It was an arduous journey for humanity from pure locomotion on foot via the use of horse-drawn carriages to the invention of motorized vehicles. One thing is clearly recognizable: our motivation to cover greater distances efficiently and economically. Within the framework of Mobility 3.0, these attributes are now supplemented by components of modern communication technologies. Being “always connected” in the vehicle is nowadays a must not only for the marketing departments of automobile manufacturers. The “smartphone generation” also does not want to do without the digital Swiss Army knife when covering longer distances. <\/p>\n
Traffic hazards are often disregarded or at least downplayed in this era of digital revolution. But what really lies behind the evolution of locomotion? What possibilities are opened up by these types of communication technologies? Are humans even capable of handling the technical conditions, or does it require several generational changes to truly establish such topics sustainably? Are we opening ourselves to autonomous driving and are we aware of the potential risks? <\/p>\n
Many questions that numerous scientists are approaching empirically in their fields of knowledge and that also bring improvements and facilitations to us drivers. Currently, the diverging lifetime cycles of the electronics industry on the one hand and the automotive industry on the other represent an inharmonious link. The automotive industry should ideally strive to complete the prevailing paradigm shift together with the IT sector. The technical prerequisites must be adapted in a coordinated manner in the foreseeable future. But where does the human being remain in this context, the actual user of the connected vehicle? <\/p>\n
Thomas Stottan, CEO of the R&D studio AUDIO MOBIL Elektronik GmbH located in Ranshofen, Upper Austria, takes a visionary look at the exciting possibilities of the connected vehicle alongside the research-relevant topics with regard to human-machine interaction.<\/p>\n
Introduction<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n AUDIO MOBIL has been working with CarICT for over 25 years. In the daily development of modern operating systems, the company strives to simplify the everyday lives of vehicle users and has thus established itself as a competent development partner for the automotive industry. This activity gives rise to some exciting challenges: What does the car have to do with individual mobility? Are you still moving individually when you are stuck in traffic, for example? Questions that we will address below via different approaches. <\/p>\n When considering the generations of individual mobility, one notices the evolutionary change in personal locomotion. Mobility 1.x (7 million years BC to approximately 1800 AD) describes the metamorphosis of humans in their movement behavior from the Big Bang via the invention of the wheel to the use of chariots and horse-drawn carriages\u2014already a significant expansion of mobility behavior and range requirements. A purely muscle-supporting measure for range extension, then, to reduce it to the essentials and thus assignable as the first evolution of human locomotion. <\/p>\n The numerous intermediate stages of Mobility 2.x stand in this context for the emergence of the steam engine and first mechanically motorized vehicles in the course of the industrial revolution at the beginning of the 17th century. Even highly modern drive concepts\u2014be it hybrid or electric drive in the most diverse stages of development\u2014are merely a preliminary stage to the future Mobility 3.0. Is a bus a public means of transport? If so, what is a chartered coach? Ecosystem of Mobility<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n If we free ourselves from the restrictive terminology of individual transport and public transport, different influences can be newly defined. The ecosystem of mobility is divided into the following core topics with associated exemplary topic and assignment areas: <\/p>\n Individual means of transport (autonomous):<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Infrastructure:<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Information structure:<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Individual means of transport (motorized):<\/p>\n <\/p>\n At the core of these components of the ecosystem of mobility is individual locomotion, which humans strive for with the greatest possible efficiency. The complexity of the mobility ecosystem is increasing. In order to achieve the desired efficiency in the long term, the use of new technologies such as ICT (information and communication technology) is required. Associated with this are fundamental decisions regarding data protection security. Technical solutions that meet the requirements of the currently highest data protection standard, the “European Privacy Seal,” have meanwhile been developed and established in the market. As an example, the xFCD system of AMV-Networks GesmbH may be cited. <\/p>\n Evolution of the Connected Vehicle<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n In this context, we