Safety First?
V2X – Percived Benefits, Barriers and Trade-offs of Automated Driving
Teresa Schmidt, Ralf Philipsen and Martina Ziefle
Human-Computer Interaction Center, RWTH Aachen University, Campus-Boulevard 57, 52074, Aachen, Germany
Keywords: Mobility, V2X-communication, Intelligent Transportation System.
Abstract: Today, we are on the edge of increasing population and urbanization with an increasing portion of older
people. These far-reaching societal developments necessitate novel mobility infrastructure concepts, in
which a diverse population and a higher population density are considered. Safety in traffic situations is one
of the most important and needs to be taken into account. A highly potent approach is to combine in-vehicle
systems and vehicle sensors. Whereby the public perception and user acceptance of V2X-technology in
general is insufficiently explored. Using a two-tier approach, in which both qualitative and quantitative data
are combined, this research gains insights into human perceptions of V2X-technology, plausible trade-offs
and basic fears. Results show safety as an important factor which should be included in further future
research.
1 INTRODUCTION
No matter if you travel by your personal car, use
public transport or car sharing, all of the different
mobility options share the necessity of an efficient
transport infrastructure. With an increasing older
population (United Nations, 2012), new concepts for
mobility are needed. The quality, flexibility and
adaptability of mobility concepts are crucial
cornerstones for technology-developed societies
(Dickerson et al., 2007, Schmidt et al., 2015, Ziefle
et al., 2014). A promising way to improve today’s
traffic and transport infrastructure is to integrate
technical solutions in form of a combination of in-
vehicle systems and vehicle sensors. The technical
solutions aim a more efficient and safer transport
system by offering drivers a more detailed view of
prevailing traffic situations (EU, 2006, van Driel
2007). Another technical solution refers to the
connection of transportation means, namely V2X,
specifically Car2X-communication. The exchange of
information on the technical level between different
road users, such as cars, signal systems or intelligent
sensor technology in the road surface creates a
cooperative environment, in which an assessment of
the current traffic situation can be based on more
information than there would be available for a
single, isolated traffic participant (Endsley and
Garland, 2000, Picone et al., 2015). Recent research
in Car2X-technologies is concerned with
predominately technical infra-structure, e.g. the
development of networks for V2X-traffic
management (Ardelt et al., 2012, Wedel et al., 2009,
Trivisonno et al., 2015), standardization issues for
V2X usage across European countries (Weiß, 2011),
cooperative driving (Kato et al., 2002, Costeseque et
al., 2015) or technical privacy matters (Ma et al.,
2009, Lefevre et al., 2013).
When looking at the driver and its changed role
within novel V2X traffic situations, the situation
awareness and information requirements (Endsley
and Rodgers, 1994, Schmidt et al., 2015), drivers’
behavior in using automated cars (Merat et al., 2009,
2012) and usability issues in in-vehicle systems were
studied. While the importance of the close interplay
of social behaviors of drivers and the successful
integration of Car2X-technologies into holistic
mobility concepts is increasingly gaining attention
(Rakotonirainy et al., 2014, simTD, 2013).
As such, users’ acceptance of V2X-technology is
insufficiently explored. Little is known about the
perceived usefulness and the willingness to share
information within transport systems or networks as
well as the general acceptance of passing over the
control to the car in different usage scenarios,
especially when the use case requires a higher
degree of automation.
In this context, there might be substantial
acceptance concerns: both the possible withdrawal
39
Schmidt T., Philipsen R. and Ziefle M..
Safety First? - V2X – Percived Benefits, Barriers and Trade-offs of Automated Driving.
DOI: 10.5220/0005487800390046
In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Vehicle Technology and Intelligent Transport Systems (VEHITS-2015), pages 39-46
ISBN: 978-989-758-109-0
Copyright
c
2015 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)
of perceived control and the sharing of information
that may encourage the tracking of users may result
in privacy and trust issues (e.g. Ziefle and Schaar,
2011, Schmidt et al., 2015). It is of utmost
importance to consider users’ perceptions of the
usefulness of those technologies, the perceived
benefits as well as the barriers of those technologies.
