Users’ Acceptance and Societal Acceptability of New Traffic Technologies

Safety Implications of In-Vehicle Devices
  • Stefan Petica


In the Traffic Technologies field, a great variety of information systems or other types of applications are already available, while many new systems for driver assistance are being designed. Traffic information and management, user guidance, navigation systems, autonomous / intelligent cruise control, for example, or more complex systems, which are monitoring the driver or take over driver tasks in hazardous situations, has now entered a decisive development phase.


Traffic Safety Automatic Driving User Acceptance Traffic Technology Driver Impairment 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Agnela, W. G. (1988), “Future Personal Ground Transportation”, Symposium of Southern California ‘s Future, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  2. Allport, G. W. (1935), “Attitudes”, in A Handbook of Social Psychology, vol.2., Worcester, Massachusetts: Clark University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Alm, H., Nilsson, L. (1990), Changes in Driver Behavior as a Function of Handsfree Mobile Telephones: A Simulator Study, DRIVE Project V1017, Report No. 47, 1990.Google Scholar
  4. Barjonet, P. E. et al. (1994), SARTRE, Social Attitudes to Road Traffic Risk in Europe, Report on principal aspects, Paris: INRETS.Google Scholar
  5. Barham, P. A. J. et al. (1993), In-Vehicle Driving Tests-Research Protocols for EDDIT (part one), Elderly and Disabled Drivers Information Telematics, Report V203/EDDIT/ Deliverable 16, Commission of the European Communities, Cranfield University, Bedfort, U.K.Google Scholar
  6. Beker, S. et al.,(1995), “User Acceptance and Willingness to Pay for Advanced Driver Support Systems”, TRAFFIC Technology Europe’95,Berlin, 6–7 April 1995.Google Scholar
  7. Bekiatus, E., Lymbinaki, M. (1996), “State of the Art”, SAVE internal report.Google Scholar
  8. Brookhuis, K. A. et al.,(1991), “The affects of mobile telephoning on driving performance”, Accident Analysis Prevention,vol. 23, No. 4.Google Scholar
  9. Crosby, P. et al. (1993), “A Primer on Usability Testing for Developers of Travel Information Systems”, Transportation Research C2, 143–157.Google Scholar
  10. Choffray, J. M., Lilian, G. L. (1980), Awareness and Feasibility in Market Planning for New Industrial Products, New York: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  11. Daly-Jones, O., Bevan, N., Thomas, C. (1997), Handbook of User-Centered Design, INUSE project (IE 2016), Del. 6. 2. 1.Google Scholar
  12. Ecmt, Comittee of Deputies (1992), Safety Aspects of On-Board Equipment,group on transport, computers and telecommunications, CEMT/CS/TCT (92) 5, Restricted.Google Scholar
  13. Ecmt, Council of Ministers (1994), Ergonomics and Safety of In-Vehicle Information Systems,CEMT/CM (94) 20, Restricted.Google Scholar
  14. Erke, H., Minas, G., Zimolog, B. (1983), “Arbeitsbeanspruchung, Gefahrdungsinshatzung und Arbeitssicherheit an militarischen Arbietsplatzen”, Wehrpsychologische Untersuchungen, Bd. 1.Google Scholar
  15. Farmer, F. R. (1967) “Reactor Safety and Sitting: A Proposed Risk Criterion”, Nuclear Safety, n°8.Google Scholar
  16. Fischhoff, B. (1997), “Acceptable Risk - A Conceptual Proposal”, Risk Journal, Vol. 8, n° 3.Google Scholar
  17. Fleming, A. M., Mc LEOD, J. (1997), A Structured Approach to Evaluating Telematics Applications, MEGATAQ project (TE 2007), adapted from del. S4. 2.Google Scholar
  18. Franklin, P. (1997), RAPA, Risk Assessment and Policy Association, Law Center.Google Scholar
  19. ICE Ergonomics Limited (1993), The Design of In-Vehicle Information Systems,Loughborough, internal report, draft.Google Scholar
  20. ISO/DIS 13407, Human Centered Design Processes for Interactive Systems,Draft international standard, Voting begins on 1997/08/21, International Organization for Standardization.Google Scholar
