Road Safety and Vulnerable Road Users

Internet of People Insights

Bruno Fernandes, José Neves and Cesar Analide

Department of Informatics, University of Minho, Braga, Portugal

Keywords: Vulnerable Road Users, Road Safety, Internet of People, Internet of Things, Smart Cities.

Abstract: Researchers have been setting their focus on improving the quality of life of the human being, especially at

large urban centres. However, problems like crowding, traffic accidents or crime are still to be unscrambled.

Indeed, one may use the amazing technological evolution the world is experiencing to mitigate such

problems, focusing the Internet of Things in the creation of truly Smart Cities. Hence, this work intends to

study and analyse relevant areas of intervention in Smart Cities, with special focus on the efforts being

made to enhance the safety of those more vulnerable at the road, known as Vulnerable Road Users.

Undeniably, one’s review shows that insufficient focus is being given to the use of the Internet of People to

address this challenge, renouncing the possibility of access information such as position, pace, and physical

and emotional conditions of the user. It becomes now imperative to shift the paradigm and proceed towards

the Internet of People.

1 INTRODUCTION

Contrary to what one may think, Smart Cities stand

for a theme that has been in the human mind for

decades. Currently, the human kind takes advantage

of the tremendous technological evolution the world

is experiencing to improve either their quality of life

or habitat in order to make the world a safer place.

Coupling this with the typical challenges of large

urban centres, one comes to the Smart Cities soul.

There is no definitive characterization for this

approach, but a broad range of very similar ones.

One example is the definition of Harrison (Harrison

et al., 2010) who state that “Smarter City continues

the long-standing practice of improving the

operational efficiency and quality of life of a city by

building on advances in IT”. It is not the intention of

this work to clarify which is the most accurate

designation. Instead, the focus is on a literature

review in order to analyse and understand some of

the major areas of intervention in Smart Cities,

allowing us to lead our attention towards Road

Safety and, specifically, to the Vulnerable Road

Users (VRU) problem. On how are researchers

currently addressing this major issue and on how we

may combine things, such as vehicles or bicycles,

and people in a global and pervasive network, with

focus on reducing the vulnerability of such road

users. The prevention of injuries in VRU must be

seen as crucial as it will allow people to be safer and

roads would no longer be so dangerous.

Nevertheless, the authors of this work have their

own opinion when the subject is the classification of

a Smart City, i.e., assumed as the ability to reason

upon the knowledge acquired through data gathered

by sensorization, with focus on improving the quality

of life at urban centres, considering sustainability

and safety principles. Here, sustainability it is to be

understood in terms of social, economic and

environmental matters.

Internet of Things (IoT) also lacks a unique

meaning. This term was first used in 1999, by Kevin

Ashton (Madakam et al., 2015), where he claimed

that in the twenty-first century “because of the

Internet of Things, computers can sense things for

themselves” (Gabbai, 2015). With this in mind, an

acceptable delineation may be the one of Madakam

(Madakam et al., 2015), where IoT is presented as

“An open and comprehensive network of intelligent

objects that have the capacity to auto-organize,

share information, data and resources, reacting and

acting in face of situations and changes in the

environment”.

It is also necessary to clarify the bibliographic

search strategy followed to find relevant documents.

In this study, several databases were used, such as

Fernandes, B., Neves, J. and Analide, C.

Road Safety and Vulnerable Road Users - Internet of People Insights.

DOI: 10.5220/0006359303110316

In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Smart Cities and Green ICT Systems (SMARTGREENS 2017), pages 311-316

ISBN: 978-989-758-241-7

311

IEEE Xplore, Scopus and Web of Science. Some of

the searched keywords were “Smart Cities” AND

“Internet of Things”; “Internet of People”;

“Vulnerable Road Users”. The employed keywords

were used to search essay titles, focusing mainly on

recent assets. Finally, a more attentive search on the

subjects under analysis was carried out.

This paper is organized into four sections,

namely: a former one that introduces the problem,

motivation, and the bibliographic search strategy.

The next one presents an analysis on the main areas

of intervention in Smart Cities. The third focuses on

Road Safety, particularly the VRU problematic.

Solutions to enhance VRU’s safety are also

mentioned. Finally, in the last section, conclusions

are presented and future work is outlined.