The present work addresses the mentioned
knowledge gap and uses an exploratory two-tier
approach towards a more complete picture for V2X-
technology acceptance. We explore different
variants of roadside scenarios, which request a fast
reaction of all traffic participants, vehicles or road
infrastructure. In order to understand users’
acceptance, the scenarios can be addressed by a)
either by an autonomous response (takeover of
control by the technical system) or b) by assisting
the human driver by information delivered by the
vehicle system (driver control, but information and
communication assistance).
2 METHOD
The empirical approach reported here was based on
a prior focus group study in which we identified
possible user scenarios and situations the users
would appreciate technical support in form of
automated driving. On the base of the findings, an
empirical survey was constructed seeking to identify
both, perceived trade-offs and barriers of the use of
V2X-technologies, but also the impact of respective
usage scenarios on acceptance.
2.1 The Survey
The online survey was divided into three main parts.
Demographics: The first section addressed
demographic data as well as information about the
mobility experience, attitudes towards trust and
privacy of personal information and control
behaviour in general. Also, the technical self-
efficacy was measured (Beier, 1999), the individual
confidence in one’s capability to use technical
devices.
Roadside scenarios: In the second section, roadside
and user scenarios were introduced to help the
participants envision the possibilities to use V2X-
technology actively. In the first scenario participants
were encouraged to imagine different roles in an
intersection situation. The second roadside scenario
introduced an intelligent traffic light, which is able
to communicate via V2X-technology.
V2X-technology: A set of seven items (6-point
Likert scale, 5=full agreement) questioned the usage
of V2X-technology in form of benefits (see Table 1)
and barriers (see Table 2).
Table 1: Item example of benefits of V2X-technology.
I see benefits using V2X-technology, because…?
… it helps me saving time.
… it gives me a feeling of safety.
… I reveal only information that is mostly public.
… safety in traffic will increase.
… it helps me saving fuel.
… it makes driving with unfavourable conditions
(e.g. poor visibility) easier.
… life can be saved with it.
Further, participants were requested to rank
different factors due to their own perception of
importance: control, cost, comfort, safety, privacy,
time (saving), time (flexibility).
Table 2: Item example of benefits of V2X-technology.
I see barriers using V2X-technology,
because…?
… I lose control over the collected data.
… I do not want a permanent observation.
… others can keep track on my movements.
… it violates my privacy.
… I do not want to rely on external information.
… it incites me to be inattentive.
… it makes driving boring.
At the end of the last part of the survey a general
evaluation of V2X-technology closed this section
(see Table 3).
Table 3: Item example of general evaluation of V2X-
technology.
General evaluation: Do you agree with the
following statements?
- I think V2X-technology is useful.
- V2X-technology would help me with daily
trips and journeys.
- I as a driver must have full and instant control.
- V2X-technology has to be strictly regulated.
- I would pay a premium to have V2X-
technology in my car/on my smartphone.
- V2X-technology is threatening.
2.2 Participants
In total 81 participants took part with an age range
VEHITS2015-InternationalConferenceonVehicleTechnologyandIntelligentTransportSystems
40
of 22 to 65 years (M=31.5; SD=10.4). With 63%
men (n=51) and 37% women (n=30) the gender
distribution is quite asymmetrical. The sample
contains 67.9% participants with a university degree
(n=55), followed by 19.8% with a technical college
degree (n=16) and 7.4% (n=6) did vocational
training plus 5% stated another level of education.
To investigate the mobility-related effects we
partitioned the subjects by experience with new
mobility service technologies; cruise control and
brake assistant, automatic parking assistant, lane
assistant and distance control. The first group
needed at least to have experienced (or still use) one
of the following systems (n=34; 46.6%): the
automatic parking assistant, the lane assistant or the
distance control. The group consisted of 24 men and
10 women (M=31.4 years, SD=9.8). The second
group stated to have no experience with these
systems (n=39; 53.4%), and consisted of 23 men and
16 women (M=31.4 years, SD=10.7). All
participants reported to be highly technically self-
confident (M=4/5 points max.).