  21. ISO91 - ISO (1991), Information Technology, Software Product Evaluation, Quality Characteristics and Guidelines for their Use,Technical Report 9126, International Organization for Standardization.Google Scholar
  22. Laan, Van Der, J., Heino, A., De Waard, D. (1997), “A Simple Procedure for the Assessment of Acceptance of Advanced Transport Telematics”, in Transportation Research, C, Vol. 5, n° 1, Elseveir Science Ltd.Google Scholar
  23. King, M. (1996), “Human Factors and User Acceptability ”, in Cole, R. A. (ED.), Survey of the State of the Art in Human Language Technology, Oregon Graduate Institute of Science and Technology, USA.Google Scholar
  24. Kuiken, M. J.,Groeger, J. A. (1993), Effects of Feedback on Driving Performance at Cross Roads and on Curves,Report VK 93–12, Haren, University of Groningen, Traffic Research Centre, The Nederlands.Google Scholar
  25. Lemaine, J. M. (1972), “Initiation aux échelles d’attitudes”, Bulletin de Psychologie,25, 1971–1972.Google Scholar
  26. Leplat, J. (1985), Erreur humaine, fiabilité humaine dans le travail,Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar
  27. Lerner, N. D., Kotwal, B. M., Lyons, R. D., Gardner-Bonnenu, D. J. (1996), Preliminary Human Factors Guidelines for Crash Avoidance Warning Devices,NHTSA, U.S. Department of Transportation, DOT HS 808 342, Interim Report.Google Scholar
  28. Lorigny, J. (1996), “Une approche systémique et cognitive de la science en crise”, Revue internationale de Systémique,vol. 10, n° 4.Google Scholar
  29. Secrétariat général de la défense nationale (1992), Note d’information sur l’évolution du radiotéléphone, Direction STS, Sous-direction VST.Google Scholar
  30. Noy, Y. I. (1997), “ITS Safety Test and Evaluation”, ITS Congress, Berlin, 1997.Google Scholar
  31. Noy, Y. I. (Ed.) (1997), Ergonomics and Safety of Intelligent Driver Interfaces,Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.Google Scholar
  32. Maltby, D. (1996), Checklist for Preparing a Draft Validation Plan, CONVERGE project (TR 1101), Del. DV Q3. 2, Telematic Application Programe, Transport Sector.Google Scholar
  33. Malaterre, G., Fontaine, H., Eslande, VAN, P. (1991) Analyse des besoins des conducteurs à partir de procès-verbaux d’accidents: Evaluation a priori des fonctions PROMETHEUS, rapport INRETS n° 139, Paris: INRETS.Google Scholar
  34. Malaterre, G. (1987), Les activités sous contrainte de temps: Le cas des maneuvres d’urgence en conduite automobile. Thèse de Doctorat de 3ème cycle, Université Paris V.Google Scholar
  35. Michon, J. A. (Ed.) (1993), Generic Intelligent Driver Support, London: Taylor andFrancis.Google Scholar
  36. Montmollin, De, G. (1984), “Le changement d’attitude”, in Moscow’, S. (Ed.) Psychologie sociale,Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
  37. Montmollin, D, M., (1986), L ‘intelligence de la tâche, Eléments d’ergonomie cognitive, Paris: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  38. Morita, K., Mashiko, J. et al. (1996), “Legibility of Displayed Place Names by In-Vehicle Navigation Devices”, Journal of Light and Visual Environment,Vol. 20, n°1.Google Scholar
  39. Nilsson, L., Alm, H. (1991), Effects of Mobile Telephone Use on Elderly Drivers Behavior — Including Comparisons to Young Drivers’ Behavior,DRIVE Projet V1017, Report n° 53.Google Scholar
  40. Ocde (1994), “Recherche en matière de routes te de transports routiers”, Amélioration de la sécurité routière grâce à la modification des attitudes, Paris: OCDE.Google Scholar
  41. Petica, S., Bluet J. C. (1989), Rapport sur l’enquête internationale concernant le radiotéléphone et la sécurité routière,Rapport INRETS, DOC- 126224, SE 303.Google Scholar
  42. Petica, S. (1991), Utilisation d’écrans à bord des véhicules, Report INRETS, DOC-SE 329.Google Scholar
  43. Petica, S. (1995), “Safety Implications of In-Vehicle Devices-Risk Assessment of In-Car Radiotelephone Use”, Second world Congress in ITS,Yokohama.Google Scholar
