User related assessment of Safe Cruise and Speed Support (VCC)
(2013)- Abstract
- The aim of the user related assessment was to study perceived advantages, disadvantages, usefulness, trust, acceptance, willingness to have and pay for the driver assistance systems: Safe Cruise and Speed Support developed by VCC within the framework of SECONDS subproject. Due to restrictions in driving in real traffic, assessment activities were limited to driving on a test track by naïve test drivers to be demonstrated the system. Ten persons (6 males and 4 females took part in the assessment. After test driving, they individually filled in a short questionnaire with specific questions about the system.
Most participants found the Safe Cruise function well-functioning and easy to use. The function was perceived as both Useful... (More) - The aim of the user related assessment was to study perceived advantages, disadvantages, usefulness, trust, acceptance, willingness to have and pay for the driver assistance systems: Safe Cruise and Speed Support developed by VCC within the framework of SECONDS subproject. Due to restrictions in driving in real traffic, assessment activities were limited to driving on a test track by naïve test drivers to be demonstrated the system. Ten persons (6 males and 4 females took part in the assessment. After test driving, they individually filled in a short questionnaire with specific questions about the system.
Most participants found the Safe Cruise function well-functioning and easy to use. The function was perceived as both Useful (“useful”, “good”, “effective”, “assisting” and “raising alertness”) and Satisfactory (“pleasant”, “nice”, “likable” and “desirable”). The participants rated the function’s visual and haptic information/warning as clear.
All participants thought the Safe Cruise function would reduce the risk of being involved in an accident. Regarding travel time and joy of driving, the participants did not expect any differences.
Six out of ten answered they would trust the Safe Cruise function in all situations, but some commented that they first needed to get used to the function, and that they still needed to be prepared to take manual control of the vehicle. Three participants answered they wouldn’t trust the function, the reason being that some situations demand manual control. One participant answered that he/she would partly trust the function.
The highest usage rate of the Safe Cruise function was indicated for motorways, day time and clear weather. The estimated usage would be less on urban roads, in rain or in snowy weather and during night time.
Four of the participants would be willing to pay between 5,000 and 10,000 SEK. One was willing to pay between 2,500 and 5,000 SEK and one answered that he/she would buy the function if it cost less than 2,500 SEK. Four participants answered “don’t know”. All of the 10 participants would recommend the Safe Cruise function to a friend.
Most participants found the Speed Support function well-functioning, easy to use it, they felt confident using the function and they thought most people would quickly learn to use the function. They disagreed to a large extent that the function would be unnecessarily complex or inconsistent, difficult to use, and that they would need to learn a lot about the function before beginning to use it, or that they would need the help of a technical person to use it. The Speed Support function was perceived as both Useful (“useful”, “good”, “effective”, “assisting” and “raising alertness”) and Satisfactory (“pleasant”, “nice”, “likable”, “desirable”). The participants rated the function’s visual and haptic information/warning as clear.
All participants thought the Speed Support function would reduce the risk of being involved in an accident and the Risk of getting a speeding ticket. Regarding travel time, joy of driving and image, the participants did not expect any differences.
Five out of ten answered they would trust the Speed Support function, but some commented that they first needed to get used to the function, and that they still needed to be prepared to take manual control of the vehicle. Three participants answered they wouldn’t trust the function, the reason being that some situations demand manual control. One participant answered that he/she would partly trust the function.
The highest usage rate of the Speed Support function was indicated for motorways and during night time. It would be used equally frequently in clear weather and in rainy or snowy weather conditions.
Two of the participants answered that they would be willing to pay between 5,000 and 7,500 SEK. One was willing to pay between 2,500 and 5,000 SEK and three answered that they would buy the function if it cost less than 2,500 SEK. Four participants answered “don’t know”. All of the 10 participants would recommend the Speed Support function to a friend. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
https://lup.lub.lu.se/record/4467709
- author
- Varhelyi, Andras LU and Persson, Anna LU
- organization
- publishing date
- 2013
- type
- Book/Report
- publication status
- published
- subject
- pages
- 25 pages
- publisher
- InteractIVe Consortium
- report number
- SP7 Working report
- language
- English
- LU publication?