2.3 Roadside Scenarios
I. Intersection: The first scenario invited the
participants to envision a situation in which they are
driving a car towards a pedestrian crossing (see
Figure 1). Covered by a house or a parked vehicle
and thus not visible, a pedestrian wants to cross the
street right in front of them. Distraction or bad
weather could also be reasons for a limited vision
(Le, 2009).
Figure 1: Intersection situation. A car (A) drives towards
an intersection and a pedestrian (B) crosses the street at
the same time.
II. Green light: Participants had to envision the
roadside scenario in which they are again the driver
of a car. In this scenario, they are driving towards a
traffic light (see Figure 2). The traffic light receives
the information of all upcoming vehicles with the
help of V2X-technology. The traffic light can adapt
the green light phases to the traffic load in order to
minimize the average waiting times for all vehicles.
This situation could also be helpful for light control
by emergency warning (Le, 2009).
Figure 2: Green light situation. Traffic light sensors the
traffic load and minimizes the average waiting times.
3 RESULTS
Data was analysed with parametric statistical
evaluation methods (Analysis of variance
(ANOVA)). The level for significance was set at
p=.05. We report the perceived concerns and
benefits related to V2X-technology. First, the
participants were invited to agree or disagree to
different pro and contra V2X-technology statements.
Further, they were instructed to rank different
measurement criterions by perceived importance.
3.1 Perceived Benefits
The highest approval values were found at
statements regarding safety-related benefits. On
average, the participants agreed that V2X-
technology can save human life (M=3.8/5 points
max, SD=1.4) and increase road safety in general
(M=3.7, SD=1.2). In addition, it was considered a
benefit that the technology could be able to simplify
driving under difficult circumstances, such as poor
visual conditions (M=3.4, SD=1.5).
Although an increase in safety was basically
attested, there was neither a clear agree nor disagree
SafetyFirst?-V2X-PercivedBenefits,BarriersandTrade-offsofAutomatedDriving
41
to the question whether “increasing the subjective
sense of security would be a positive aspect of V2X-
technology” (M=2.5, SD=1.5). A similar ambiguous
picture was found for the participants’ evaluation of
the reduced fuel consumption by V2X-technologies
(M=2.4, SD=1.7) or saving of time (M=2.7, SD=1.7)
as possible benefits of V2X-technology.
Also, gender differences showed up (see Figure
3). While men had an almost neutral attitude towards
fuel savings as a benefit of V2X-technology (M=2.7,
SD=1.7), women tend to disagree (M=2.0, SD=1.6)
(F(1,78)=4; p <.05). Similarly, female participants
disapproved the benefit of saving of time of using
V2X-technology (M=2.1, SD=1.7), while men
agreed (M=3.1, SD=1.5) (F(1,77)=7.1,p<.05).
3.2 Perceived Barriers
With regard to the possible barriers to the use of
V2X-technology especially statements dealing with
privacy and data protection provoked serious
concerns (high approval ratings). On average, the
participants agreed that both the perceived loss of
control regarding which data is collected at the end
(M=3.5, SD=1.4) and the felling of being
permanently observed (M=3.4, SD=1.7) are reasons
to consider technology as negative. Furthermore,
participants disliked both the alleged traceability of
personal movements (M=3.1, SD=1.7) and the felt
violation of privacy (M=2.9, SD=1.7). A similar
pattern was found regarding the question whether
V2X-technologies could lead to inattentiveness
(M=2.8, SD=1.6), while the wish to avoid a reliance
on external information got almost neutral
agreement levels (M=2.4, SD=1.7). The highest
level of disagreement was found at the statement
that V2X-technology could make driving more
boring (M=1.1, SD=1.5).
Again, gender was revealed to significantly
impact evaluations (see Figure 4). They were most
prominent for the questions regarding privacy and
data protection issues. First, while the female
participants, on average, strongly agreed that the loss
of control regarding which information are collected
is a reason for a negative rating of V2X-technology
(M=4.1, SD=1.2), the assent of men to this statement
was significantly lower (M=3.2, SD=1.5)
(F(1,79)=7.8, p<.05). Second, there was a consent of
women to the violation of privacy as a considerable
barrier (M=3.5, SD=1.7), while men on average hold
a neutral opinion (M=2.6, SD=1.7). This difference
was significant, too (F(1,78)=5.8, p=.019).