2 SMART CITIES AND THE

INTERNET OF THINGS

2.1 An Introduction

One should bear in mind that Smart Cities is a theme

that encompasses different fields from different

areas such as computer science, civil engineering,

mechanics and electronics, among others. Therefore,

the way to address Smart Cities will focus on a

multitude of aspects and will demand huge efforts.

On the other hand, once the IoT links objects to the

Internet, enabling data and insights never available

before, it was a question of common sense to take it

into consideration in the present work. Objects such

as clothes, food packing or shoes will be equipped

with some level of Internet-addressable features,

offering context awareness and communication

facilities. Indeed, it is expected that by 2020 seven

trillion devices will be used by seven billion people

(Skouby & Lynggaard, 2014). On the other hand,

not only home automation components are driven us

toward “Smart Homes”, but other personal IoT

devices like wearable fitness and health monitoring

ones are transforming the way healthcare services

are delivered to the citizens (Rose et al., 2015).

Over time some attempts have been made to set

new paradigms such as the Internet of People (IoP)

(Boavida et al., 2016; Miranda et al., 2015) or the

Internet of Everything (IoE) (Kyriazopoulou, 2015).

As per the authors, IoE has the major goal of extend

IoT to exactly “everything”. As for IoP, it may be

seen as an attempt to bring IoT closer to people

(Miranda et al., 2015). IoP is a paradigm where the

literature is practically non-existent. It is only now

that it is beginning to receive well-deserved attention

and its focus is on enabling people to be an active

part of a global system, a global network of things

and people, enabling the creation of people centric

IoT (Boavida et al., 2016). Our approach to the VRU

problem will focus on the IoP and consists in getting

people to this global network of physical things

known as the IoT.

An essential point when discussing these topics

refers to the problem of knowledge representation

and reasoning, and how to deal with the respective

data. It is important to guarantee that information

systems are able to extract knowledge from such

data in order to reason. Recent studies have shown

the huge potential of Logic Programming based

approaches to reason upon unknown, defective or

even self-contradictory data or knowledge, which is

truly mandatory within the Smart Cities context

(Fernandes et al., 2015; Neves et al., 2015).

2.2 Areas of Intervention

Internet of Things is the new trend in the

development of Smart Cities and recommendations

about its use have been published in the literature.

Its association with sensor networks and cloud

computing strengthens its acceptance (Figure 1)

(Kyriazopoulou, 2015), as it is exposed beneath:

Smart Homes (Domotics) - inside smart homes all

devices and appliances are aware of the existence of

others, are capable of communicate among them and

have an independent existence. Once this area of

intervention deals with the technological enrichment

of the living environments, smart homes may be able

to react to changes in the environment and to take

into account the preferences of the households and

their individualities (Skouby & Lynggaard, 2014);

Smart Healthcare - smart healthcare is one of the

major topics of concern in Smart Cities. Smart

systems in this area comprise clinical care, remote

monitoring, early intervention and diagnosis,

prevention and emergency responses, where smart

devices may be used by people to control diseases

(Mehrotra & Dhande, 2015). Furthermore, it

comprises interoperability along different health

services and institutions;

Smart Energy - echo-friendly Smart Cities are

required to use and produce green energy, reduce

consumption, promote recycling, and decrease

carbon footprint. Such goals may be achieved either

by promoting user-awareness or practices that may

be inherited from disciplines as Ambient Assisted

Living or Ambient Intelligence (Silva et al., 2013).

SMARTGREENS 2017 - 6th International Conference on Smart Cities and Green ICT Systems

312

Indeed, intelligent automated living assistance

systems represent a promising approach for the

extension of a self-governing and self-conducted life

of physically or mentally challenged or elderly

people thereby, enhancing their quality of life and

reducing the need for manual social/medical care

(Gomes et al., 2010; Silva & Analide, 2016);

Sustainability - it is a subject of concern for the

assurance of steadiness, viability and system’s use.

