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

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

 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

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

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

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

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

s of

2X-tec

ol ogy

female

male

SafetyFirst?-V2X-PercivedBenefits,BarriersandTrade-offsofAutomatedDriving

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

al evaluation of

2X-te

ology

female

male

VEHITS2015-InternationalConferenceonVehicleTechnologyandIntelligentTransportSystems

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

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