Furthermore, women showed significantly
(F(1,79)=12.7, p<.05) higher agreements to the
statement that the reliance on external information
would be a reason for a negative techno-logy
evaluation (M=3.2, SD=1.4) in comparison to men,
which even expressed slight disagreement (M=1.9,
SD=1.6). A final difference between women and
men was found regarding the question whether an
incitement to inattentiveness could be a possible
barrier. On average, women confirmed that question
(M=3.4, SD=1.4) more strongly than men which
showed a more neutral point of view (M=2.4,
Figure 3: Means of approval regarding perceived benefits (0=full disagreement, 5=full agreement) of male and female
participants * indicates significant gender differences.
2.7
3.1
2.5
3.5
3.7
3.8
2.0
2.1
2.5
3.2
3.8
3.7
0 1 2 3 4 5
Saving of fuel *
Saving of time *
Increase of the subjective sense of security
Simplification in difficult driving conditions
Increase in road safety
Saving of lives
Average approval rating
Benefits of V2X-technology
female
male
VEHITS2015-InternationalConferenceonVehicleTechnologyandIntelligentTransportSystems
42
SD=1.5) (F(1,78)=9, p<05). Interestingly, the prior
experience with in-car assistance technologies did
not play a major role, revealing no significant
differences between participants with and without
prior experience with driver assistance systems
regarding both possible benefits and barriers.
3.3 General Evaluation of
V2X- Technology
In the following the results of the general evaluation
of V2X-technology will be presented.
One of the highest average agreement rates was
found regarding the usefulness of the technology
with M=3.6 (SD=1.3). Although a general
usefulness was attested, there was no clear
agreement on the question whether V2X-technology
would help users with their daily trips and journeys
(M=2.6, SD=1.7). When asked about their
willingness to pay a premium for the implementation
of V2X- technology in their cars or smartphones, the
participants expressed even a slight rejection on
average (M=2.0, SD=1.8). Next to usefulness,
regulation and control were further evaluation
criteria. Both topics were important for the
participants: On average, participants agreed that
V2X-technology has to be strictly regulated (M=3.5,
SD=1.7). The strongest consent was found regarding
the ability of full and instant control by the driver as
prerequisite for V2X-technology (see Figure 5). In
particular, participants expressed their wish to be
able to disable and enable the technology at any time
(M=3.9, SD=1.6).
The clearest denial was found regarding the
statement that V2X-technology might be threatening
(M=1.5, SD=1.5).
With the exception of one statement, there were
no differences between both genders. A distinction
was only found at the question whether “V2X-
technology has to be strictly regulated”. Women
agreed on this item significantly more strongly
(M=4.1, SD=1.5) than men (M=3.2, SD=1.8)
(F(1,77)=4.7, p <.05).
The previous experience with driver assistance
systems had a significant effect on the perceived
usefulness of V2X-technology (F(1,79)=7.1, p<.05).
On average, experienced participants evaluated the
usefulness of V2X-technologies as significantly
higher (M=4.0, SD=1.1) than participants without
prior experience (M=3.2 SD=1.5).
3.4 Ranking of Most Important
Criteria
Finally we asked participants to prioritize seven
criterions according to perceived importance. An
overview of the general sample ranking can be taken
from Figure 6. Note that the higher the ranking the
Figure 4: Means of approval regarding perceived barriers (0 = full disagreement, 5 = full agreement) of male and female
participants * indicates significant gender differences.