A common definition to sustainability is on subject

of equilibrium on the social, economic, and

environmental issues. Assessing sustainability, and

sharing those results with the community of citizens,

is significant in the creation of user awareness (Silva

et al., 2013);

Public Safety - a controversial topic rests in the use

of IoT devices on the benefit of law enforcement and

public safety (Rose et al., 2015). Public safety

agencies could gather and analyse data for weather,

traffic, security breaches, hazardous materials or

disasters and provide actionable information to the

citizens (Harmon et al., 2015). However, it should

be taken into account that this topic may raise legal,

security, privacy or ethical questions;

Citizen Sensor - the number of wearable devices is

increasing exponentially, i.e., outfits used on our

daily routine and that bring everyone “online”. In

fact, tools such as smart watches, clothing or

wristbands represent printed electronics and sensing

capabilities, making it a formidable potential that

enables the citizen sensor and then the IoP. The

citizen as a sensor would assist the gathering of a

huge amount of data (Cano et al., 2015; Miranda et

al., 2015), allowing people to be an active, reactive

and proactive element in the IoP;

e-Government and e-Education - e-Government

business is based on statutes and laws, providing

citizens and firms access to government data and

services. It rests on information access, public

accessibility, quality of service and social awareness

(Scholl et al., 2009). e-Education focus on

improving learning outcomes by allowing full access

to education, using smart applications and analytics

to support teaching (Harmon et al., 2015);

Water, Waste and Disaster Management - a

Smart City should be capable of manage its own

resources and so it is of the highest importance to

reduce the waste of water and, at the same time,

improve its quality (Mehrotra & Dhande, 2015).

Waste management is still a primary issue in many

modern cities, i.e., first-hand solutions may result in

significant savings, and economical and ecological

advantages (Zanella et al., 2014);

Figure 1: Relevant areas of intervention in Smart Cities,

such as Smart Homes, Healthcare, Sustainability, Public

Safety, Water Management and Vulnerable Road Users.

Vulnerable Road Users - the importance of this

area of intervention is clear when the objective is to

help saving lives by preventing accidents. For

example, it is extremely dangerous to cross roads in

cities, even in the crosswalk. In a Smart City, having

people dying and getting injured at the road does not

make sense. Therefore it receives a greater

importance in the next section, where a thorough

revision of the current state of the art is performed.

3 ROAD SAFETY AND

VULNERABLE ROAD USERS

Road safety has become a major concern not only

for car manufacturers, but also for governments.

Indeed, it is a very comprehensive topic, ranging

from measuring traffic congestion to increasing the

safety of motorcyclists or pedestrians. In Smart

Cities, communication among people, vehicles and

the city in itself will be a constant (Barba et al.,

2012). Undeniably, focusing on IoT, where

Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks (i.e., VANETs) are

created by applying the principles of Mobile Ad Hoc

Networks (i.e., MANETs), one may improve not

only road safety but also drivers quality of life.

VANET is a technology which uses cars as nodes of

a mobile, highly dynamic, network (Khekare &

Sakhare, 2013), allowing vehicles to easily

communicate among them and with fixed

infrastructures. Barba (Barba et al., 2012) propose a

Smart City framework for VANETs that includes

intelligent traffic lights established at crossroads,

therefore transmitting warning messages and traffic

statistics. However, it was made a set of assumptions

that are hardly true, such as that all vehicles have

devices like global positioning systems and driver

Road Safety and Vulnerable Road Users - Internet of People Insights

313

wizards, plus full map information including the

position of the intelligent traffic lights. However,

this work may have value or significance with

regard to message propagation, i.e., there is authors

that have been using VANETs and Intelligent

Transportation Systems to achieve objectives such

as improving road flow performance; create

comfortable driving; distribute, in real time, up-to-

date road information; and, last but not least, to

improve road safety. With focus on vehicular

communications, several authors have studied

possible forms of communications between vehicles,

pedestrians and infrastructures (i.e., V2X). Vehicle-

to-Vehicle (i.e., V2V) communications are a form of

bi-directional communication between vehicles. The

exchanged information may be used to calculate

traffic conditions, to avoid vehicle collisions or to

propagate rescue messages (Anaya et al., 2015).

Vehicle-to-Infrastructure (i.e., V2I) communications

are a form of interaction between a vehicle and an

infrastructure, usually built on roads or streets. V2I

may be used, for example, by a vehicle to identify its

position or to collect information, especially on

traffic and road conditions (Anaya et al., 2014;

Milanes et al., 2012). Other forms of vehicular

communication are emerging, mainly directed

towards pedestrians. These forms may be defined as

P2V (Pedestrian-to-Vehicle) and are shifting the

focus of vehicles to pedestrians (Cho, 2014; Liu et

al., 2010). This form of communication would allow

the exchange of messages between people and

vehicles in both directions, allowing the

enhancement of VRU protection.

