State of policyADASE30.12.03
State of Policy in ADASE
30.12.03
Contract number IST-2000-28010
Deliverable D2C
Version 2.0
Report status: Public
Authors
Gilles OSTYN – Patrick GENDRE under the authority of Michel MARCHI of the CETE Méditerranée - French Ministry of Transport
Project Co-ordinator:
Berthold Ulmer
DaimlerChrysler AG
133, rue Froissart – Bte 29
B – 1040 Brüssel
Belgium
Phone +32/2/233 11-49 – Fax +32/2/233 11-85
E-mail:
copyright: 2003 ADASE 2 Consortium
Revision chart and history log
Version / Date / Reason0.1 / 10.03.2003 / First draft
0.2 / 20.08.2003 / First results
1.0 / 30.09.2003 / Final by IMC
1.1 / 29/11/2003 / version after comments from the review
2.0 / 27/01/2004 / Add official sweden input
Table of contents
Authors
Revision chart and history log
Table of contents
1. Executive summary
2Introduction
3Presentation of the survey
4Survey Results
4.1Preliminary remarks
4.2General information per country
4.2.1Level of involvement with respect to ADAS policy
4.2.2Features of the national policies
Priorities according to service and application types
Policy approaches
4.2.3ADAS Policy in the USA and Japan
USA
Japan
4.3Tools, implementation and application: what countries are doing
4.3.1Institution set up to promote or support the implementation of ADAS research policies
4.3.2Coordination between public authorities and research bodies
4.3.3Relations with the private sector
4.3.4Main lines of the policy planned out
4.3.5Tools chosen to promote research policy and support the state of the art driver assistance research
4.3.6Tools chosen to keep citizens informed and to market new driver assistance systems
4.3.7Tools to implement ADA systems
4.3.8Tools to evaluate the results of ADAS policy
4.3.9Role that the European Commission could play to promote some projects
4.4European Commission ADAS policy
4.5Difficulties and barriers encountered
4.5.1General comments
4.5.2Lack of a national organisation in charge of ADAS
4.5.3Unsupportive legal and regulatory framework
4.5.4Weakness in the fiscal framework
4.5.5Cooperation with stakeholders
5Recommendations for national governments on improving implementation of ADA systems
5.1Foreword
5.2Establish a supportive national policy framework
5.3Improve institutional coordination and cooperation in the field of ADAS
5.4Encourage effective participation of all stakeholders, partnerships and communication
5.5Provide a legal and regulatory framework
5.6Provide fiscal and financial support
5.7Provide fiscal and financial support
5.8Provide suitable infrastructures
6Annexes 1 : survey
Section 1. GENERAL CONTEXT OF RESEARCH POLICY
1.1 Please choose and explain which role best fits your policy:
Section 2. Main features of each field of research
2.1 What are the main features of the research currently conducted (or to be conducted) in the fields listed below?
Section 3. Tools, implementation and applications
3.1 What has been set up in your country to promote or support the implementation of driver assistance research policies?
3.2 Describe tools that were chosen and how they were used to:
3.3 What provisions were used to market new driver assistance systems?
Section 4. Evaluation of results and needs
4.1 How does the administration evaluate the results of policy with respect to driver assistance research?
4.2In your opinion, what are the difficulties and barriers encountered in the driver assistance system implementation process?
4.3 How do you see driver assistance systems being implemented in your own country?
4.4 In your opinion, what role could the European Commission play to promote certain of your projects?
7Annexes 2 : list of contacts
6.2List people surveyed
6.2contact of respondents of the survey
8Annexe 3: References
Deliverable D2CVersion 2.01
State of policyADASE30.12.03
1. Executive summary
Advanced Driving Assistance Systems deployment does not systematically call for a priori intervention of national governments. However, if for example the member states and public authorities in general want to avoid an uncontrolled proliferation of embarked applications such as internet access and office workplace, which are likely to augment drivers’ distraction and go against road safety objectives, they will need to intervene according to an established policy.
On the other hand, ADAS developers, in particular car and in-car equipment manufacturers, need to solicit the public authorities with respect to many aspects, and also to better understand the positions of the member states.
With this need in mind, of a necessary co-ordination so as to foster sustainable ADAS developments, has the ADASE2 consortium ADASE2 has designed a policy questionnaire to the member-states, contacted many national decision makers and experts, and analysed their views, so as to complete the present document.
The recommendations we propose to the member states who wish to adopt a global policy with respect to Advanced Driving Assistance Systems are the following:
Establish a supportive national framework
Develop a national policy framework for ADA systems that supports and influences national goals – and local goals in the case of strong decentralization – as well as car manufacturer objectives, and user acceptance.
Improve institutional coordination and cooperation in the field of ADAS
The ADA domain calls for a global approach and for a strong co-operation between the various ministries and institutions concerned.
In particular, co-ordinated management of infrastructure, environment, safety, and economics is necessary so as to reach all strategic political goals.
Moreover, a vertical co-ordination between the national and local levels is essential to proper ADAS deployment.
In particular, as ADA systems will need more and more to interact and exchange information with the infrastructure, this vertical coordination increasingry important, as most of the road infrastructures are managed at the local level.
