Drivers’ attitudes towards
driver assistance systems
presented by
Juliane Haupt
Introduction
Introduction
Pre-Study
Study II
Conclusion
Attitudes
Pre-Study: Focus Groups
Introduction
Pre-Study
Study II
• 20 licensed drivers (14 ♂, 6 ♀)
• Driving experience: >10,000km
• DAS experience: from almost no to high
experience
Conclusion
• Method: 4 focus groups
Pre-Study: Result extract
Introduction
Pre-Study
• Participants did not perceive DAS as necessary
for themselves but strongly supported that
close persons (e.g.: partners, children) should
use DAS
Study II
– close persons are perceived as being more safe
when driving cars equipped with DAS
Conclusion
– the way of imposing the questions to participants
influences the way of judging the safety of DAS.
Study II : Questionnaire
Introduction
• 211 licensed drivers (120 ♂, 91 ♀; average
age: 40.010 years; SD = 14.190 years)
Pre-Study
Study II
• DAS experience: from almost no to high
experience
Conclusion
• Method: questionnaire
Study II : DAS experience
Introduction
1. Did you - and if yes, when did you
first - used the particular system?;
Pre-Study
Study II
2. How often do you currently drive with
the particular system activated? and
Conclusion
3. How familiar do you feel with the
particular DAS?
Study II : DAS experience
Introduction
Traction control system
(TCS)
Pre-Study
Study II
Parking system (active)
Conclusion
Intelligent Speed Adaptation
(warning)
Study II : Attitudes towards DAS
1.
Introduction
“Would you wish that closely related persons (parents,
children, partner, friends) use the respective system?”
(asked for each system listed in table 1) (answering mode
ranging from 1 ‘no, not at all’ to 7 ‘yes, absolutely’)
Pre-Study
2.
Study II
“When a child is a passenger in the car, the respective
system should be activated in order to be able to inform,
warn or intervene if necessary.” (asked for each system
listed in table 1) (answering mode ranging from 1
‘absolutely not agree’ to 7 ‘absolutely agree’)
Conclusion
3.
“The activation of the respective system so that it can
inform, warn or intervene if necessary is dangerous.” (asked
for each system listed in table 1) (answering mode
ranging from 1 ‘absolutely not agree’ to 7
‘absolutely agree’)
Study II : Results
Quantitative vs.
Qualitative
Methods
Main
Objectives
Applied
Methods
wuthin
ADAPTATION
Look where
you have to go:
A Field Driving
Study
Discussion &
Conclusion
F(28,1) = 62,151, p = .000, η2 = .228
t(174.133) = -1.688, p = .047, d = .256
t(209) = -1.858, p = .033, d = .257
Study II : Gender differences
Quantitative vs.
Qualitative
Methods
t(209) = -1.700, p = .046, d = .235
t(209) = -1.828, p = .035, d = .253
Main
Objectives
Applied
Methods
wuthin
ADAPTATION
Look where
you have to go:
A Field Driving
Study
Discussion &
Conclusion
t(209) = -1.947, p = .027, d = .273
t(209) = -4.024, p = .000, d = .557
Study II : Results
•
Introduction
Pre-Study
Study II
Conclusion
One significant correlation was found
for the effect of drivers’ level of
sensation seeking on attitudes
towards a specific DAS. The higher
participants scored in ‘sensation
seeking’ the safer they judged the
Traffic Sign Recognition System,
r = 0.135, p = .025.
Introduction
Pre-Study
Study II
Conclusion
Conclusion
• in terms of safety, drivers’ evaluate the 29 systems
differently
Introduction
Pre-Study
Study II
Conclusion
• gender is not a decisive factor influencing if a system is
perceived as safe or not
• level of sensation seeking is not a decisive factor
influencing if a system is perceived as safe or not
• The availability of DAS and to be able to afford (also
advanced) driver assistance systems might contribute to a
higher DAS experience in general public and consequently
to a more distributed positive view on DAS
“Attitude is a little thing that makes a big
difference.”
Winston Churchill
Thank you for your attention!
Juliane Haupt
Juliane.Haupt@factum.at