top of page

Description

Score@f is the first French FOT dedicated to road cooperative systems. A French Field Operationnal Test for Road Cooperative Systems, in collaboration with DRIVE C2X and CO-DRIVE projects. A hundred of naive drivers have been recruited and three test sites were opened in order to cover a diversity of driving situations. Most use cases were related to road-safety. A set of studies regarding the acceptability of C-ITSs was carried out in France between 2012 and 2013, as part of project Score@f, in order to compare the expected benefits of these systems to their effective use.

​

Test sites:

Three different areas: Yvelines (78), Isère (38), A10 (North of Orleans)

​

Four small-scale FOTs.

  • FOT#1 (Piloting): Controlled Tests, A10 (Test Site 1). Start: Late August, 2012 End: Early September, 2012 (34 drivers)

  • FOT#2: Naturalistic Tests, Yvelines (Test Site 2). Piloting. Start: March, 28, 2013. Duration: 1 month (6 drivers) Test. Start: June, 10, 2013. Duration: 1 month (9 drivers)

  • FOT#3: Controlled Tests, Yvelines (Test Site 2) Start : May, 2013 End: June, 2013 43 half-and-hour runs (24 drivers)

  • FOT#4: Controlled Tests, Isère (Test Site 3). Start : June, 2013 End: September, 2013 53 fifty-minutes runs (53 drivers)

Objective

  • This project aims to develop a coordinated implementation of cooperative road systems in Europe

  • The purpose of the project is to test a first set of use cases, in particular those related to road safety, in view of preparing a large-scale FOT before deployment.

  • SCORE@F is mainly focusing on Road Safety and Traffic Efficiency Management taking into account the use cases which have been proposed by ETSI in its BSA (Basic Set of Applications).

  • Develop and demonstrate some comfort use cases such as cooperative navigation and Internet access for which an IPv6 ITS Station stack will be needed.

​

Inputs

  • Test Site#1: A10.

Four road-side units (RSU) located on a 3-ways motorway axis of 13 kilometers at the North of Orleans, between two exits.

​

  • Test Site #2: Yvelines.

Ten road-side units (RSU) which includes a small portion motorway (N12), a tunnel (quadriplex) and a rural-road of about ten kilometers. It has a fairly rough topography (tight corners) with one of its rural road having an access to Technocentre Renault (spontaneous path of the volunteers for Naturalistic Tests)

​

  • Test Site #3: Isère.

Four road-side units (RSU) located in the area of ​​St Egreve to Noyarey, passing through the town of Voreppe, to cover a variety of road types: motorway, departmental, communal.

It has an unique environment, both for its ecological assorted variety (curves, roadwork) and for its type of traffic (from fluid to extremely dense).

The test fleet included 28 vehicles: 16 private cars equipped with a C-ITS unit for the Yvelines Naturalistic tests (Renault cars), 11 pool vehicles for the Yvelines Controlled FOT (PSA and Citroen cars) and 1 pool vehicle for the Isère Controlled FOT (Renault car).

Alongside the test fleet, fifteen more vehicles, sponsored by Renault, PSA-Peugeot-Citroen and IFSTTAR were also equipped for technical testing. These vehicles were also used to play the role of comparse vehicles in the controlled and naturalistic tests (e.g.: act as a stopped car for CBW study)

Around 100 participants in the age group of 25-61, were recruited and requested to test a cooperative system in one of three following conditions:

​

  • As part of a dynamic driving simulation (Simulator Studies),

  • As part of their everyday home-to-work journey (Naturalistic Tests) or

  • Finally within a run (Controlled Tests).

 

In all conditions, drivers’ behaviors were recorded and questionnaires and interviews were run. Drivers agree on the relevance of applications related to road safety.

Six samples of participants have been recruited, for a total of about a hundred drivers: 12 drivers for Study 1, 34 drivers for Study 2, 36 drivers for Study 3; 17 drivers for Study 4, 23 drivers for Study 5 and 51 drivers for Study 6.

​

Testing Environments:

​

  • Closed track: To validate the system and road safety use cases.

  • Motorway (A10, A86)

  • Suburban roads (RD91)

  • Urban roads (Versailes)

System Architecture

  • Datex Webservice: provides an Internet service that can receive message in Datex II format from the Road Mangement Center. (PCE in french).

  • Datex Processing: can read the line from the Datex II message, extract the useful information and create new object for storage.

  • Datex Client: can pull informations messages from the Road Management Center and send traffic data messages gathered by RSU to the Management center

RSU internal Architecture

Methodology

​

A constructive approach was followed since the C-ITS was tested for the first time by the drivers. Six small-scale experiments were planned and realized between 2012 and 2013, including various facilities: open roads and driving simulator.