1.1
2.4
1.9
2.6
3.1
3.2
3.2
1.1
3.4
3.2
3.5
3.0
3.8
4.1
0 1 2 3 4 5
Driving becomes boring
Incitement to inattentiveness *
Reliance on external information *
Violation of privacy *
Comprehensibility of movements
Permanent observation
Loss of control over collected data *
Average approval rating
Bar
r
ie
r
s of
V
2X-tec
h
n
ol ogy
female
male
SafetyFirst?-V2X-PercivedBenefits,BarriersandTrade-offsofAutomatedDriving
43
more important is the relative criteria. As can be
seen from the evaluations, safety is the most
important factor (M=1.8, SD=1.1), followed by
perceived control (M=3.0, SD=1.6) and privacy
(M=3.3, SD=2.0).
In contrast, costs (M=4.3, SD=1.4), comfort
while driving (M=4.5, SD=1.4) or time savings
(M=4.9, SD=1.6) are regarded as only medium
important. Last, the possibility of flexible time
during the use of V2X technology was regarded as
not important (M=6.2, SD=1.2).
What strikes here, is, that neither gender nor the
previous experience with driver assistance systems
does affect the importance rankings, hinting at a
quite general attitude across participants (see Figure
5).
4 DISCUSSION
The present paper was concerned about gaining
insights of human perceptions of V2X-technology,
plausible trade-offs and basic fears. We addressed a
technical affine sample of people in order to reveal
the possible perceived ad- and disadvantages of
(partly) automated driving in everyday traffic
situations. After introducing the participants to two
different roadside scenarios (I: Intersection, II:
Green light), a general evaluation of V2X-
technology was assessed. Further, a ranking of
measurement criteria was conducted.
We conclude from the results of our study that -
overall - a basically positive attitude and a high
openness towards using V2X-technology is
available. Among the perceived benefits, the
increase in safety is for drivers important and for
traffic situations in general an important advantage.
Also the decrease of the mental load during driving
manoeuvers had been seen positive. However, there
were also drawbacks that should be seriously
considered for the further development and
implementation of future V2X-technologies.
Basically, two sources of concerns were revealed.
One is the uncertainty of participants about data
safety and concerns about privacy, in connection
with the disliked feeling of being permanently under
observation. The other main source comes from the
feeling of a loss of control over driving and data
collection. In addition, there is missing trust in the
reliability of the external information.
When it comes to effects of user diversity on
acceptance, gender and previous experience with
driving assistance systems were surveyed. Findings
show that gender did affect the perceived benefits
and barriers. It is an interesting finding that male
participants tend to see the benefits more strongly
(e.g. the saving of time and costs when using V2X-
technologies) while women see the barriers more
strongly (e.g. with respect to loss of control in data
Figure 5: Means and standard deviations of general evaluation ratings (0 = full disagreement, 5 = full agreement) of male
and female participants regarding V2X-technology in the cases of significant gender differences (*).
1.3
2.3
3.2
3.8
2.7
3.8
1.9
1.6
4.1
4.2
2.4
3.2
0 1 2 3 4 5
V2X-technology is threatening.
Willingness to pay a premium for V2X-technology
V2X-technology has to be strictly regulated. *
Driver must have full and instant control.
V2X-technology would help with daily trips and journeys.
V2X-technology is useful.
Average approval rating
G
e
n
e
al evaluation of
V
2X-te
c
h
n
ology
female
male
VEHITS2015-InternationalConferenceonVehicleTechnologyandIntelligentTransportSystems
44
collection, the missing trust in external information,
the fear of privacy violation or the fear to get
inattentive by using V2X-technologies). This
evaluation pattern though is not specifically directed
to V2X-technologies, but reflects rather a general
evaluation gender stereotype that had been reported
also for medical technologies (Ziefle and Schaar,
2011).
However, the importance rankings of the
evaluation criteria for V2X-technologies – in
contrast to perceived benefits and barriers - are not
affected by user diversity. Independently of prior
experience with driving assistant systems or gender
the ranking was consistent. Safety, the possibility to
take control and the claim for privacy protection are
the key factors and can be used as leading measures
for further development of the technology and also
for the development of a transparent information and
communication strategy.
Further studies have to investigate how the
safeness of V2X-technology can be effectively
communicated to the users. There is a strong request
for control over both the collected and transmitted
data and the technology itself via on/off switch. We
think that this option should seriously be
recommended for the future development in V2X-
technology. Although the control should be a given
opportunity, contrary to expectations, V2X-
technology is not expected to make driving boring.
