AUDIO MOBIL published in ZfAW, the magazine for the entire automotive value chain

It has been an arduous journey for mankind from pure locomotion on foot through the use of horse-drawn carriages to the invention of motorized vehicles. One thing is clearly recognizable: our motivation to cover longer distances efficiently and economically. In the context of Mobility 3.0, these attributes are now being supplemented by components of modern means of communication. Nowadays, being "always connected" in the vehicle is not just a must for the marketing departments of car manufacturers. Even the "smartphone" generation no longer wants to be without the digital Swiss Army knife when they travel long distances.

In this time of digital revolution, traffic hazards are often ignored or at least downplayed. But what is really behind the evolution of transportation? What opportunities are being opened up by this type of communication technology? Are humans even up to the technical realities or will it take several generations to really establish such topics in the long term? Are we opening up to autonomous driving and are we aware of the potential risks?

Many questions that numerous scientists are approaching empirically in their fields of knowledge and that also bring improvements and relief to us drivers. At present, the diverging lifetime cycles of the electronics industry on the one hand and the automotive industry on the other represent an inharmonious link. Ideally, the automotive industry should endeavor to complete the prevailing paradigm shift together with the IT sector. The technical requirements must at least be adapted in a coordinated manner in the foreseeable future. But where does this leave the human being, the actual user of the connected vehicle?

Thomas Stottan, CEO of the R&D studio AUDIO MOBIL Elektronik GmbH, based in Ranshofen, Upper Austria, takes a visionary look at the exciting possibilities of the connected vehicle and the research-relevant topics with regard to human-machine interaction.

Introduction

AUDIO MOBIL has been involved with CarICT for over 25 years. In the daily development of modern operating systems, the company strives to simplify the everyday life of vehicle users and has thus established itself as a competent development partner for the automotive industry. This work gives rise to some exciting challenges: What does the car have to do with individual mobility? Do we still move individually when we are stuck in a traffic jam, for example? These are questions that we will address below using different approaches.

If you look at the generations of individual mobility, you will notice the evolutionary change in personal transportation. Mobility 1.x (7 million years before Christ to around 1800 after Christ) describes the metamorphosis of human movement behavior since the Big Bang, from the invention of the wheel to the use of chariots and horse-drawn carriages - already a significant expansion of mobility behavior and range requirements. A purely muscle-supporting measure to extend the range, in other words, to reduce it to the essentials and thus the first evolution of human locomotion.

In this context, the numerous intermediate stages of mobility 2.x stand for the emergence of the steam engine and the first mechanically motorized carriages in the course of the industrial revolution at the beginning of the 17th century. Even ultra-modern drive concepts - be it hybrid or electric drives in their various forms - are merely a preliminary stage to future mobility 3.0 .
In all probability, another revolution in individual transportation. Mobility 3.0 is the result of using our intelligence to utilize individual forms of mobility - just as we learned to use human physical strength in the early days. What is clear today is that individual mobility is not purely tied to the car, but can be represented by using a wide variety of means of transportation.

Is a bus a means of public transportation? If so, what is a chartered coach?
Are we individually mobile in traffic jams by car or are we controlled by others? In general, mobility is individual. It is therefore necessary to redefine some terms: Let's call it the "mobility ecosystem".

Mobility ecosystem

If we move away from the restrictive concepts of private and public transportation, various influences can be redefined. The mobility ecosystem can be broken down into the following core topics, with examples of related topics and areas of allocation:

Individual means of transportation (autonomous):

• Cyclists
• Pedestrians
• Mass transportation
• Shipping traffic
• Air traffic
• Streetcars
• Buses
• Underground and suburban trains
• Train traffic

 

Infrastructure:

• Traffic guidance systems
• Road network
• Parking lots
• Construction sites
• Settlement structures
• Energy supplier

 

Information structure:

• Weather
• City information
• Tourist information
• Traffic information

 

Individual means of transportation (motor.):

• Cars
• Trucks
• Single-track vehicles

 

The core of these components of the mobility ecosystem is individual transportation, which people strive to achieve as efficiently as possible. The complexity of the mobility ecosystem is increasing. In order to achieve the desired efficiency in the long term, new technologies such as ICT (information and communication technology) must be used. This involves fundamental decisions regarding data protection security. Technical solutions that meet the requirements of the currently highest data protection standard, the "European Privacy Seal", have now been developed and established on the market. One example is the xFCD system from AMV-Networks GesmbH.