At the road, there are people more vulnerable

than others to injuries and accidents. Those are

known as Vulnerable Road Users. Such users are

defined as “non-motorized road users, such as

pedestrians and cyclists as well as motorcyclists”

(European Parliament, 2010). Their vulnerability

may arise from several directions, namely: lack of

external protection; age; physical and mobility

impairments; or visual and/or hearing disabilities. It

should also be emphasized that road traffic injuries

are the world eighth leading cause of death

(Guayante et al., 2014). Some different approaches

have been studied on how to minimize the

vulnerability of the VRU. Most of these studies are

theoretical. Cho (Cho, 2014) proposes a P2V

communication system focusing on conflict zones,

such as the single unsigned road and intersection

areas. Its main focus is children and the elderly.

Although they claim to use a type of P2V

communication, real communication happens

between vehicles and infrastructures, and then

between infrastructures and the pedestrians. There is

no direct communication between people and things.

More examples of theoretical studies may be found

in the work of Carels (Carels et al., 2011), who

propose the combination of new wireless

technologies with existing collision prevention

systems, showing and explaining several use cases

such as “Right Turning Vehicle” or “Street

Crossing”. It also addresses important trade-offs for

information exchange between vehicles and VRUs,

namely: low latency, low energy consumption, high

position accuracy and high reliability of warnings.

Besides these trade-offs, there is one that should not

be forgotten, i.e., cost. A hypothetical solution for

the VRU problem will only be implemented in the

real world if it is economically viable. There are,

however, interesting examples of studies that have,

in some way, implemented or simulated their work.

A thought-provoking work is done by Anaya (Anaya

et al., 2015). They feature a new advanced driver

assistance system to prevent accidents involving

motorcyclists and cyclists. They have developed a

VRU detection system where vehicles and

motorcyclists have their own communication unit.

On the other hand, cyclists, whose bikes have

reduced communication capabilities, are equipped

with an on-board sensor known as iBeacon. An

iBeacon is a new bluetooth-based sensor with low-

cost, low-power transmitters. It notifies bluetooth

devices of one’s presence. However, they focused on

keeping the non-vulnerable driver informed about

the presence and location of the VRU by having a

unidirectional information flow (Anaya et al., 2015).

The same authors have studied the accuracy and

performance of several technologies such as GPS

and Wi-Fi. Such studies are important since the

VRU (and the vehicle) needs to be informed of a

possible collision before it happens, leaving no time

for latency or bad connections between systems

(Anaya et al., 2014). Other studies focused on the

benefits that smartphones could bring to the VRU.

One example is the study performed by Liebner

(Liebner et al., 2013). These authors evaluated

accuracy and transmission latencies for smartphone-

to-car communications, being able to show that the

performance of the smartphone’s GPS is heavily

affected if the smartphone is, for example, in the

breast pocket of a jacket. Another different approach

to this problematic may be seen in the work of

Guayante (Guayante et al., 2014). Their approach is

to make use of sensors to detect users and their

movement, and then send alerts to vehicles nearby.

This model is based on the VANETs’ approach and

it is not considering the VRU as an active and

SMARTGREENS 2017 - 6th International Conference on Smart Cities and Green ICT Systems

314

proactive part of the system. Moreover, it showed

important drawbacks such as the inability to detect a

VRU that was moving at high-speed like running.

As discussed earlier, several approaches have

been studied to improve VRU security and while

some focus on drivers others center on the city’s

vehicles or infrastructure. Solutions that make use of

cameras and sensor fusion techniques to discover

VRU at the road are defining the VRU as a passive

actor. In fact, this may be seen as the main

conclusion of our literature review; clearly, the main

emphasis is on vehicles and drivers, foregoing

relevant information about the VRU. This is a gap

that we intend to solve with the IoP. Some studies

were already undertaken to look at P2V

communication, relying in servers. There is no direct

communication between VRU and things. In

addition, such studies are mainly limited to

smartphones and are considering people as “flat

things”. Our approach to the VRU problem is to get

people to this global network of physical things

known as the IoT, always taking into account the

characteristics of the VRU, together with his

physical and emotional state, allowing, for example,

the creation of awareness for an unpredictable

behaviour. Therefore, within the IoP, the citizen

sensor is of the utmost importance as it focuses on

empowering citizens with sensing capabilities. Thus,

we would be in the presence of a global network

composed of physical devices and people, being able

to understand each other; be aware of the presence

of others; and be able to act and react upon changes

in the environment. As soon as the human being

becomes an active part of the IoP, some concerns

will always be raised regarding one’s privacy and

the management of one’s data. Such concerns are

already being addressed in the literature as, for

example, in the work of Wu (Wu et al., 2010), who

focused on ensuring reliability, security and privacy

in V2V Communications.