want to take up the evolution of the connected vehicle\u2014like the evolution of mobility\u2014and consider the technologies that have been used or will be used in the future. What forms of communication standards existed in the past, which are currently in use, and what developments can be expected? <\/p>\n The networking of vehicles began with the so-called nomads: smartphones, mobile phones, and mobile navigation systems that were connected to the vehicle (N2C), for example to connect the hands-free system, integrate the personalized music playlist into the vehicle, or use the device as a mobile navigation solution. Techniques that are still used today. Meanwhile, the implementation of public data into the vehicle x-to-Car (x2C) and vice versa Car-to-X (C2x) has gained validity. Today, drivers are warned of accidents on the planned route, receive information about nearby parking options, or are informed about the speed limit at the respective location. All techniques and standards that are known and gladly used today. <\/p>\n What will make vehicle networking so valuable in the future is the communication of vehicles with each other as well as the use of personalized data in combination with the infrastructure. Whether the electric vehicle will need a charge in the foreseeable future and the vehicle independently searches for suitable charging options, or a vehicle ahead warns following drivers of obstacles. All of this will sustainably influence mobility behavior and, above all, significantly increase safety. The advantages for individual locomotion have not even been evaluated yet. Seamless coverage of the route to be taken, evaluated according to the greatest possible efficiency and depending on available modes of transport or vehicles, will completely change the mobility of the future. All of this is of course still music of the future\u2014so far. However, in order to be able to initiate this evolution in a timely manner, broad acceptance of vehicle networking and the comprehensibility of the applied technologies are required. The Basic Principle of Vehicle Networking<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n xFCD\u2014”extended floating car data” stands for the basic technology in the context of vehicle networking and generates forms of communication between vehicles and the infrastructure in the form of C2x and x2C technologies. Car2x delivers vehicle-specific data (position, speed, fuel quantity, mileage, and many other parameters) anonymously to an independent data center, which in turn passes this data on anonymously to infrastructure measures and in this way controls traffic information services, traffic control measures, and similar instruments. A win-win situation for drivers as well as for providers of information services. Of course, always under the supreme premise of data security and personalized data protection. Application Examples for Data Provision<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n The applicability of data provision is a field of almost unlimited possibilities. Starting with the market segment “Business to Business,” one can enumerate many areas of application from individual workshop service applications, car finder solutions, leasing models, electronic logbooks with direct billing to authorities, car-sharing models, to fleet management models. <\/p>\n Another market segment can be served with “Business to Government,” where deployment control of emergency services can be positively influenced as well as general traffic planning, wrong-way driver warnings, parking management, or generally public local passenger transport, or \u00d6PNV for short.<\/p>\n All business fields that are\u2014if at all\u2014only in their infancy and to which success can still be attested in multiple respects. Should the automotive industry not succeed in a timely manner in exploiting this attractive market for itself, mobility newcomers such as Google and Apple will know how to occupy it sustainably. <\/p>\n Car-ICT Market Development in Europe<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n However, all technologies in the context of vehicle networking promise not only more safety and efficiency in the context of future mobility. What should not be disregarded is the sales volume of around 150 billion euros per year forecast for Europe alone. According to a first cautious estimate, mind you. <\/p>\n This will presumably be supported in 2018 thanks to the use of modern telecommunications standards such as LTE or the implementation of the eCall required by the legislator. An immensely lucrative market segment, then, that is only presenting itself to us in its infancy. Information and communication technology (ICT) is thus the actual fuel of the future\u2014regardless of prevailing drive discussions. <\/p>\n Distraction as the True Hazard Potential of Safe Locomotion Models<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n As shown in the previous chapters, many networking technologies are market-ready and could be integrated into the market in a timely manner with little use of resources, but: What must not be disregarded in this context is the media development unfolding exponentially to the automotive industry.