This could introduce as a kind of “landscape”-
driving where all passengers of an automated vehicle
could enjoy the view of the given surroundings.
The overall approval and positive attitudes
towards the technology encourage the possibilities
of new infrastructure concepts via V2X-
communication. It is obvious, that more advantages
of the technology are perceived in an overall level
due to only slightly differences on the benefits of the
technology, namely fuel saving and saving of time.
Due to the results, the V2X-technology may
contribute to future infrastructure concepts not only
for experienced drivers, but also elderly road users.
As outcomes show a clear demand towards safety,
privacy and control, these factors should be
integrated and taken into account from a user
perspective. On-side user tests would make it
possible to check, if such a criterion ranking is
reliable, if the technology is used in reality. Testings
before and after the first time usage can be compared
to support the strategy to integrate user perceptions,
acceptance and ideas in future V2X-technology
development and research. The insights of this
technology as implemented in vehicles,
infrastructure and smartphones may become useful
in long-term usage, where the subjects are on their
own with the technology.
Another challenge is to cope with user-diversity.
Beyond gender and previous experience with driving
assistance systems, effects of age and technology
generation on acceptance patterns should be
explored. Studying cultural effects – especially
regarding the cultural impact differences of trust and
obedience in novel technology, could reveal further
valuable insights. Therefore a more heterogeneous
sample will be necessary. Also it is mandatory to not
only study acceptance by using more or less
artificial scenarios in a questionnaire study but to
explore V2X-acceptance in more realistic driving
scenarios, revealing still different effects of gender,
culture or age-related differences in practical
situations. In all future studies should one thing be
taken into account: Safety first.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Many thanks to the research group members of the
Center of European Research on Mobility (CERM)
at RWTH Aachen University, Germany. Thanks go
also to Julia van Heek for research assistance. This
research was supported by the Excellence Initiative
of German State and Federal Government.
REFERENCES
Ardelt, M., Coester, C., and Kaempchen, N., 2012. Highly
automated driving on freeways in real traffic using a
probabilistic framework. In Intelligent Transportation
Systems, IEEE Transactions on. Vol. 13(4), pp. 1576-
1585.
Beier, G., 1999. Kontrollüberzeugungen im Umgang mit
Technik [Locus of control when interacting with
technology]. In Report Psychologie, Vol. 24(9), pp.
684-693.
Costeseque, G., and Lebacque, J. P., 2015. Multi-
anticipative Car-Following Behaviour: Macroscopic
Modeling. In Traffic and Granular Flow'13, Springer
International Publishing, pp. 395-405.
Dickerson, A. E., Molnar, L. J., Eby, D. W., Adler, G.,
Bedard, M., Berg-Weger, M., and Trujillo, L., 2007.
Transportation and aging: A research agenda for
advancing safe mobility. The Gerontologist, Vol.
47(5), pp. 578-590.
Endsley, M. R., Rodgers, M. D., 1994. Situation
awareness information requirements analysis for en
route air traffic control. In Proceedings of the Human
Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting
SAGE Publications, Vol. 38(1), pp. 71-75.
SafetyFirst?-V2X-PercivedBenefits,BarriersandTrade-offsofAutomatedDriving
45
Endsley, M. R., and Garland, D. J. (Eds.)., 2000. Situation
awareness analysis and measurement. CRC Press.
European Commission, 2006. Communication from the
Commission to the European Parliament and the
Council, Brussels.
Kato, S., Tsugawa, S., Tokuda, K., Matsui, T., and Fujii,
H., 2002. Vehicle control algorithms for cooperative
driving with automated vehicles and intervehicle
communications. In Intelligent Transportation
Systems, IEEE Transactions on, Vol. 3(3), 155-161.
Le, L., Festag, A., Baldessari, R., Zhang, W., 2009. V2X
Communication and Intersection Safety. In Advanced
Microsystems for Automotive Applications, VDI-Buch,
pp. 97-107.