4 CONCLUSIONS

Smart Cities and IoT should be seen as relevant

topics for the present, not as forward-looking topics.

This work analysed relevant areas of intervention in

Smart Cities, showing that further studies are needed

to achieve effectiveness and efficiency in many of

them. One of the many points that still require

extensive studies is focused on Road Safety, namely

on how to improve VRU’s security. Injury

prevention in such users should be seen as crucial as

it would save lives. It has become clear that,

currently, the VRU itself is being insufficiently

focused and, therefore, the use of IoP to deal with

this problem. The VRU is part of the problem and

obviously should be part of the solution. We must

seize the citizen as a sensor and as an active and

participatory element and, therefore, enable the IoP.

Communication should go to, and come from, the

VRU. In the context of the VRU problematic, the

IoP would allow a system to have direct information

about the VRU and share such information with

cars, road side infrastructures and other people. Just

by focusing on VRUs, it would be possible to

exchange information such as one’s position, pace,

direction, physical condition, age and disability,

among others. We will not forget important

questions when handling VRU-relevant information

such as ensuring reliability, security and privacy of

information through the use of reputation models or

automated auditing.

Once we focus on the IoP, new possibilities to

address this problem will emerge and everyone

would benefit if they could be deeply understood

and then finally implemented. Having completed

this literature review we are now focused on

designing and conceiving an architecture, a

framework, that will lead us to the implementation

of an IoP solution for the VRU problem. Therefore,

the nodes of this global and open network will be

pedestrians, cyclists and drivers along with “things”,

all in constant communication to enhance VRU’s

security. Last but not least, the VRU will be led

towards the IoP, with the creation and adoption of

software and devices that will help ensure his safety.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work has been supported by COMPETE:

POCI-01-0145-FEDER-007043 and FCT –

Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia within the

Project Scope: UID/CEC/00319/2013.

REFERENCES

Anaya, J. et al., 2014. Vehicle to pedestrian

communications for protection of vulnerable road

users. In IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium

Proceedings. pp. 1037–1042.

Anaya, J. J. et al., 2015. Vulnerable Road Users Detection

Using V2X Communications. In IEEE 18th

International Conference on Intelligent Transportation

Systems. pp. 107–112.

Road Safety and Vulnerable Road Users - Internet of People Insights

315

Barba, C. T. et al., 2012. Smart city for VANETs using

warning messages, traffic statistics and intelligent

traffic lights. In Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV).

pp. 902–907.

Boavida, F. et al., 2016. People-Centric Internet of

Things-Challenges, Approach, and Enabling

Technologies. In P. Novais et al., eds. Intelligent

Distributed Computing IX. Guimaraes: Springer

International Publishing, pp. 463–474.

Cano, J., Jimenez, C. & Zoughbi, S., 2015. A smart city

model based on citizen-sensors. In IEEE First

International Smart Cities Conference (ISC2). pp. 1–2.

Carels, D. et al., 2011. Architecture for vulnerable road

user collision prevention system (VRU-CPS), based

on local communication. In 18th World congress on

Intelligent Transport Systems: Keeping the economy

moving. Orlando, p. 10 pages.

Cho, W., 2014. Safety enhancement service for vulnerable

users using P2V communications. In International

Conference on Connected Vehicles and Expo

(ICCVE). pp. 1002–1003.

European Parliament, C. of the E.U., 2010. DIRECTIVE

2010/40/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

AND OF THE COUNCIL of 7 July 2010 on the

framework for the deployment of Intelligent Transport

Systems in the field of road transport and for

interfaces with other modes of transport. Official

Journal of the European Union, 8, pp.296–308.

Fernandes, B. et al., 2015. Handling Default Data under a

Case-based Reasoning Approach. In Proceedings of

the International Conference on Agents and Artificial

Intelligence. Lisbon, pp. 294–304.

Gabbai, A., 2015. Kevin Ashton Describes “the Internet of

Things.” SMITHSONIAN MAGAZINE. Available at:

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/kevin-

ashton-describes-the-internet-of-things-

180953749/?no-ist [Accessed February 17, 2016].