<\/p>\n While radio still needed 38 years to achieve a reach of 50 million users worldwide, this could be achieved with the medium of television in only 13 years. The mobile phone recorded 50 million users in 11 years; the Internet overcame this hurdle after only 3 years. Social networks such as Facebook or Twitter, to name only the most popular, needed only 9 months to reach a user number of an incredible 100 million worldwide. An extreme expansion in the shortest time, then\u2014which is contrasted by the relatively slow cycles of the automotive industry. The automobile needed 60 years for a user number of 50 million. A very unequal rhythm, then, that automobile manufacturers must balance as quickly as possible if they want to interest the coveted clientele in their products in the future. <\/p>\n In this context, the distraction of drivers by too many functions and services is also absolutely noteworthy.<\/p>\n In 1983, in addition to actually steering the vehicle, there were still a fairly manageable seven functions that a driver had to master (speedometer, fuel gauge, turn signal, etc.); by 2010 there were already 38 functions and more. Services that can also be used today are not even counted. One counts about 60 features with which one is confronted in a well-equipped mid-range vehicle (rain sensor, rear-view camera, parking assistance, etc.). A number that has already far exceeded our neural load limit, if one draws on considerations such as Moore’s Law [1] or Buxton’s Law [2]. Namely, insofar as one left the load limit behind around the turn of the millennium and thus surrendered to technology to an extent that modern humans can only control by mobilizing all their neural reserves. Technical development is progressing faster than its handling. <\/p>\n Doing this in conjunction with driving a vehicle enormously exceeds our capacitive abilities. In contrast to technological development, human evolution stagnates in the context of cognitive performance. The driver environment has changed drastically over the past 30 years and represents significantly increased demands on the driver. The increase in functionalities with constant human sensory capacity poses a high risk to vehicle occupant safety. <\/p>\n The mandate to automobile manufacturers is clearly defined. Sensors and the associated helpers in modern vehicles are of course safety-promoting. However, whether assistance systems and sensors must be individually activated or deactivated by the driver remains questionable. The integration of the smartphone into the vehicle is also not the solution to all problems. The question and the solution approach behind it is rather how our individually adapted smartphone functions can be well integrated into the vehicle architecture in order to make use during the journey safe. <\/p>\n With regard to advancing vehicle networking and the desire for autonomous locomotion, however, the current vehicle structure will have to be reconsidered anyway. The goal must clearly be the “humanization” of technology\u2014the adaptation of technical solutions to the individual human being. <\/p>\n Also to be considered in this context is general distraction as an underestimated danger for future locomotion models. Thinking of daily occurring situations such as the telephoning and thus distracted cyclist, the pedestrian distracted by listening to music while crossing the road, or other related risk groups: missing interactions can also bring a sudden end to the currently advancing model tests of autonomous locomotion. <\/p>\n Vehicle Requirements Differ Between Genders<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n Independent of the conscious necessity of cross-platform vehicle networking, different requirements for means of transport exist between men and women. Demographic approaches or socially anchored fundamental considerations are left completely aside here. For example, the question frequently used by women is where the handbag can be placed within reach and crash-safe in the vehicle\u2014a problem that has no relevance for men. It is similar with digital applications. Experts have questioned gender-related user behavior in the car\u2014mind you, while driving\u2014in a scientific study and have come across partly concerning results. <\/p>\n As the study “Gender-Related User Behavior in the Car” [3] has shown, there are gender-dependent different usage frequencies and characteristics for telephoning, GPS functionalities, or Facebook.