Stakeholder opinions regarding ADAS (Advanced Driver Assistance Systems) implementation : exploring ADAS policy options and criteria : workshop report. [Rapport in het kader van Transitie Duurzame Mobiliteit TRANSUMO].
20072143 ST [electronic version only]
Walta, L. Marchau, V.A.W.J. & Brookhuis, K.A.
Delft, Delft University of Technology, Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management, Section Transport Policy and Logistics' Organisation, 2007, 56 p., 14 ref.
|Samenvatting||This report describes the results of a workshop on stakeholder opinions regarding ADAS (Advanced Driver Assistance Systems) implementation, which is part of a PhD project on this topic. The workshop was held at the TNO symposium on co-operative vehicle-highway systems in Eindhoven, The Netherlands (March 28, 2007), with a total of 29 participants: 11 from public authorities, 9 from industry and 9 from research institutes. A 'Group Decision Room' was used to facilitate the workshop. The following two questions are addressed in this report: Which ADASpoilcy options should be Included In modeling stakeholders' prioritiations ofADASpoilcy options? Which criteria should be included in modeling stakeholders'prioritiations of ADAS policy options? To answer these questions, first, a number of ADAS that are eligible for large scale implementation were selected, policy options were identified, and relevant stakeholders and criteria were identified. This was mainly done by literature review, and was used as input to the workshop that was focused on how stakeholders prioritize ADAS policy options, and on how important different criteria were to stakeholders. Next to a number of voting procedures included in the workshops, participants could anonymously comment on policy options and criteria, and add missing criteria. The ADAS included were selected by their potential contribution to traffic safety, giving support on the operational driving task, being close to or on the market, and not being too specific (e.g. niche application). This resulted in the following list of systems: Lane departure warning, Lane keeping, Speed limit warning, Speed limit keeping, Forward collision warning, Forward collision avoidance and Driver impairment monitoring. The policy options included were: do nothing (the market continues as it did); stimulate use (e.g. tax incentives); obligation for target groups (e.g. professional drivers); obligation for all road users; and prohibit further implementation. In general, the results show a lot of differences in prioritization between the different ADAS policy options. Explanations for these differences could be the various development stages of the ADAS, differences in perceived effectiveness of the ADAS for policy goals, or merely differences in opinion. For some of the systems clear differences between stakeholders can be observed as well, In general, the industry prefers a less active role of the government as opposed to the public authorities and researchers. Furthermore, less intervening policy options were assigned to the more intervening ADAS alternatives (i.e. Lane Keeping, Forward Collision Avoidance and Speed Limit Keeping). Most stakeholders agree on financial incentives (tax or insurance) to be the most appropriate measure of stimulation. To a lesser extent also awareness campaigns are mentioned. Truck drivers seem to be the number one target group for most of the systems included in the workshop. The category of systems that will be included in this PhD research is the one for which there is no clear consensus among stakeholders, since these are the systems that will, because of the differences in opinion, be most difficult to implement and therefore more knowledge into stakeholder opinions and feasible implementation strategies is needed. The results of the workshop show that this is largely the case for the category of speed keeping systems (Speed limit warning and Speed limit keeping). They not only comply with the stakeholder dissensus criterion, but also refer to one of the major problems regarding road safety, which is speed. There is a clear consensus among the participants on safety being the most important criterion. Furthermore, there is quite a lot of consensus on driver distraction, driver acceptance and public acceptance being important. The fact that almost all criteria have a mean score above 5 (scale 1-10) shows that all criteria included are relatively important to the participants. A lot of criteria, though, have a very large variance. Generally, all of the criteria included in the importance rating are considered relatively important by at least part of the participants. However, there seem to be hierarchical relations between some of the criteria, and some criteria (mainly those added by the participants) can be regarded as prerequisites that will only indirectly be involved in prioritization. A criterion is considered a prerequisite here if it is an important point of action that has to be satisfied before implementing ADAS, and is not expected to influence further prioritization of policy options. An objective is included in prioritization, but may have thresholds the policy options have to comply with in order to be considered as feasible, and included in prioritization. (Author/publisher)|
|Full-text||Beschikbaar Niet beschikbaar, klik om contact op te nemen voor een digitalisatie verzoek|
|Suggestie?||Neem contact op met de SWOV bibliotheek voor uw opmerkingen|