Evolution of the connected vehicle

In this context, we want to take up the evolution of the connected vehicle - like the evolution of mobility - and look at the technologies that have been used and those that will be used in the future. What forms of communication standards have existed in the past, which are currently in use and what developments can be expected?

The networking of vehicles began with the so-called nomads: Smartphones, cell 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. Technologies that are still used today. The implementation of non-profit data in the vehicle x-to-car (x2C) and vice versa car-to-x (C2x) has now become valid. This means that drivers are now warned of accidents on the planned route, receive information about nearby parking options or are informed about the speed limit at the respective location. These are all technologies and standards that are familiar and popular today.

What will make vehicle networking so valuable in the future is the communication between vehicles and the use of personalized data in combination with the infrastructure. Whether the electric vehicle needs a charge in the foreseeable future and the vehicle independently searches for suitable options for charging or a vehicle in front warns the driver behind of obstacles. All of this will have a lasting impact on mobility behavior and, above all, significantly increase safety. The advantages for individual mobility have not even been considered. Seamless coverage of the route to be traveled, evaluated according to the greatest possible efficiency and depending on available modes of transport or vehicles, will completely change the mobility of the future. Of course, all this is still a dream of the future - so far. However, in order to be able to initiate this evolution in the near future, vehicle networking needs to be widely accepted and the technologies used need to be comprehensible.
Experts are unanimous in their opinion that efficient transportation will only be possible in the future with individual networking. The two components of the car and ICT (information and communication technology) form the complete area of Mobility 3.0.

The basic principle of vehicle networking

xFCD - "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 forwards this data anonymously to infrastructure measures and in this way controls traffic information services, traffic control measures and similar instruments. A win-win situation for drivers and providers of information services alike. Of course, always under the highest premise of data security and personalized data protection.
The open questions in this regard have long been clarified; only the legislation and a globally applicable standard need to be consolidated in the near future. Last but not least, the automotive industry must recognize the signs of the times as soon as possible and provide sustainable, intelligent solutions for the few outstanding issues.

Application examples for data provision

The applicability of data provision is a field of almost unlimited possibilities. If you start with the "business to business" market segment, you can list many areas of application, from individual workshop service applications, car finder solutions, leasing models, electronic logbooks with direct billing to authorities and car sharing models through to fleet management models.

Another market segment can be served with "Business to Government", where the operational control of blue light organizations can be influenced just as positively as general traffic planning, wrong-way driver warnings, parking space management or local public transport in general.

These are all business areas that are only in their infancy - if at all - and can still be considered successful in many respects. If the automotive industry does not succeed in exploiting this attractive market for itself in the near future, mobility lateral entrants such as Google and Apple will know how to occupy it in the long term.

Car-ICT market development in Europe

However, all vehicle networking technologies not only promise greater safety and efficiency in the context of future mobility. The predicted sales volume of around 150 billion euros per year for Europe alone should not be overlooked. According to an initial conservative estimate, mind you.

This is expected to be supported in 2018 thanks to the use of modern telecommunications standards such as LTe or the implementation of eCall, which is required by law. This is an extremely lucrative market segment that is still in its infancy. Information and communication technology (ICT) is therefore the real fuel of the future - regardless of prevailing drive discussions.

Distraction as the real potential danger of safe transportation models

As shown in the previous chapters, many networking technologies are ready for the market and could be integrated into the market quickly with little investment of resources, but what must not be ignored in this context is the exponential development of media in relation to the automotive industry.

While it took radio 38 years to reach 50 million users worldwide, television only took 13 years. Cell phones recorded 50 million users in 11 years, while the internet reached this milestone after just 3 years. Social networks such as Facebook and Twitter, to name just the most popular, took just 9 months to reach an incredible 100 million users worldwide. An extreme expansion in a very short space of time - which contrasts with the relatively slow cycles of the automotive industry. It took the automobile 60 years to reach 50 million users. A very uneven rhythm, therefore, which car manufacturers must compensate for as quickly as possible if they want to attract the coveted clientele for their products in the future.

In this context, the distraction of drivers by too many functions and services is also worthy of attention.