Encourage effective participation of all stakeholders, partnerships and communication
Involve users (e.g. the media, associations, etc.) in the upstream definition of ADAS deployment strategies so as to ensure better acceptability. End-users also need to participate early on in the test phases, such as MMI validation.
It is clear that proper ADAS deployment requires more than a governmental approval. Changes of driving attitudes and more generally of user relations towards the vehicle are to be taken into account; this will necessitate involving all concerned stakeholders, more and better than they are today.
With respect to this important point, questions to be addressed shall include:
-users’ views on usefulness or necessity of the proposed ADA functions
-HMI design
-understanding of ADAS functions and usage by the users
-anticipating of other (ADA equipped or not) drivers and users
A strong partnership with the car and in-car equipment industry will also be essential so as to reach a consensus on ADAS goals and policy (i.e. roadmap), and on the functions to be deployed in priority.
As a general fact, a key point for a successful deployment will be to communicate and inform about ADAS, what they do, what they bring to the end-users and potentially also to the authorities. National governments should leverage education about these new driving aids and secure the support of the general public and the local decision makers.
Provide a legal and regulatory framework
A legal and regulatory framework that provides guidelines for government action on all levels and involvement of the automotive industry is essential for effective implementation of ADAS policies.
Provide fiscal and financial support
The governments could fund focused R&D actions complementary to the private research programmes.
They could also take fiscal measures so as to foster systems that have proven their benefits in terms of safety.
Provide safety indicators
Elaborate performance indicators with respect to road safety would enable proper system evaluation.
Provide suitable infrastructures
Governments should support the adaptation of infrastructures that could co-operate with future in-vehicle ADA systems. A sound upstream design of road-vehicle interactions could ease early deployment of innovative systems.
2Introduction
Every year, more than 125,000 people are killed, and millions are injured on the roads of OECD countries (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). Road (un)safety accounts for than 2% of the GNP.
Advanced driver assistance systems have been developed extensively over the past few years so as to improve road safety.
It is deemed nowadays that safety technologies could reduce by as much as 40% the number of killed and injured people on EU roads, which would amount to more than 270 billion Euros a year.
The road telematics market is currently experiencing rapid expansion and, according to some market studies, should represent an annual market of 8.5 billion euros in Europe in 2007, as opposed to 1 billion euros in 2000.
Some systems, such as ABS and Electronic Stability Program (ESP), have become common on our vehicles.
Some ADAS-related topics, such as potential safety improvements, or technical and legal regulations, involve the public authorities.
Facing rapid technological change, a proactive public policy may become more and more necessary, as systems may soon require co-operating with the infrastructure, modifying deeply the driver MMI, or involving more frequently liability issues.
A major challenge is to reconcile automotive industry objectives and national transport policy objectives.
Today there is a general consensus on the need to analyze clearly the expected benefits of driver assistance systems as a solution to road safety problems, but also to take into account legal aspects and responsibilities in the use of these systems.
National ADAS deployment policies should provide an answer to these issues.
This, of course, is easier said than done.
Defining and implementing driver assistance policies require pooling many diverse and sometimes divergent interests. Indeed, these include the interests of local and national political bodies, service operators, car and part manufacturers, and as of course end-users.
The coordination and cooperation of all these decision-makers is complex.
ADASE 1 and ADASE 2 projects have demonstrated the importance of government policy in the implementation of ADA systems.
The content of these policies is yet to be explored and will depend largely on the involvement of the different member states.
In response to these concerns, the ADASE 2 project, through this state of policy work, has set an objective to discern current awareness, to identify policy implementation requirements and to endeavour to make proposals.
Based on the results of a survey sent to various member states, this report strives to provide a global view of research policy on driver assistance systems and to provide guidance for public authorities.
This report is structured as follows:
Chapter 1 is an executive summary
Chapter 2 is an introduction to the report
Chapter 3 is a brief presentation of the survey
Chapter 4 sets the current general context of ADASE policy, describing the main trends as revealed by the ADASE survey, focusing on how some member states organise and implement their ADAS policy and the barriers encountered
Chapter 5, in conclusion, identifies how driver assistance systems could be implemented in each country as guidance.
3Presentation of the survey
Within the European Project ADASE 2 (Advanced Driver Assistance systems), a survey was conducted on research policy status among EU member states and on driver assistance systems.
Political awareness of the benefits that driver assistance systems may have on reducing road mortality is an important and vital step in their implementation.
This state of policy aims at obtaining a global perspective on:
-Political awareness
-Proposed solutions
-Identification of national requirements
The following approach was used to meet these objectives:
Research useful documentation sources
Find collaboration within the ADAS 2 project consortium
Based on a questionnaire and phone contacts, explore needs and the state of policy
Analyse and structure results
make some recommendations
The questionnaire elaborated by ADASE consortium is presented in appendix 1
The list of contacts is to be found in appendix 2
4Survey Results
4.1Preliminary remarks
Only a few countries were able to answer the survey. It turned out to be very difficult to find the appropriate people in charge of driver assistance systems nationally in many member states.
This difficulty shows among others that ADAS is usually a topic in itself, and thus the importance of increasing and improving communication in this matter along with member states.