  44. Petica, S., Bekiaris, A. et al. (1996), Driver Needs and Public Acceptance of Emergency Control Aids,SAVE project (TR 1047) Del. 3.1, Commission of the European Communities.Google Scholar
  45. Reason, J. (1993), L ‘erreur humaine, Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
  46. Redelmeier, D. A., Tibshirani, R. J. (1987), “Association between Cellular-Telephone Calls and Motor Vehicle Collisions”, The New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 336, n°7.Google Scholar
  47. Risser, R., Lehner, U. (1997), “Evaluation of an ACC (Autonomous cruise Control) System with the Help of Behavior Observation”, ITS Congress, Berlin.Google Scholar
  48. Robin-PréVallée, Y. et al. (1996), Guidebook for User Needs Analysis, CODE project (TR 1103 ), Telematic Application Program, Transport Sector.Google Scholar
  49. Rotengstter, J. A. et al. (1991), Social Acceptance of Automatic Policing and Information Systems, Report V I 033/DRIVE/Deliverable 7, Haren, The Netherlands: Trafic Research Center, University of Groningen.Google Scholar
  50. Rumar, K. (1987), Social Impact, Acceptance,PRO-GEN LP 71250.Google Scholar
  51. Saad, F., Delhomme, P., Eslande, Van, P. (1992), Analyse des comportements en situation réelle de conduite: Le franchissement d’intersection, Rapport de recherche INRETS, n° 158, Paris: INRETS.Google Scholar
  52. Schofer, J. L. et al. (1993), “Behavioral Issues in the Design and Evaluation of Advanced Traveler Information Systems”, Transportation Research, C2, 107–117.Google Scholar
  53. Scott, W. A. (1968), “Attitude Measurement”, in Lindzey G., Aronson, E. (Eds.), Handbook of Social Psychology, Reading, Mass: Adisson-Wesley.Google Scholar
  54. Slovic, P., Fischoff, B., Lichtenstein, S. (1982), “Why Study Risk Perception?”, Risk Analysis, Vol. 2, n° 2.Google Scholar
  55. Smiley, A., Brookhuis, S. K. A. (1987), “Alcohol, Drugs, and Traffic Safety”, in ROTHENGATTER, J. A., De Bruin, R. A. (Eds.), Road Users and Traffic Safety, Assen: Van Gorcum.Google Scholar
  56. Smiley, A. (1995), “Overview and Methodologies of the ITS Safety Evaluation Process”, presented at the Workshop on ITS Safety Evaluations, ITS America, Reston.Google Scholar
  57. Starr, C. (1969), “Social Benefit versus Technological Risk”, Science.Google Scholar
  58. Tuttle, T. C., et al.(1974), Psychological-Behavioral Strategies for Accident Control Report for the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Contract n° HSM-99–7361, Cincinnatti.Google Scholar
  59. Thirumalai, K. (1995), K. (1995), “Strategies for Evaluating ITS safety Concepts for Marketable Products”, Second world Congress in ITS, Yokohama, 2390.Google Scholar
  60. Thurstone, L. L. (1931), The Measurement of Social Attitudes, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  61. Winkler, R., Nowicki, J. (1997), “Experience with the Implementation of On-Board Navigation Systems”, ITS Congress, Berlin.Google Scholar
  62. Zhang, X. et al. (1996), Guidebook for Assessment of Transport Telematics Applications, CONVERGE project (TR 1101), Del. DV Q5. 1, Telematic Application Program, Transport Sector.Google Scholar
  63. Zimmerman, C. A., Ellito, C. A. (1995), ITS User Acceptance Research, U.S.DOT, ITS America, Annual Conference Paper.Google Scholar
  64. Eslande, Van, P., Alberton, L. (1997), Scénarios-types de production de “l’erreur humaine” dans l’accident de la route, rapport de recherche INRETS, n°208, Paris: INRETS.Google Scholar
  65. Vallet, M. (1991), “Les dispositifs de maintien de la vigilance des conducteurs de voiture”, in VALLET, M. (ED.), Le maintien de la vigilance dans les transports, Caen: Paradigme.Google Scholar
  66. Wu-Chien, J. S., Apostolakis, G. (1981), “On Risk Aversion in Risk Acceptance Criteria”, Reliability Engineering, n°2, 45–52.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stefan Petica
    • 1
  1. 1.National Institute for Transport and Safety Research (INRETS)France

Personalised recommendations