ACCEPTABILITY OF IN-VEHICLE INTELLIGENT TRANSPORT SYSTEMS TO VICTORIAN CAR DRIVERS Eve Mitsopoulos, Michael A. Regan & Narelle Haworth Monash University Accident Research Centre ABSTRACT The Monash University Accident Research Centre (MUARC) recently completed research for the Royal Automobile Club of Victoria (RACV) into the acceptability to car drivers of several in-vehicle Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) with high estimated safety potential. The acceptability of seven technologies was assessed: Forward Collision Warning; Intelligent Speed Adaptation; Emergency Notification; Electronic Licence; Alcohol Interlock; Fatigue Monitoring; and Lane Departure Warning. Eight focus groups were conducted involving a total of 52 Victorian car drivers, ranging in age from 18 to 83 years. Participants belonged to sub-groups of car drivers (defined by age and sex) who, from examination of Victorian crash data, were either over-represented or involved most in crashes of the types addressed by the technologies under study. Hence, the sub-groups of car drivers selected were those who should derive the greatest safety benefits from the systems. To be acceptable to participants a system was defined as needing to be useful, effective, usable, affordable, and socially acceptable. The Alcohol Interlock and Electronic Licence were found to be least acceptable to drivers. They were also, along with Intelligent Speed Adaptation, the systems that were estimated to confer the greatest safety benefit. The implications of these findings for the successful deployment of in-vehicle ITS are discussed. INTRODUCTION The term ITS refers to the bringing together of advanced information processing, communications, sensing and computer control technologies to produce systems that are capable of addressing various surface transportation problems. ITS technologies have been designed, for example, to improve travel efficiency and mobility, enhance safety, conserve energy, provide economic benefits, and protect the environment (Regan, Oxley, Godley & Tingvall, 2001). It is estimated that many in-vehicle ITS technologies have great potential to enhance the safety of road users (Regan et al., 2001). Many such technologies are either currently available, or are entering the Australian market. In order for in-vehicle ITS technologies to be successful in reducing the incidence and severity of road crashes, the technologies must be deemed to be acceptable by the eventual users. The demand for many in-vehicle systems will be driven by road users, who will decide whether to purchase the systems or to purchase cars that are equipped with the technologies. ITS technologies that are not acceptable to drivers are unlikely to have the desired effect on driver behaviour. The acceptability of in-vehicle ITS technologies to drivers is thus a vital issue to address in the design, development and deployment of in-vehicle ITS. RACV commissioned MUARC to assess the acceptability to car drivers of certain ITS technologies with high estimated safety potential. This paper provides an overview of the method and key findings of this study. Before doing so, a brief review of previous research into the acceptability of in-vehicle ITS is presented. PREVIOUS RESEARCH INTO ITS ACCEPTABILITY Over the past decade, an increasing number of studies have been conducted into the acceptability to car drivers of in-vehicle ITS technologies. For example, studies have been conducted in Europe investigating driver acceptability of the class of technologies designed to reduce speeding known as Intelligent Speed Adaptation (e.g. Almqvist & Nygård,1997; Brookhuis & de Waard,1999). Across studies, speed alerting systems, which simply warn the driver if he/she is exceeding the posted speed limit, have been found to be more acceptable to drivers than speed limiting systems, which are more aggressive than alerting systems in that they prevent the driver from speeding by limiting the speed of the vehicle to the posted speed limit (Várhelyi,2001). In Australia, to date, only three studies have been completed that have investigated the acceptability to drivers of various in-vehicle ITS (Cairney, 1995; Gray, 2001; Harrison, Senserrick & Tingvall, 2000). Cairney’s (1995) study involved the use of focus groups in which all participants considered seven in-vehicle technologies, including Route Guidance, Vehicle Monitoring, Emergency Notification, Adaptive Cruise Control and Congestion Avoidance systems. Participants perceived the Vehicle Monitoring system to be the most useful of all the systems discussed and the one that they would most like to have in their vehicle. Adaptive Cruise Control was the least liked and perceived to be the least useful. This latter finding contrasts with the findings of several European and US studies where participants’ views on Adaptive Cruise Control were reported to be quite positive (see Brackstone & McDonald, 2000). For example, in a simulator study on the effects on driver behaviour of Adaptive Cruise Control, Hogema, Janssen, Coemet and Soeteman (1996) reported that participants found the system to be useful. The discrepancy between studies may be in part because of cultural differences, ISBN 1-876346-46-9 © RS2002 Conference 439