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.

1. INTERACTION WP1/WP2
Speed Regulating Systems
Users and motives of use
Anabela Simões (ADI)

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. 1. Introduction
Qualitative
WP1- Focus Groups
analysis •Outputs for questionnaire
•Outputs for data coding
methodologies Self-
reported
behaviour
WP2- Questionnaire
Quantitative
analysis
Observed
(...) behaviour
3
INTERACTION Final event – November 22, 2012 - Brussels

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. 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. 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. 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 2275
The ‘middle aged’ group (26–45 years old) was using all the systems
more than other age groups.
INTERACTION Final event – November 22, 2012 - Brussels 7

8. 3. Speed regulating systems users
Gender CC SL SA
Female 1305 515 1719
Male 1596 683 1939
Total (N) 2901 1198 3658
Male respondents both had and used the systems more than female
respondents.
INTERACTION Final event – November 22, 2012 - Brussels 8

9. 3. Speed regulating systems users
Country CC SL SA SA function
of navigation
system
Australia 491 110 271 76
Austria 294 103 236 175
Czech 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. 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
consumption
It improves the safety
of driving
Other
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
INTERACTION Final event – November 22, 2012 - Brussels 10

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. 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. 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. 4. Motives of speed alert usage
Benefits of Speed Alert
It helps to reduce
speeding
It helps to control
speed
It 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. 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. 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. 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. Thank you for your attention
Questions?
INTERACTION Final event – November 22, 2012 - Brussels 18