to more mundane vehicles such as a Mk II Ford Cortina, a Mini, even a bus. With concerns over the costs for fitting and maintaining elec- tric cables on great swathes of our roadways, funding for these experi- ments was eventually withdrawn in the mid-1970s. However, these pro- jects did provide the basis for driv- ing assistance systems that were of benefit to disabled drivers.
A driver reading whilst the vehicle, a Citroën DS19, drives itself around the TRL test track
ability to maintain lateral position within the lane is also reduced.
TECHNOLOGY GAIN TAKES THE STRAIN It can be seen that in each of these concepts, the task of driving is seen as a chore, a burden from which technology may one day relieve us so that we may engage in more wor- thy pursuits. Google provided fresh impetus and renewed conviction in the desire to develop self-driving cars when they announced in 2010 that their prototype Toyota Prius cars had logged 140,000 robotically driven miles. Road safety is identified as Google’s number one priority. How- ever, the fact that these vehicles were developed by the formidable internet services provider and not by a vehicle manufacturer provides a clue to other rea- sons why freeing up time for drivers may be of commercial interest. This is also linked to ongoing research
conducted at TRL and elsewhere to inves- tigate the effect of technology-related distractions. Despite considerable efforts to influence driver behaviour through education and legislation, it is apparent that the temptation to use smartphones whilst on the move is one that drivers find hard to overcome. A 2013 survey of more than 1,800
drivers by GMP found that 81 per cent admitted using their phone without a hands-free device whilst driving; 52 per cent said they used their phone to make calls, while 44 per cent admitted that they used it to send text messages while driving. A further 31 per cent said they checked emails and 24 per cent admit- ted using their phones to check social networking sites while on the road. It is worth noting here that TRL’s research using its driving simulator DigiCar has illustrated that the effect of using one’s phone in such a way whilst driving has a significantly deleterious impact on driving performance. Reaction times are impaired to a
greater extent than that caused by alcohol to the UK legal limit and the
20
smarthighways.net
“In the 1960s TRL made significant progress, producing a driverless
Citroën able to follow electric cables embedded on our test track and which was tested up to 80mph”
MOTION SICKNESS The survey results suggest that despite the negative effects, there is a clear desire among many drivers to use time spent driving for other things. Highly and fully automated vehicles may pro- vide the opportunity to do just that. A 2013 report from Morgan Stanley claimed that the US stands to benefit from productivity gains achieved by drivers being able to spend time work- ing in the automated cars to the tune of $507bn, on the assumption that driv- ers could spend 30 per cent of their in-vehicle time working. However, we should be careful in assuming that such big benefits are achievable. In our work with driving simula-
tors, we are constantly mindful of the effects of simulator sickness. This is a condition that can affect some users and has symptoms similar to motion sickness with sufferers experiencing dizziness, headaches and nausea. The feelings of nausea associated
with motion sickness and simulator sickness are thought to be an evolu-
A stern looking Mini at TRL fitted with the same cable-following technology as the Citroën
tionary adaptation whereby, in response to a mismatch between the visual cues and motion cues experienced by the observer, the body chooses to eject the stomach contents on suspicion that they may contain a poison of some kind that has affected perception. It may there- fore be the case that many drivers can- not comfortably use electronic devices within a car. This fits with anecdotal experience suggesting many people find it hard to read as a passenger in a road vehicle. It should be noted that many commuters have no issue using laptops, tablets or smartphones on trains. If automated vehicles can provide a
travelling experience that is as smooth as a train journey, the anticipated pro- ductivity rewards may be achievable. However, in the urban traffic setting this seems unlikely. In seeking to understand user experi-
ence in the context of vehicle automa- tion, TRL has provided a vehicle to the robotics and autonomous vehicle tech- nology company, GOBOTiX. The vehi- cle, a Toyota Prius, will be adapted for innovative systems research.
Left: testing the effects of texting on driver performance in TRL’s high fidelity, full mission driving simulator, DigiCar
Vol 2 No 1 smartHIGHWAYS
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64