC regarding:  – Longitudinal control...
Problems with Cruise Control• Problems with CC  – Too fast according to the limits and situations  – Approaching other car...
Conclusion Cruise Control• CC helps keeping the speed• but does not prevent from driving too fast• Problems in situation w...
Sample Speed Limiter   Country                 SLCzech Republic    Finland    France                 15The Netherlands   P...
Issues related to Speed• Used on rural roads and urban areas• Speed selection in the system  – Mostly according to the lim...
Results Speed Limiter• No differences between the rides with  and without an activated SL regarding  – Speed behaviour  – ...
Problems with Speed Limiter• Problems while using SL  – Not recognising the change of the    speed limit  – Distraction wh...
Conclusion Speed Limiter• SL helps keeping the speed• but does not prevent from driving too fast• Problems in situations  ...
Sample Speed Alert   Country                SACzech Republic    Finland    FranceThe Netherlands           20   Portugal  ...
Use of Speed Alert• Used on rural roads and in urban areas• SA function of the NS was used• Most of the times speed was im...
Results Speed Alert• No differences between the rides with and  without an activated SA regarding   –   Speed behaviour   ...
Problems with Speed Alert• Problems while using SA  – No major differences in the driving behaviour  – More often shorter ...
Conclusion Speed Alert• Especially problems with distance  keeping and interaction• Observers found it difficult to ascrib...
Advantages and Problems of                   Speed Regulating Systems• Advantages  – Systems help the test persons to keep...
Thank you for your attention
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

(5) INTERACTION Final event - Speed regulation systems Effects

409 views

Published on

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
409
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

(5) INTERACTION Final event - Speed regulation systems Effects

  1. 1. Understanding driver interactions with In-Vehicle Technologies Behaviour Observations Clemens Kaufmann (FACTUM) Ralf Risser (FACTUM)INTERACTION Final Event22 November 2012, Brussels
  2. 2. Behaviour observations – Wiener Fahrprobe• Each test persons observed twice (with/without system active)• Two observers with different tasks – Coding observer – Free observer• Results from both observers
  3. 3. Sample Cruise Control Country CCCzech Republic 15 Finland 15 France 15The Netherlands Portugal 8 Spain 9 UK 15 Total (N) 77
  4. 4. Cruise Control• Used on highways• Speed selection variables – According to the limits – Higher than the limits (up to 30km/h higher) – Lower than the limits (according to the traffic situation) – Hardly/never changed vs. speed changed quite often
  5. 5. Results Cruise Control• No differences between the rides with and without activated CC regarding: – Longitudinal control – Lateral control – Obeying traffic rules – Interaction with other road user – Antcipation• Significantly less driving too fast with CC
  6. 6. Problems with Cruise Control• Problems with CC – Too fast according to the limits and situations – Approaching other cars without changing the speed – Overtaking manouvers  Takes long time to overtake other cars  Abort overtaking manouver  Driving too close to the car in front  Overtaking on the right side• Conflicts only observed on the rides with an active CC
  7. 7. Conclusion Cruise Control• CC helps keeping the speed• but does not prevent from driving too fast• Problems in situation when speed has to be adapted – Overtaking manouvers – Slower car in front – Exiting the highway• Inexperienced users claimed to have problems (functions & interface)
  8. 8. Sample Speed Limiter Country SLCzech Republic Finland France 15The Netherlands Portugal 8 Spain 9 UK Total (N) 32
  9. 9. Issues related to Speed• Used on rural roads and urban areas• Speed selection in the system – Mostly according to the limits – Higher than the limits (up to 30km/h) – Lower than the limits (20 km/h lower) – Speed was changed as soon as the speed limit changed – Speed was set in the beginning and never changed – Using two speeds – one for rural roads one for urban areas
  10. 10. Results Speed Limiter• No differences between the rides with and without an activated SL regarding – Speed behaviour – Longitudinal control – Lateral control – Obeying traffic rules – Interaction with other road user – Antcipation
  11. 11. Problems with Speed Limiter• Problems while using SL – Not recognising the change of the speed limit – Distraction while setting speed – Misinterpreting signals• Conflicts (right-angle, rear-end, vulnerable road user) more often observed while using the system
  12. 12. Conclusion Speed Limiter• SL helps keeping the speed• but does not prevent from driving too fast• Problems in situations – When speed limit changes – Handling with the system – System is not well known
  13. 13. Sample Speed Alert Country SACzech Republic Finland FranceThe Netherlands 20 Portugal Spain UK 15 Total (N) 35
  14. 14. Use of Speed Alert• Used on rural roads and in urban areas• SA function of the NS was used• Most of the times speed was immediately reduced after warning
  15. 15. Results Speed Alert• No differences between the rides with and without an activated SA regarding – Speed behaviour – Lateral control – Obeying traffic rules – Antcipation• Significantly more often too close to the car in front• Significantly more erros in the communication behaviour
  16. 16. Problems with Speed Alert• Problems while using SA – No major differences in the driving behaviour – More often shorter distances to the car in front – More errors in the interaction with other road users (indicating behaviour, against vulnerable road users) – Similar conflict (right-angle, head-on) situations with and without the system
  17. 17. Conclusion Speed Alert• Especially problems with distance keeping and interaction• Observers found it difficult to ascribe differences in the behaviour to the use of the SA
  18. 18. Advantages and Problems of Speed Regulating Systems• Advantages – Systems help the test persons to keep the speed – No major influence on the driving behaviour• Problems – In specific situations when speeds has to be adapted – Handling with the system (especially when system is new) – Systems are used in a not wished for way
  19. 19. Thank you for your attention

×