<\/p>\n Although clearly prohibited by law, the use of the smartphone’s telephony function is strongly pronounced among women and men. An unfortunately quite clear trend toward messaging activities while driving was also demonstrated in the study. <\/p>\n Alarming are uses such as e-banking and social networks: differently pronounced in terms of percentage use between genders, but alarmingly high in total. Here, legislation is certainly called upon to take measures necessary for traffic safety and thus appropriately curb direct smartphone use while driving in order to keep the distraction potential as low as possible. Among other things, the 53rd German Traffic Court Day 2015 calls for the creation of framework conditions for vehicle manufacturers, producers of information, communication, and entertainment media, as well as for service providers to implement the possibilities of situational function suppression. This concerns, for example, the deactivation of manual destination entries or the blocking of text entries while driving. At least until alternative forms of locomotion in the context of autonomous driving can be realized in an operationally safe manner. <\/p>\n Driver Distraction<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n From a scientific point of view, distraction is distinguished between three major distraction groups when users focus on other activities.<\/p>\n Manual distraction, in which drivers only have to take one hand off the steering wheel to manipulate devices. Visual distraction in the context of tasks that require looking away from the road. And finally, cognitive distraction when activities make it necessary to withdraw the driver’s mental attention from the pure driving task. <\/p>\n If one evaluates the neural information flow and the capacitive overall perception of humans in this context, it is noticeable that the most pronounced sense is sight. In second place is the sense of touch, which, however, is already far behind sight. After the sense of touch, the remaining senses such as hearing, smelling, and tasting are less pronounced. It is therefore absolutely advisable to adapt operating systems of modern vehicle architectures to the human “basic equipment” with regard to possible task completion. Only in this way can a modern, holistic HMI system function. <\/p>\n HMI Test Series as Scientific Basis<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n The Christian Doppler Laboratory for Contextual Interfaces at the University of Salzburg under the direction of Professor Manfred Tscheligi has dedicated itself to precisely these questions surrounding sensory-physiological distraction behavior in the context of real driving tasks and conducted extensive HMI tests in the years 2010, 2011, and 2012. The study results [4] speak for themselves and call for urgent action. Almost no vehicle in these test series complied with the time limits required by the NHTSA to successfully complete a task\u2014and that, although the test subjects were able to familiarize themselves thoroughly with the individual systems before the test. Partly exorbitant exceedances of the standard time specifications (with a target specification of 24 seconds, real values between 80 and 175 seconds were determined) still allow for numerous improvement measures in this area of automobile construction. <\/p>\n Voice Control: Not the “Philosopher’s Stone”<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n One could now counter these statements by saying that modern system operations include voice control and could thus possibly reduce the cognitive load. Unfortunately, this is not the case, as the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety [5] found out in the context of a “Mental Workload” study. <\/p>\n In the study, drivers were given various tasks in addition to the driving task, to which every driver is exposed daily in reality. Thus, the cognitive load from simply listening to the radio was considered as well as telephoning via hands-free system permitted by legislation, conversations with the passenger, unauthorized telephoning with the mobile phone, or entries into vehicle-integrated menu systems. The listed tasks cognitively burdened the vehicle users more, so that the pure driving task increasingly receded into the background. <\/p>\n The cognitive load limit was reached when the vehicle users were supposed to solve speech-to-text tasks in addition to driving or had texts read to them via the publicly popular Siri voice control. Here it was clearly recognizable from the measurements that the driving task was completely pushed out of the area of cognitive and sensory-physiological perception and the test subjects only concentrated purely on the voice control task. Compared to a good conventional menu entry with the distraction factor 2.8, the voice input system performs significantly worse with the factor 4.2. <\/p>\n These results are consistent with the capacitive overall perception potential of humans cited in the chapter “Driver Distraction.” A scientific field of work, then, that the automotive industry must quickly address in order to adapt modern operating systems to the “basic equipment” of humans. Typing, speaking, swiping as individual components are not an option for ideal HMI systems. Different input methods adapted to the “basic equipment” of humans and to the situationally valid context, on the other hand, represent the state to be strived for. <\/p>\n Innovative Technology Concepts Pave the Way to Automated Driving<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n For possible solution approaches to the extended integration of human-machine interaction, user zones