- yes
- id
- e831875e-f832-4239-a853-62f9045b29d9 (old id 4467709)
- date added to LUP
- 2016-04-04 11:38:37
- date last changed
- 2018-11-21 21:06:12
@techreport{e831875e-f832-4239-a853-62f9045b29d9,
abstract = {{The aim of the user related assessment was to study perceived advantages, disadvantages, usefulness, trust, acceptance, willingness to have and pay for the driver assistance systems: Safe Cruise and Speed Support developed by VCC within the framework of SECONDS subproject. Due to restrictions in driving in real traffic, assessment activities were limited to driving on a test track by naïve test drivers to be demonstrated the system. Ten persons (6 males and 4 females took part in the assessment. After test driving, they individually filled in a short questionnaire with specific questions about the system.<br/><br>
Most participants found the Safe Cruise function well-functioning and easy to use. The function was perceived as both Useful (“useful”, “good”, “effective”, “assisting” and “raising alertness”) and Satisfactory (“pleasant”, “nice”, “likable” and “desirable”). The participants rated the function’s visual and haptic information/warning as clear.<br/><br>
All participants thought the Safe Cruise function would reduce the risk of being involved in an accident. Regarding travel time and joy of driving, the participants did not expect any differences. <br/><br>
Six out of ten answered they would trust the Safe Cruise function in all situations, but some commented that they first needed to get used to the function, and that they still needed to be prepared to take manual control of the vehicle. Three participants answered they wouldn’t trust the function, the reason being that some situations demand manual control. One participant answered that he/she would partly trust the function. <br/><br>
The highest usage rate of the Safe Cruise function was indicated for motorways, day time and clear weather. The estimated usage would be less on urban roads, in rain or in snowy weather and during night time.<br/><br>
Four of the participants would be willing to pay between 5,000 and 10,000 SEK. One was willing to pay between 2,500 and 5,000 SEK and one answered that he/she would buy the function if it cost less than 2,500 SEK. Four participants answered “don’t know”. All of the 10 participants would recommend the Safe Cruise function to a friend.<br/><br>
Most participants found the Speed Support function well-functioning, easy to use it, they felt confident using the function and they thought most people would quickly learn to use the function. They disagreed to a large extent that the function would be unnecessarily complex or inconsistent, difficult to use, and that they would need to learn a lot about the function before beginning to use it, or that they would need the help of a technical person to use it. The Speed Support function was perceived as both Useful (“useful”, “good”, “effective”, “assisting” and “raising alertness”) and Satisfactory (“pleasant”, “nice”, “likable”, “desirable”). The participants rated the function’s visual and haptic information/warning as clear.<br/><br>
All participants thought the Speed Support function would reduce the risk of being involved in an accident and the Risk of getting a speeding ticket. Regarding travel time, joy of driving and image, the participants did not expect any differences. <br/><br>
Five out of ten answered they would trust the Speed Support function, but some commented that they first needed to get used to the function, and that they still needed to be prepared to take manual control of the vehicle. Three participants answered they wouldn’t trust the function, the reason being that some situations demand manual control. One participant answered that he/she would partly trust the function. <br/><br>
The highest usage rate of the Speed Support function was indicated for motorways and during night time. It would be used equally frequently in clear weather and in rainy or snowy weather conditions.<br/><br>
Two of the participants answered that they would be willing to pay between 5,000 and 7,500 SEK. One was willing to pay between 2,500 and 5,000 SEK and three answered that they would buy the function if it cost less than 2,500 SEK. Four participants answered “don’t know”. All of the 10 participants would recommend the Speed Support function to a friend.}},
author = {{Varhelyi, Andras and Persson, Anna}},
institution = {{InteractIVe Consortium}},
language = {{eng}},
number = {{SP7 Working report}},
title = {{User related assessment of Safe Cruise and Speed Support (VCC)}},
year = {{2013}},
}