advancements’ into successive vehicle launches. Generally these have been to assist
drivers in maintaining better levels of control or to provide increased levels of information, more recently these have started to take the form of ‘driver aids’, in some cases taking over control of vehicle functions when the driver fails to respond accordingly to road and traffic conditions. Research Institutes have also success-
fully implemented driverless vehicles adapting to the prevailing conditions without the need for driver input, most famously the ‘Google car’, prompting the need for consideration of the licens- ing of such activities on public roads. The introduction of such technologies
allows for the implementation of more complex operational conditions such as vehicle platooning, and trials of such solu- tions are on-going throughout the world. Whilst fundamental considerations
such as the requirements of the ‘Vienna Convention’ (Convention on Road Traf- fic 1968, particularly article 8 relating to drivers, including “Every driver shall at all times be able to control his vehicle…”) have yet to be specifically addressed these technologies continue to develop apace. It’s clear that significant advancements
are being made in these technologies but the considerations for their application and adoption has been primarily based around the premise of making a vehicle operate within the confines of the existing network, and as such the role of the ‘road network’ and the ‘network operator’ in such future scenarios is arguably, not being fully considered. The potential impact upon network
operations (and the inherent ITS ‘eco- system’) requires the consideration of a number of significant headline questions including: will V2I and V2V standards be com- patible across manufacturers and across borders? How will transition and obsolescence be treated? when in the investment cycle should the focus change from roadside to in-vehicle technol- ogy? What will happen to exist- ing legacy systems? what sort of infrastructure will be required considering the various levels of automation
smartHIGHWAYS Vol 2 No 1
“It’s clear that significant advancements are being made but the considerations for their application and
adoption has been primarily based around the premise of making a vehicle operate within the confines of the existing network”
and who should pay for it? will existing or planned communications net- works be fit for future purpose? will the adoption of V2V and V2I technology increase or even perhaps decrease net- work capacity? Might flow characteristics change with levels of co-operation? how might V2V and V2I technologies impact upon highway design and mainte- nance? with a user expecta- tion of seamless compatibility, how will demand be met given availability of fund- ing and perhaps conflicting investment priorities? Whilst at this stage there are no concrete
answers to these questions, it is clear that the impact upon network operators could be significant in terms of future develop- ment and operations. Issues such as the reconfiguration
of the network and the underlying ITS infrastructure are already being consid- ered through programmes such as Smart Motorways on the strategic UK network and elsewhere and further technological
The “Google Car” has been adapted to prevailing conditions
developments in connected vehicle technology will inevitably have to build upon these programmes and approaches.
TIME TO BUILD RELATIONSHIPS There is an expectation in some quarters that either government will define any required standards or that the market (via the vehicle manu- facturers and technology provid- ers) will agree a set of standards that are adopted on a global, continent, country or even, regional basis. Market proven, ‘non-connected’
technologies are delivering some ‘utility’ benefits to drivers (safer parking, automated warnings, lane
guidance, collision avoidance), but these ‘stand-alone’ systems don’t communicate with their surroundings and avoid likely challenges for the emerging, ‘connected’, ‘revolutionary’ technologies such as pla- tooning and autonomy. Tensions between society’s expectations
for the car (and ‘driving’ in general) versus the wider societal benefits (reduced con- gestion, enhanced safety, improved reli- ability and of course improved economy) may raise fundamental questions: who should specify standards, the state or the market? What role is there for international standards? What might that mean for vehicle manu- facture and export sales? are systems affordable to all users? Should drivers in rural areas where systems aren’t applicable be able to ‘opt out’? who is responsible for the underlying technology, the state, the user or the manufacturer? Does the Vienna Convention require an overhaul with respect to this technology? how reliable is reliable to reduce the potential for failure, equivalent to ‘air’/‘rail’, if so who pays? What does fail safe look like? how do we ensure that systems complaint and to agreed “standards”? What sanctions are there for those who don’t comply? is society ready to hand over ‘control’ to ‘others’ and does it understand what this means for traditional ‘driving’? These are all significant
challenges that can only be overcome through an iterative process with manufactures, operators, the authorities and
smarthighways.net
23
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