Despite the limited number of replies, the survey nevertheless revealed the major trends and concerns in the area of driver assistance systems and enabled us to identify the roles of national political bodies.
Following is a synopsis of the principal messages on ADASE policy.
4.2General information per country
4.2.1Level of involvement with respect to ADAS policy
The answers enabled us to understand the driver assistance system research policy applied in each country, taking into account culture, traditions, priorities, targets, current and emergent constraints.
The different roles are to be understood as follows:
Role / DefinitionMonitor / Keeps track of technological developments in the concerned area and tries to take these into account when making transport policy
Framework body / Determines the rules and conditions which influence innovation
Implementor / Applies new products in its own process
R&D agent / Promotes research and Development directly
Innovation agent / Promotes successful implementation of R&D products
Developer / Carries out in-house R&D
Figure 1 shows how the member states position their research policies.
Figure 1: research policy roles
Two main types of policy can be distinguished:
A monitoring policy: these countries do technological watch and are waiting for tangible results before to invest in ADAS.
A few countries are more proactive and have in particular invested in Intelligent Speed Adaptation projects (UK, Sweden, Netherlands, Flanders, France)
Here is some additional information given on each national policy:
Greece:As a governmental organisation responsible for Greek transport policy, the Hellenic Ministry of Transport and Communications is continuously monitoring technological developments in advanced Driver Assistance Systems and encouraging all organisations under its control (Public transport organisations, Infrastructure Organisations, etc.) to use such systems and to integrate them within their plans.
Moreover, it tries to monitor the developments and the evaluation of such systems throughout Europe to gain awareness of the state of the art and to adapt its policies where appropriate, and also to refine the relevant legal framework. Towards this goal a new department was created recently at the Ministry focusing on transport safety (including all ADAS issues).
France:About the monitoring: The Ministry of Transport permanently monitors ITS and ADAS applications, in order to detect the most promising. Hence the ATEC ( group on “Telematics and road safety” and also participation in the OECD group dealing with “the technologies that impact on road safety”.
About the implementor rule: The French Ministry of Transport also deploys innovative ITS products for better traffic management and improved road safety on motorways (e.g. Automatic Incident Detection systems).
About the framework body: The work done in ACTIF (Framework Architecture for Intelligent Transports, can be considered as a framework for ITS, even though ACTIF is not devoted specifically to ADA systems.
About the R&D agent rule: In some particular cases, such as ISA/LAVIA ( the Ministry launched a research program directly.
About the Innovation agent rule: The PREDIT R&D programme (Interministerial land transport research and innovation programme, actively supported by the public authorities, is the best example of actions undertaken in this field.
Netherlands: The Dutch Ministry of Transport aims at developing a strategic view together with market forces (industry and consumers) on how future applications may contribute to solving currently acknowledged transport and mobility problems. By elaborating this, some guidance may be given to short-term initiatives as well. In addition to this, importance is also given to deployment of current available technologies or near to market technologies that fit within this long-term perspective.
United Kingdom:About the monitoring: This isan important aspect of their research, i.e. thinking about technological development in the context of improving road safety and environmental performance of vehicles. As such they monitor technology but then think about how this might be utilised to achieve the national targets.
A new concept or improvement of current situation would be implemented via internationally agreed regulations. At the same time they are keen to gain knowledge and share experience with other European and International bodies undertaking parallel and complementary research.
About the framework body: Both DFT (Department for Transport) and the Highways Agency (Executive agency of the DFT) in particular take a steering role in helping formulate the direction of new research and have been an active sponsor of National and European ITS projects. The Agency actively contributes to the development of relevant CEN and ISO standards in the area of communication and ITS.
About the implementor rule: The Agency has been active in creating an environment that has enabled its infrastructure and infrastructure systems to be available to support initiative ITS project where potential safety, efficiency and driver comfort benefits may be achieved.
About the R&D agent rule: Through the Foresight vehicle LINK programme,they directly encourage advanced R&D activity in the ADAS area. Government has a number of projects in this area ( The Agency also undertakes its own programme of research and sponsors external organisations research where this may benefit the Agency or road user.
About the Innovation agent rule: Some results culminate into commercial products, some of which feed directly into DFT initiatives such as the UK national Traffic Control Centre, the Travel Information Highway and Active Traffic Management projects. Again the Foresight vehicle programme applies.
About the developer rule: Where appropriate, R&D activity is undertaken to address and support the achievement of policy objectives.
Germany:The e-safety / ADAS policy in Germany is somehow ambiguous, as for example the position with respect to speed limitation remains hesitant, as compared to e.g. the Netherlands, the U.K. or Sweden.
It also appears that due to institutional federalism which imparts significant authority to the Länders, a national policy is difficult to put in practice.
The German government acts more as a catalyser and promoter of ITS applications in general. With a strong and omnipresent automotive industry, they support many initiatives such as the eSafety Initiative.
Co-operation between stakeholders happens in particular via the German Economic Forum on ITS (Wirtschftsforum Verkehrstelematik). This national forum informs the development of ITS strategy which government then uses with associated transport and other policy inputs to create the ITS road map.