​

  • Study 1 (March, 2012): A range of use cases was pretested by 12 participants on a driving simulator.

  • Study 2 was mainly focused on open-road (pre-piloting): 34 participants made a half-hour trial on highway context (A10, North of Orleans, August-September, 2012).

  • Study #3, November, 2013: Aiming to validate the use cases in a protected environment dedicated to highway context by conducting a larger study on driving simulator.

​

Finally, the three last studies were FOTs: 

  • Study 4 was a the Naturalistic FOT (Yvelines, 9 participants, June 11-July 10 2013) preceded by its piloting (Yvelines, 6 participants, March-April 2013)

  • Study 5 (Yvelines, 23 participants, June 2013): Aiming to gather the data with a systematic approach by a controlled tests.

  • Study 6 replicated Controlled Tests in another environment (50 minutes-runs in Isère, 51 participants, from June to September 2013).

 

Three forms of piloting can be considered within Score@f project.

  • The first simulator study (Study 1) had a clear piloting function. It aimed to pre-test a panel of use cases keeping in mind the end goal to expel those which were inadequately seen by the drivers and to refine the HMI.

  • To refine HMI and use cases triggering conditions, study 2 can also be considered as a form of piloting which was the first study on the open road.

  • The first half of the Study 5 was related to standard piloting. One month FOT has been devoted to methodological development (March-April) before the actual trials month (June-July).

​

The main testing environment are the studies on open roads, which were aided by simulator studies to prepare FOTs to test the use-cases that cannot be realized on open road. (hazard-free environment).

Open road studies is a combination of naturalistic approach and a controlled approach. Due to its realistic character the first approach was considered the best. However, to facilitate the collection of comparable data, second approach is viewed as necessary (meaningful baseline and treatment conditions). The controlled approach was also important to gather more data on use cases that refer to infrequent events in real life (e.g. post-crash warning)

Outcomes

Applications tested in this test site

 

Road Safety

​

  • Road Works Warning

  • Car Breakdown Warning

  • Post-crash Warning

  • Weather Warning (slippery road, heavy rain, fog)

  • Emergency Electronic Brake Lights 

  • Approaching Vehicle 

  • Obstacle Warning (the driver receives a warning)

  • Obstacle Notification (the driver sends a warning)

  • Third party on collision course warning 

  • Pedestrian Warning

  • Animal/other Warning

​

Traffic flow and management

​

  • Collect of trafic information and centralization to the management center 

  • Legal and contextual speeds limits

  • In-vehicle signage

​

Others (comfort & mobility)

​

  • In-Vehicle notification (VMS: Variable Messages Sign)

  • Qualification of the performance of G5 technology (partial results focusing on the use of CCH: 5.895 to 5.905 GHz. Coverage was variable with a minimum of about 300 meters for V2V communication and a maximum of 1.3 km for V2I on motorway (A10). Qualification of the standards enabling the interoperability between Renault vehicles, PSA vehicles and NEAVIA Road Side Equipment.

  • Identification by all stakeholders of a viable deployment. This led to a two steps deployment:

​

First step: The building of a deployment pilot concerning 2000 vehicles and 100 road side equipment in a limited geographical area (south and south east of Ile de France (outskirt of Paris). This deployment pilot is called SCOOP@F (Système Coopératif Pilote en france) and is built with road authorities (public and private) and OEMs. Second step: General deployment.

Outcomes of different systems:

​

HMI: Human-Machine Interfaces extensively affect the impression of every use case esteem. This is particularly legitimate because of security related use cases

Acceptance evaluations were sometimes penalized by an unfavorable location of the HMI. Beyond this limit, drivers do ask, concerning advisory and warning messages, for augmented reality solutions: windshield projection or mirror display.

The sound dimension is recognized as a vital support to drive the attention and inform the driver of the type of message (warning/ advisory/ informative) before visual consultation.

​

Safety-related use cases (V2V advisory/warning messages: Drivers do consider these messages identified with expectation of any road hazards as extremely significant. They are hypothetically seen as prone to an accident and to reduce the risk to other participants. However, in practice, several use cases have been rejected. Reasons for rejecting use cases:

  • Familiar warning message.

  • Frequent unwanted messages rising the stress of the driver leading to discomfort. Display of messages whether this risk is too low (e.g.: vehicle parked on the roadside) or it is considered very unlikely (e.g. Pedestrian warning)

  • The warning/ advisory is relevant but it is too late.

  • Frequent warning messages which irritates the drivers to bear the forward alerts.

 

Finally, all drivers are highly interested in being provided information issued early enough and related to an actual hazard that is placed on the road.

Documents:

Evaluation form

bottom of page