Lefevre, S., Petit, J., Bajcsy, R., Laugier, C., and Kargl, F.,
2013. Impact of v2x privacy strategies on intersection
collision avoidance systems. In IEEE Vehicular
Networking Conference, Bosten, United States.
Ma, Z., Kargl, F., and Weber, M., 2009. A location
privacy metric for v2x communication systems. In
Sarnoff Symposium, SARNOFF'09. IEEE, pp. 1-6.
Merat, N., and Jamson, A. H., 2009. How do drivers
behave in a highly automated car. In Proceedings of
the 5th International Driving Symposium on Human
Factors in Driver Assessment, Training and Vehicle
Design, pp. 514-521.
Merat, N., Jamson, A. H., Lai, F. C., and Carsten, O.,
2012a. Highly automated driving, secondary task
performance, and driver state. In Human Factors, Vol.
54(5), pp.762-771.
Merat, N., and Lee, J. D., 2012b. Preface to the special
section on human factors and automation in vehicles
designing highly automated vehicles with the driver in
mind. In Human Factors, Vol. 54(5), pp.681-686.
Picone, M., Busanelli, S., Amoretti, M., Zanichelli, F., and
Ferrari, G., 2015. Advanced Technologies for
Intelligent Transportation Systems. In Intelligent
Systems Reference Library, Vol. 139. Springer
International Publishing AG.
Rakotonirainy, A., Schroeter, R., and Soro, A., 2014.
Three social car visions to improve driver behaviour.
In Pervasive and Mobile Computing, Vol. 14, pp.147-
160.
Schmidt, T., Philipsen, R., and Ziefle, M., 2015. From
V2X to control2trust – Why trust and control are
major attributes in vehicle2x technologies. In
Proceedings of the International Conference on
Human-Computer Interaction 2015, Springer.
SIM TD, 2013. „TP5-Abschlussbericht – Teil B-2
Nutzerakzeptanz, IT-Sicherheit, Datenschutz und
Schutz der Privatsphäre“ URL: http://www.simtd.de/
index.dhtml/object.media/deDE/8127/CS/-/backup pu-
blications/ Projektergebnisse/simTD-TP5-Abschluss-
bericht_Teil_B-2_Nutzerakzeptanz_V10.pdf.
Trivisonno, R., Guerzoni, R., Vaishnavi, I., and Soldani,
D., 2015. SDN based 5G mobile networks:
architecture, functions, procedures and backward
compatibility. In Transactions on Emerging
Telecommunications Technologies, Vol. 26(1), pp. 82-
92.
United Nations, 2012. World Urbanization Prospects: The
2011 Revision. United Nations Department of
Economic and Social Affairs/Population Division.
United Nations. New York.
van Driel, C., 2007. Driver support in congestion – An
assessment of user needs and impacts on driver and
traffic flow. TRAIL Thesis Series, T2007/10, TRAIL
Research School, Netherlands.
Wedel, J. W., Schuenemann, B., and Radusch, I., 2009.
V2X-based traffic congestion recognition and
avoidance. In Parallel Architectures, Algorithms, and
Networks (ISPAN), 10th International Symposium on
Pervasive Systems, Algorithms, and Networks. IEEE
Computer Society, pp. 637-641.
Weiß, C., 2011. V2X communication in Europe–From
research projects towards standardization and field
testing of vehicle communication technology. In
Computer Networks, Vol. 55(14), pp.3103-3119.
Ziefle, M.; Beul-Leusmann, S.; Kasugai, K. andSchwalm,
M. 2014. Public perception and acceptance of electric
vehicles. In A. Marcus (Ed.): DUXU 2014, PART III:
Design, User Experience, and Usability. LNCS 8519,
pp. 628–639, Springer.
Ziefle, M. and Schaar, A.K., 2011. Gender differences in
acceptance and attitudes towards an invasive medical
stent. Electronic. In Journal of Health Informatics,
Vol. 6 (2), e13, pp. 1-18.
VEHITS2015-InternationalConferenceonVehicleTechnologyandIntelligentTransportSystems
46