Volpe National Transportation Systems Center

Slide 1 of 13

A METHODOLOGY TO EVALUATE DRIVER ACCEPTANCE

Transportation Research Board
Annual Meeting
January 15, 2002

Mary Stearns
Wassim Najm
Linda Boyle

Volpe National Transportation Systems Center


Slide 2 of 13

Evaluation Goals for
Intelligent Vehicle Initiative (IVI)
Crash Avoidance Systems (CAS)

Understand safety benefits
Determine driver acceptance
Characterize performance and capability
Assess deployment potential and price
Address institutional and legal issues

Determine driver acceptance


Slide 3 of 13

IVI

Designing a technology to fit the perception, cognition, and behavior of the entire citizenry, in a safety critical function

Drivers are provided with additional in-vehicle information, which might, unless carefully designed, compromisesafety and efficiency

Human factors conditions become a dominant consideration in design and development

IVI Business Plans, 1997, 2000


Slide 4 of 13

Driver Acceptance
depends on:

The degree to which drivers can use products successfully

Perceived usefulness to the driver

Potential for market acceptance, considering usability and product cost

NHTSA Strategic Plan 1997


Slide 5 of 13

Driver Acceptance
Methodology

Objectives express driver acceptance elements

Sub-objectives specify objectives

Measures to rate each sub-objective

  • pre- and post-Field Operational Test (FOT) surveys
  • FOT vehicle data, video clips
  • focus groups
  • controlled experimentation

Slide 6 of 13

Driver Acceptance Objectives

Ease of use

Ease of learning

Adaptation

Desirability perceived value

Affordability (Advocacy)


Slide 7 of 13

Schematic of Framework for Driver Acceptance of Collision Avoidance Systems. This framework decomposes the objectives used to measure driver acceptance and hints at further decomposition of the objectives into their respective subobjectives. Driver acceptance is conceptualized in terms of five objectives, ease of use, ease of learning, adaptation, desirability, and affordability.  Each of these five subobjectives is further decomposed into its constituent subobjectives represented by unlabeled boxes flowing from each subobjective.

Slide 8 of 13

Measures - Ease of Use

Ready Usability

  • "How hard was it to use CAS controls?"
  • What was the Incidence of erroneous activation of controls?

Support of individual variability

Awareness of CAS state, operational thresholds

Perceived demands on driver

CAS use patterns

Discriminability of alerts

Reaction to false/nuisance alarms


Slide 9 of 13

Measures - Ease of Learning

Time to learn

Utility of instructions, training

Ability to retain knowledge of use

  • "Did you feel you could easily recall CAS operation?"

Slide 10 of 13

Measures - Adaptation

Allocation of control inputs, in-vehicle activities

Visual accommodation

  • "Drivers Opinion of ability to judge location of distant vehicles/objects"

Alertness

Travel patterns

Behavioral adaptation


Slide 11 of 13

Measures - Desirability

Perception of safety

  • "Willingness to drive in adverse conditions"

Driving skill enhancement

Measures of vehicle control; i.e., road position error

Seamless system integration

Reduced workload


Slide 12 of 13

Measures - Affordability/Advocacy

Willingness to endorse CAS

  • "Willing to recommend CAS use to family/friends?"

Interest in purchasing CAS

Amount willing to pay

Acceptance of CAS in rental vehicle


Slide 13 of 13

Successful adoption of IVI CAS Technologies and attainment of anticipated benefits requires that:

There is a comprehensive understanding of driver acceptance issues

Return to Top