Gomes, P. et al., 2010. Patient Monitoring under an

Ambient Intelligence Setting. In J. C. Augusto et al.,

eds. Ambient Intelligence and Future Trends-

International Symposium on Ambient Intelligence

(ISAmI 2010). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin

Heidelberg, pp. 185–188. Available at: http://

dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-13268-1_22.

Guayante, F., Diaz-Ramirez, A. & Mejia-Alvarez, P.,

2014. Detection of Vulnerable Road Users in Smart

Cities. In Eighth International Conference on Next

Generation Mobile Apps, Services and Technologies.

pp. 307–312.

Harmon, R., Castro-Leon, E. & Bhide, S., 2015. Smart

cities and the Internet of Things. In International

Conference on Management of Engineering and

Technology (PICMET). Portland, pp. 485–494.

Harrison, C. et al., 2010. Foundations for Smarter Cities.

IBM Journal of Research and Development, 54(4),

pp.1–16.

Khekare, G. & Sakhare, A., 2013. A smart city framework

for intelligent traffic system using VANET. In

International Multi-Conference on Automation,

Computing, Communication, Control and Compressed

Sensing (iMac4s). pp. 302–305.

Kyriazopoulou, C., 2015. Smart city technologies and

architectures: A literature review. In International

Conference on Smart Cities and Green ICT Systems

(SMARTGREENS). pp. 1–12.

Liebner, M., Klanner, F. & Stiller, C., 2013. Active safety

for vulnerable road users based on smartphone

position data. In IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium

(IV). pp. 256–261.

Liu, N. et al., 2010. When Transportation Meets

Communication: V2P over VANETs. In IEEE 30th

International Conference on Distributed Computing

Systems (ICDCS). pp. 567–576.

Madakam, S., Ramaswamy, R. & Tripathi, S., 2015.

Internet of Things (IoT): A Literature Review. Journal

of Computer and Communications, 3, pp.164–173.

Mehrotra, S. & Dhande, R., 2015. Smart cities and smart

homes: From realization to reality. In International

Conference on Green Computing and Internet of

Things (ICGCIoT). pp. 1236–1239.

Milanes, V. et al., 2012. An Intelligent V2I-Based Traffic

Management System. In IEEE Transactions on

Intelligent Transportation Systems. pp. 49–58.

Miranda, J. et al., 2015. From the Internet of Things to the

Internet of People. In IEEE Internet Computing. pp.

40–47.

Neves, J. et al., 2015. Artificial Neural Networks in

Diagnosis of Liver Diseases. In E. M. Renda et al.,

eds. Information Technology in Bio- and Medical

Informatics. Springer Inter. Publishing, pp. 71–80.

Rose, K., Eldridge, S. & Chapin, L., 2015. The Internet of

Things: An Overview T. I. S. (ISOC), Available at:

http://www.internetsociety.org/sites/default/files/ISOC

-IoT-Overview-20151221-en.pdf.

Scholl, H. et al., 2009. E-Commerce and E-Government:

How Do They Compare? What Can They Learn from

Each Other? In 42nd Hawaii International Conference

on System Sciences (HICSS 09). pp. 1–10.

Silva, F. et al., 2013. Sensorization and Intelligent

Systems in Energetic Sustainable Environments. In G.

Fortino et al., eds. Intelligent Distributed Computing

VI. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 199–204.

Silva, F. & Analide, C., 2016. Sensorization to Promote

the Well-Being of People and the Betterment of Health

Organizations. In J. Machado & A. Abelha, eds.

Applying Business Intelligence to Clinical and

Healthcare Organizations. p. 20.

Skouby, K. & Lynggaard, P., 2014. Smart home and smart

city solutions enabled by 5G, IoT, AAI and CoT

services. In International Conference on Contemporary

Computing and Informatics (IC3I). pp. 874–878.

Wu, Q., Domingo-Ferrer, J. & Gonzalez-Nicolas, U.,

2010. Balanced Trustworthiness, Safety, and Privacy

in Vehicle-to-Vehicle Communications. In IEEE

Transactions on Vehicular Technology. pp. 559–573.

Zanella, A. et al., 2014. Internet of Things for Smart

Cities. IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 1, pp.22–32.

SMARTGREENS 2017 - 6th International Conference on Smart Cities and Green ICT Systems

316