Whereas in 1983, in addition to the actual control of the vehicle, there were still a fairly manageable seven functions that a driver had to master (speedometer, fuel gauge, indicators, etc.), by 2010 there were already 38 functions and more. This does not even include services that can also be used today. There are around 60 features in a well-equipped mid-range vehicle (rain sensor, reversing camera, parking aid, etc.). A number that has already far exceeded our neuronal capacity, if we take into account considerations such as Moore's Law [1] or Buxton's Law [2]. This is to the extent that, at the turn of the millennium, we had already left the limit behind us and were thus at the mercy of technology to an extent that modern man can only control by using all his neuronal reserves. Technical development is progressing faster than its handling.

To do this in conjunction with driving a vehicle is far beyond our capacity. In contrast to technological development, human evolution has stagnated in terms of cognitive performance. The driving environment has changed drastically over the past 30 years and places significantly greater demands on the driver. The increase in functionalities while human sensory capacity remains the same poses a high risk to vehicle occupant safety.

The task facing car manufacturers must be clearly defined. Sensor technology and the associated helpers in modern vehicles naturally promote safety. However, whether assistance systems and sensors need to be activated or deactivated individually by the driver remains questionable. Even the integration of smartphones into the vehicle is not the solution to all problems. The question and the solution approach behind it is rather how our individually adapted smartphone functions can be integrated into the vehicle architecture in a usable way in order to make it safe to use while driving.

However, in view of advancing vehicle networking and the desire for autonomous modes of transportation, we will have to rethink the current vehicle structure anyway. The goal must clearly be the "humanization" of technology - the adaptation of technical solutions to the individual human being.

In this context, general distraction should also be considered as an underestimated risk for future mobility models. Just think of everyday situations such as cyclists on their phones and thus distracted, pedestrians distracted by listening to music while crossing the road or other similar risk groups: A lack of interaction can also put an abrupt end to the autonomous driving model trials currently progressing.

Vehicle requirements differ between the sexes

Irrespective of the conscious necessity of cross-platform vehicle networking, men and women have different requirements when it comes to means of transportation. Demographic approaches or socially anchored fundamental considerations are completely disregarded here. For example, women like to ask where their handbag can be placed in the vehicle so that it is within easy reach and crash-proof - a problem that has no relevance for men. The situation is similar with digital applications. In a scientific study, experts questioned gender-related user behavior in the car - while driving, mind you - and came up with some alarming results.

As the study "Gender-related user behavior in the car" [3] has shown, there are gender-dependent differences in the frequency of use and characteristics of phone calls, GPS functions and Facebook.

Although clearly prohibited by law, the use of the smartphone's telephony function is widespread among both men and women. An unfortunately quite clear trend towards messaging activities while driving was also demonstrated in the study.

Uses such as e-banking and social networks are alarming: they vary in terms of the percentage of use between the sexes, but are alarmingly high overall. Legislation is certainly required here to take the necessary measures for road safety and thus curb direct smartphone use while driving in order to keep the potential for distraction as low as possible. Among other things, the 53rd German Traffic Court Conference 2015 calls for the creation of a framework for vehicle manufacturers, producers of information, communication and entertainment devices as well as 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 modes of transportation can be reliably implemented in the context of autonomous driving.

Driver distraction

From a scientific point of view, a distinction is made between three major distraction groups when users focus on other activities.

Manual distraction, where drivers only need to take one hand off the steering wheel to manipulate devices. Visual distraction in the context of tasks that require the driver to look away from the road. And finally, cognitive distraction, when activities make it necessary to divert the driver's mental attention away from the pure driving task.

If one evaluates the neuronal information flow and the overall capacitive perception of humans in this context, it is noticeable that the most pronounced sense is vision. In second place is the sense of touch, which, however, is already far behind vision. After the sense of touch, the remaining senses such as hearing, smell and taste are less pronounced. It is therefore highly advisable to adapt the operating systems of modern vehicle architectures to the human "basic equipment" with regard to possible task completion. This is the only way a modern, holistic HMI system can function.

HMI test series as a scientific basis

The Christian Doppler Laboratory for Contextual Interfaces at the University of Salzburg, headed by Professor Manfred Tscheligi, has devoted itself to precisely these questions relating to sensory-physiological distraction behavior in the context of real driving tasks and carried out extensive HMI tests in 2010, 2011 and 2012.
Vehicles from a wide range of vehicle categories, from the compact class to the upper mid-range, were used for the test series.
The aim of the study was to illustrate distraction behavior in real-life operation, i.e. on the road - a completely different approach to the purely simulator-oriented measurement of the American authority NHTSA "National Highway Traffic Safety Administration" (the civilian federal authority for road and vehicle safety), for example, which was used as a benchmark and therefore makes defined recommendations.

