Système COopératif Routier Expérimental en France

SCORE@F

Collections of data from hundred of drivers mobilized during Score@f experiments met two main objectives shared by all DRIVEC2X partners: Assessing whether cooperatives systems produce safer behaviours and assessing their acceptability by all actors. Beside that, the French Consortium also intended to observe whether these systems also promote cooperative behaviours and to inject the drivers’ point of view in the engineering design process.

NON-TECHNICAL RESULTS: DRIVERS’S POINTS OF VIEW

Forum des Acteurs – Final WorkshopSeptember 24th, 2013

Inria

ABSTRACT

Acceptability varies according to the drivers. It depends merely on what one considers to be a “good information” (“good information” is “what is dangerous”/ “what could be dangerous” / “what I cannot see” / “what concerns my trip” …). Overall, safety-related UCs are appreciated by all if they describe an actual event on the road (e.g. obstacle or stopped car) that cannot be seen. Drivers then diverge if the incident is beside the road (e.g. emergency lane), is only potential (e.g. animal) or can be perceived without the need any system.

All results need to be supported by extensive statistical analyses. Some, still in progress, will be provided at the end of Score@f Project to our DRIVEC2X partners. Anyway, it will be necessary to implement a larger-scale FOT before deployment. This is already targeted: project SCOOP.

ISSUES

PARTNERS

SAFETY IMPACT

USER ACCEPTANCE

COOPERATIVE ATTITUDES

But these benefits are seen only if the driver considers that the message delivers relevant information that is both timely and easily understandable. Otherwise, drivers declare that the message is useless or even potentially dangerous:- It draws attention on the HMI to the detriment of the

road (too late)- It focuses attention on an area of little danger when

something critical could happen elsewhere (not relevant)

- It increases unnecessarily the level of stress and is consequently followed by an attentional release that fall may be wrong (not relevant)

Drivers do declare that safety-related use cases help them to behave more safely thanks to a better anticipation. They can slow down earlier, but also postpone an overtaking, defer any on-board non-related to driving task activity (e.g.: a phone call) or stop talking. Safety-related messages also have a safety impact that is difficult to observe yet very present and crucial: the driver’s awareness is increased and often refocused on a specific area of the road.

“That’s the message that seems the most interesting to me. … That message can help you avoid pileups, especially in foggy weather”.

“It’s very useful, but timing is a crucial matter, and it could become dangerous. I have mixed

feelings about that … I’m afraid I might not have enough time to react”

Traffic-related UCs are very discriminating: they are highly appreciated by the majority who aims to reduce travel time, but rejected by some others as unreliable information or information yet provided by other devices. The UCs issued by the road operator (VMS) are the most popular, but to varying degrees and provided that they are contextualized – i.e. linked to the ego vehicle.

The drivers declare to been keen to collaborate. However, the frequency of reporting an event is highly variable: from no statement within a month to several statements per day. The choice of label for the same event are also subjects to variations: their categorizations of complex hazards are not the same.