are defined in the vehicle. Thus, we divide the vehicle interior into three basic zones, which are structured as follows: Many vehicle manufacturers and suppliers have tried in recent years to build up competencies in the wide field of information provision and to incorporate them into innovative interior concepts. The approaches are definitely to be evaluated positively\u2014the “human” factor still generates a wealth of challenges. <\/p>\n Science and, above all, vehicle users will set the course in the near future as to what needs we will cover with which systems. Among other things, drivers will be confronted with modern mobility concepts and will adapt their mobility behavior accordingly. By means of “humanized” operating technologies, the willingness for efficient application can be sustainably promoted. <\/p>\n Thus, the currently still rather unpopular electromobility will only find great acceptance when it is recognized that it is not a range problem that prevents greater influx, but an energy management problem. Mobility 3.0 is efficient locomotion through individual networking\u2014an interplay of the vehicle known today with information and communication technology and further locomotion offers. Using this interplay correctly will be the true fuel of the future. <\/p>\n Bibliography<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n [1] Moore, G. (1965): [2] Buxton, W. (2001): [3] Kortus-Schultes, D. (2005): [4] Tscheligi, M. (2013): [5] Cooper, J., Ingebretsen, H., Strayer, D., (2014): It was an arduous journey for humanity from pure locomotion on foot via the use of horse-drawn carriages to the invention of motorized vehicles. One thing is clearly recognizable: our motivation to cover greater distances efficiently and economically. Within the framework of Mobility 3.0, these attributes are now supplemented by components of modern communication technologies. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":265,"featured_media":5859,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[274],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5858","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-news"],"yoast_head":"\n
\nIn all probability, another revolution in individual locomotion. Mobility 3.0 is the result of using our intelligence to utilize individual forms of mobility\u2014just as we learned to apply human physical strength in the beginning. It is clear today that individual locomotion is not purely tied to the car, but can be represented through the use of various means of transport. <\/p>\n
\nAre we individually mobile with the car in traffic jams or are we externally controlled? Generally, mobility is individual. Thus it is necessary to redefine some terms: let us call it the “ecosystem of mobility.” <\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\nExperts are of the unanimous opinion that efficient locomotion in the future can only be realized with individual networking. The two building blocks of the car and ICT (information and communication technology) represent the complete area of Mobility 3.0. <\/p>\n
\nThe open questions on this have long been clarified; only the legislation and a globally applicable standard need to be consolidated in a timely manner. Not least, the automotive industry must recognize the signs of the times as soon as possible and provide sustainable, intelligent solutions for the few remaining open points. <\/p>\n
\nVehicles of various vehicle categories from the compact class to the upper mid-range were used for the test series.
\nThe goal of the study was to represent distraction behavior in real operation, i.e., on the road\u2014a completely different approach than, for example, the purely simulator-oriented measurement of the American authority NHTSA “National Highway Traffic Safety Administration” (the civil federal agency for road and vehicle safety), which, however, was used as a benchmark and thus provides recommendations defined by it.<\/p>\n
\nThe driver zone, which performs all safety-critical interactions, the passenger\/front passenger zone as the zone assisting the driver, and finally the rear seat area. This zone subdivision requires different HMI concepts and helps to reduce the distraction potential through modern operating systems or at least to represent it in a zone-assigned manner and to minimize the distraction potential for the driver with the help of cross-zone solutions. <\/p>\n
\nElectronics International magazine,
\n“Integrated Circuits”<\/p>\n
\nThe Invisible Future: The seamless integration of technology in everyday life,
\n“Less is more”<\/p>\n
\nGender-Specific Differences,
\n“Results of the large market research study ‘Men – Car’ and Women – Index'”,
\nNiederrhein University of Applied Sciences<\/p>\n
\nCHI ’13 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems,
\n“Automotive HMI test package: an exploitable approach to study in-car HMIs”,
\nUniversity of Salzburg<\/p>\n
\n“Mental Workload of Common Voice-Based Vehicle Interactions across Six Different Vehicle
\nSystems”
\nAAA Foundation for Traffic Safety<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"