The study results [4] speak for themselves and call for urgent action. Almost none of the vehicles in these test series met the time limits required by the NHTSA to successfully complete a task - even though the test subjects were able to familiarize themselves with the individual systems in detail before the test. In some cases, exorbitant overruns of the standard time specifications (with a target of 24 sec. Real values of between 80 and 175 seconds were determined) still leave room for numerous improvements in this area of automotive engineering.

Voice control: not the "philosopher's stone"

It could be argued that modern system controls include voice control and could therefore possibly reduce the cognitive load. Unfortunately, this is not the case, as the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety [5] found out as part of a "Mental Workload" study.

In the study, drivers were given various tasks in addition to the driving task that every driver is exposed to on a daily basis. For example, the cognitive load caused by simply listening to the radio was taken into account, as were phone calls permitted by law using hands-free equipment, conversations with the front passenger, unauthorized calls using a cell phone or entries in vehicle-integrated menu systems. The tasks listed have placed a greater cognitive burden on vehicle users, so that the pure driving task has been pushed more and more into the background.

The cognitive load limit was reached when the vehicle users were asked to solve speech-to-text tasks in addition to driving or to have texts read aloud to them using Siri voice control, which is popular with the public. In this case, the measurements clearly showed that the driving task was completely pushed out of the realm of cognitive and sensory-physiological perception and the test subjects concentrated purely on the voice control task. Compared to good conventional menu input with a distraction factor of 2.8, the voice input system performed significantly worse with a factor of 4.2.

These results coincide with the overall human capacitive perception potential mentioned in the "Driver distraction" chapter. This is a scientific task that the automotive industry needs to tackle quickly in order to adapt modern operating systems to the "basic equipment" of humans. Typing, speaking and swiping as individual components are not an option for ideal HMI systems. On the other hand, different input methods adapted to the "basic equipment" of the human being and to the situational context represent the desired state.

Innovative technology concepts pave the way for automated driving

User zones in the vehicle are defined for possible solutions for the extended integration of human-machine interaction. The vehicle interior is divided into three basic zones, which are structured as follows:
The driver zone, which carries out all safety-related interactions, the front passenger zone as the zone assisting the driver and finally the rear seat area. This division into zones requires different HMI concepts and helps to reduce the potential for distraction through modern operating systems or at least to map them according to zones and to minimize the potential for distraction for the driver with the help of cross-zone solutions.

In recent years, many vehicle manufacturers and suppliers have attempted to build up expertise in the broad field of information provision and incorporate this into innovative interior concepts. In any case, the approaches are positive - the "human factor" still generates a wealth of challenges.

In the near future, science and, above all, vehicle users will set the course as to which needs we will cover with which systems. Among other things, drivers will be confronted with modern mobility concepts and adapt their mobility behavior accordingly. By means of "humanized" operating technologies, the willingness to use them efficiently can be promoted in the long term.

Electromobility, which is currently still rather unpopular, will only be widely accepted when it is recognized that it is not a range problem that is preventing greater popularity, but an energy management problem. Mobility 3.0 is efficient transportation through individual networking - an interplay of the vehicle we know today with information and communication technology and other transportation options. Using this interaction correctly will be the true fuel of the future.

Bibliography

[1] Moor, G. (1965):
Electronics International magazine,
"Integrated circuits"

[2] Buxton, W. (2001):
The Invisible Future: The seamless integration of technology in everyday life,
"Less is more"

[3] Kortus-Schultes, D. (2005):
Gender-specific differences,
"Results of the large market research study 'Männer - Auto' and Frauen - Index' ",
Niederrhein University of Applied Sciences

[4] Tscheligi, M. (2013):
CHI '13 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems,
"Automotive HMI test package: an exploitable approach to study in-car HMIs",
University of Salzburg

[5] Cooper, J., Ingebretsen, H., Strayer, D., (2014):
"Mental Workload of Common Voice-Based Vehicle Interactions across Six Different Vehicle
Systems"
AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety