27esv 000068

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 15

SYSTEM LIMITATION EXPERIENCES BY SWEDISH DRIVERS USING ACC AND LKA

Maria Klingegård,
Folksam
Sweden
Annika Larsson,
Veoneer
Sweden
Paper number: 23-0068

ABSTRACT
For many ADAS to reach its full safety potential they need to be activated and used by its drivers. There are thus
several known (technical) limitations that could, as indicated by research, potentially affect the perception and
use of the ADAS. This paper explores limitations as experienced by users for the lateral assistance systems
Adaptive Cruise control (ACC) and Lane Keep assist (LKA). The paper partly reports on a larger online survey
launched (n=1822) in 2021 aimed to explore self-reported use and non-use of six different ADAS among
Swedish drivers using a 5-point Likert scale. Descriptive statistics including frequencies and a calculated
summative level of agreement % is presented together with 95% confidence levels. Included in the analysis is
those respondents reporting using ACC (n=1002), and/or LKA (n=461). Presented are limitations as
experienced, frequency of use/non-use, and perceived driving experience. Results show that ACC is being
activated (always/often) to a greater extent (84%) than LKA (57%), and for LKA it varies by frequency of
driving. The majority of the participants had experienced more than one limitation (ACC:72%, LKA:68%), on a
regular basis, which results in deactivation of the system. Only about 20 % (ACC:20%, LKA 18%) had never
experienced that they could not use the ADAS. Those who do not experience any limitations, never experience
the need to deactivate the ADAS to a greater extent- ACC: (38% vs 22%) and LKA (48% vs. 23%). Statistical
significant tests relived a significant difference between LKA and ACC, in which LKA was affected to a greater
extent for bad weather (48%), glare (48%), position in lane (27%), complex traffic (27%) while ACC was
affected to a greater extent by dirty sensors (45%), complex traffic (43%), weather (31%). ACC also contribute
(significantly) to a higher degree to a positive driving experience than LKA, likewise are more trusted and easier
to use. This study highlights some of the reasons why ADAS are regularly turned off, diminishing their safety
potential. Technological developments, together with standardization and infrastructure adaptation, may be
required for ADAS to fully realize their safety potential.

INTRODUCTION
Today, vehicles often include systems that can help the driver steer, break, and keep distance to the vehicle
ahead as well as warn when there is a crash risk. The introduction of advanced driver assistance systems, ADAS,
(see table 1) is believed to have great potential for decreasing the number of fatalities in traffic [1], currently the
8th most common cause of death in the world with 1.35 million lives lost every year [2]. Research shows that
vehicle crash safety has increased steadily since the 1980s [3], but the number of crashes also need to go down.
Growing evidence from simulation studies, field operational tests and crash data analysis demonstrates that
ADAS, individually and together, increase the safety of the vehicle and decrease the risk of crashes (e.g.,[4],
[5]).

ADAS such as adaptive cruise control (ACC) and lane keep assist (LKA) are systems which, when active
continuously help the driver maintain distance to vehicle ahead and/or in their lane, see Table 1. These systems
are often referred to as ‘comfort’ systems. Yet, LKA could potentially have safety benefits as they could reduce
the risk of running off road, drifting into oncoming vehicles and side swipes. ACC could also potentially
contribute to a higher could reduce the potential for rear-end crashes. Indeed, it has been shown that forward
collision warning with break support (CWB) combined with ACC, reduced rear-end crashes with frontal impacts
with 38% [6]. Studies have also shown that LKA-equipped vehicles were 9% less likely (HR=0.91) to run off the
road [7]. LKA did not have a significant effect on risk of same-direction sideswipes or head-on crashes [7].

Klingegård 1
However, these lateral ADAS are not without (technical) limitations [8], potentially resulting in less usage.
Known limitations typically communicated to drivers includes lane division unclear, lane markings damage,
sensors obstructed/damages, very hot/cold temperature [8]. However, there are large difference between different
vehicle manufacturers. Other challenges impacting the system’s ability to function such as adverse weather,
bright light is rarely communicated [8]. Other limitations could be narrow, winding, and sloping roads, or
construction zones. In addition, there are the system constrains for which the ADAS are designed to operate
within (e.g., vehicle speed, road type).

To be safely used drivers need to be aware of its limitations. Trust and correct understanding of system
functionality are considered key variables for appropriate system use [9]. It is encouraged that limitations
“should be clearly defined and effectively communicated to the driver, and that drivers should be unable to
engage the systems outside of the ODD [Operational Design Domain]” [10].
The majority of people participating in surveys express a positive attitude toward ADAS [11, 12]. However,
studies have shown that the frequency of ADAS usage vary ([13-17], and the knowledge of their presence [16]
or technical limitations vary [18, 19]. As drivers learn to use ADAS, they become more aware of the limitations
with time, with unwanted system actions such as harsh responses to cut-ins, limits in maximum brake force, and
limits in lead vehicle detection [20]. There is also a potential connection between low use of assistance systems,
though available, and a belief that systems will not provide much of a benefit [21]. Also, research indicate that
when learning about the ADAS focus on its limitations results in negative bias towards ADAS [22], indeed it has
been shown that the quantity and quality of device-specific feature systematically affected drivers perception
[23].

There are thus several known (technical) limitations that could potentially affect the perception and use of the
ADAS. This paper report on a survey exploring ADAS usage and the limitations as experienced for ACC and
LKA by Swedish drivers, in winter, known conditions to impact the ability to use the systems.

Table 1 Schematic overview of ADAS system from an accident prevention perspective derived from a driver’s point of view.
Developed from [24, 25].

Traffic situation Inform Warn Act


Static/temporal Temporal information via sound, Brake, limit engine power, and/or steer
information graphic, or haptics

Reverse and park Camera feed Object detection Rear-AEB Parking assistance
Parking sensors
Distance and speed Set speed Speed warning Intelligent speed Cruise Control Adaptive
Road speed assistance Cruise Control (ACC)
Crash avoidance and Collision warning Distance AEB car/pedestrian Lane Keep Assistance
mitigation warning /cyclist Emergency (LKA)
steering
Assistance driving*
Safe in lane Lane Departure Warning
Blind spot detection
Driving safe Driver Monitoring Systems Alcohol lock
*Lane centring with Adaptive Cruise Control, e.g., piloting functions

METHOD
Research aims and objectives
The aim of the paper is to provide an overview of limitations as experienced by Swedish drivers and explore the
possible outcome in terms of none/usage and perceived driving experience. More specifically the objective is to:
(1) present descriptive statistics on limitations as experienced, frequency of use, driving experience and
perceived benefits, (2) identify potential differences between the experienced limitations between LKA and
ACC. The goal is to determine if the limitations as experienced influence the usage of ADAS.

Digital survey design


The digital survey was engineered using Netigate software. Survey design was based on previous studies
examining the usage of ADAS (e.g., [26]). A total of 6 ADAS was included: Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC),
Lane Keeping Assistance (LKA), Lane Departure Warning (LDW), Blind Spot Detection (BLIS), Forward

Klingegård 2
Collision Warning with or without Automatic Emergency Break for vehicle (AEB car) or pedestrian/cyclist
detection (FCW/AEB VRU). After a set of demographics questions, respondents were asked about system
availability in their vehicle(s). After system availability, each ADAS was presented separately with
corresponding questions in which the driver were asked to respond to a set of statement via a 5-point Likert
scale. The respondents were asked questions only about the systems they expressed they had in their vehicle and
were reporting using. The survey was expected to take up to 15 minutes to complete.
Distribution
The survey was digitally distributed during March 2021 via a social media advertisement (Facebook) by
Folksam Insurance Company: “Help us in our research on driver support system”. The Facebook campaign had a
reach of 144 300 and about 3985 unique hits. The demographics of the distribution was Sweden and people
above 18, with no further specification regarding interests or group memberships.
The starting page of the questionnaire explained and asked those only within the target group to continue:
Swedish drivers with a vehicle no older than model year 2009, with at least one of the following ADAS;
Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC), Lane Keeping Assistance (LKA), Lane Departure Warning (LDW), Blind Spot
Detection (BLIS), Forward Collision Warning with or without Automatic Emergency Break for vehicle (AEB
car) or pedestrian/cyclist detection (FCW/AEB VRU). If the respondents chose that they did not have experience
of any of the system, the survey ended.

Respondents
A total of 2521 participants started the survey. If the respondents did not have any of the requested systems
and/or if the respondent did not answer all questions in the survey, then they were excluded from the final
dataset (Table 2). A total of 1153 respondents reported having the ADAS on their current car: ACC (n=1113)
and LKA (n=636). In this paper only respondents who explicitly stated that they use the ADAS are included
LKA (n=461) and ACC (n=1002)). A total of 37 (4%) of the ACC respondents reported only having experience
of ACC. It should be noted that the respondents of the questionnaire do not represent the total population of
drivers Sweden (Table 3).

Table 2 Overview of the respondents’ experienced ADAS. Includes answer from question: “Do you have experience of the
following ADAS”.

ADAS Respondents Respondents Respondents Respondents Respondents Included in


who have the who have the who have the who do not who do not analysis
system system and use system, but do have the know if they
it not use it system have it
ACC 1113 (61%) 1002 (55%) 111 (6%) 683 (38%) 26 (2%) 1002
LDW 997 (55%) 754 (41%) 243 (13%) 795 (44%) 30 (2%)
LKA 636 (35%) 461 (25%) 175 (9%) 1117(61%) 69 (4%) 461
BLIS 718 (39%) 680 (37%) 38 (2%) 1051 (58%) 53 (3%)
AEB car 1214 (67%) 1163 (64%) 51 (3%) 569 (31%) 39 (2%)
AEB 868 (48%) 841 (46%) 27 (2%) 763 (42%) 191 (11%)
VRU
Total 1822 1822 1039

Table 3 Representativeness of population. Comparison of distribution between percent of respondents (Re), number of
persons holding a driving license (Dr) and number of car owner (Ow) in Sweden. Presented statistics is based on Swedish
official population data provided by Statistics Sweden (SCB), 2022.

Gender/Age 18-29y 30-39y 40-49y 50-59y 60y or


older
Re Dr Ow Re Dr Ow Re Dr Ow Re Dr Ow Re Dr Ow
Female 11 15 7 17 16 15 31 16 19 20 17 24 21 37 36
Male 7 15 8 15 17 16 22 16 19 23 18 22 33 34 35
Total 8 15 7 15 16 16 23 16 19 23 17 23 31 35 35

Klingegård 3
Analysis
The dataset includes responses to the experience and usage of ACC and LKA. Reported are respondent’s
demographics, frequency of use, limitations as experienced, perceived benefits, and positive driving experience.
Descriptive statistics (frequency count and proportion) were calculated per survey item. A summative level of
agreement response was calculated by adding 4-5 (coded as 1) on the Likert scale. Statistical analyses include
the proportions and difference of proportions with 95% confidence limits, CL. The CL for a proportion is
calculated with assumption of simple normal approximation binomial intervals. The CL for a difference is
calculated with the same assumption. The Z-statistics is only calculated if n1p1(1-p1) >= 9 och n2p2(1-p2) >= 9.
No correction for finite populations has been done. Statistical tests include statistically significant differences
between ACC and LKA. Excel Power Pivot (v. 2108) and SAS Enterprise Guide (v. 8.3.0.103) were used for
statistical analysis.

RESULTS

Respondent demographics
Of the 1822 respondents who completed the questionnaire, a total of 1039 are included of which 1002
respondents had ACC (96%) and 461 respondents had LKA (44%). The demographics of the respondents are
presented in Appendix, Table A1. The majority of the respondents were 50 years or older (ACC: 53%; 55%),
and male (ACC: 85%, LKA: 87%). The majority of the respondents consider themselves less prone to take risks
with a mean between 3,7-3,5 on a 10 point Likert scale; the majority indicated 3 or less on the scale (ACC: 54%,
LKA: 55%). On the technology readiness scale the majority identified themselves as early adopter (ACC: 56%,
LKA: 62%)) or early majority (ACC:33%, LKA 27%). Most of the respondents were positive towards using
drivers support systems in general (ACC: 70%, LKA 75%). The majority lived in urban areas (55%), while the
rest lived either in a large city (Stockholm/ Göteborg/ Malmö) (ACC: 24%, LKA:26%) or rural area (ACC: 20%,
LKA: 19%). The majority of respondents lived in the south of Sweden which corresponds to the population
concentration in Sweden. Most respondents had 5 ADAS or more (ACC: 49%, LKA,83%). A total of 37 (4%) of
the ACC respondents reported only having experience of ACC.

Limitations as experienced by respondents


The majority of the respondents had experienced limitations and situations in which they could not activate the
ADAS (ACC:72%, LKA:68%), table 4. Only about 20% (ACC:20%, LKA 18%) had never experienced any
situation for which they could not use the ADAS. For ACC dirty sensors (45%) and complex traffic situation
(43%) is commonly experienced. For LKA weather (48%) and glare (45%) is commonly experienced. Only
about 25% had never experienced that they needed to deactivate the system due to negative driving experience
(ACC: 25%, LKA:26%), table 6. Only a limited amount of people had often or always experienced that they had
to turn off the system due to a negative experience (ACC: 3%, LKA: 6%), table 6. Statistical significant tests
relived a significant difference between LKA and ACC, in which LKA was affected to a greater extent for bad
weather, darkness, and glare, while ACC was affected to a greater extent by complex traffic situation, dirty
sensors (Table, 4). A majority of the respondents had experience more than one limitation, see table 5. Those
who did not experience any limitations (ACC: n=177, LKA n=52), never experience the need to deactivate the
ADAS to a greater extent compared to those that experienced at least one limitation- ACC: (38% vs 22%) and
LKA (48% vs. 23%). Subsequent statistical analysis shows a statistical significance between ACC and LKA,
table 8 and 9. When excluding those who only had experience one of the systems, there are no significant
difference in frequency (0-5) experienced limitations between ACC and LKA (cf., table 5).

Table 4 Specification of experienced situations the respondents had to turn off the system even though they wanted to use it.
The respondents could answer one or more situations.

Reason to deactivate ACC (n=1002) LKA Difference in 95% CI for Significance


ADAS (n=461) proportion [%] difference level (p-value)
Total, turning off* 726 (72%) 312 (68%) 4.78 -0.31 – 9.86 0.0616
Weather 315 (31%) 221 (48%) -16.20 -21.60 – -10.81 <.0001***
Darkness 68 (7%) 95 (21%) -13.82 -17.83 – -9.81 <.0001***
Glare 62 (6%) 208(45%) -38.93 -43.71 – -34.15 <.0001***
Positioning in lane n/a 124 (27%) n/a

Klingegård 4
Complex traffic 432 (43%) 124 (27%) 16.22 11.14 – 21.29 <.0001***
Dirty sensors 451 (45%) 60 (13%) 31.99 27.64 – 36.34 <.0001***
No situations 203 (20%) 82 (18%) 2.47 -1.82 – 6.76 0.2674
Other 86 (9%) 33 (7%) 1.42 -1.50 – -1.50 0.3545
*due to negative driving experience / no time of turning off

Table 5 overview of the number of limitations respondents indicated from a pre-set list (available alternatives: bad weather,
darkness, glare, complex traffic situation, dirty sensors, no experienced situations, position in lane, other), respondents who
indicated “no situation” is denoted as “0”. Respondents could indicate one or more alternatives.

No. ADAS ACC LKA Difference in proportion 95% CI for Significance level (p-
Limitations (n=1002) (n=461) [%] difference value)
0 177(18%) 34(7%) 10.29 6.93 – 13.65 <.0001***
1 421(42%) 219(48%) -5.49 -10.98 – 0.00 0.0493*
2 272(27%) 125(27%) 0.03 -4.87 – 4.93 0.9902
3 92(9%) 62(13%) -4.27 -7.86 – -0.68 0.0135*
4 27(3%) 19(4%) -1.43 -3.50 – 0.65 0.1463
5 13(1%) 2(0%) 0.86 -0.06 – 1.79 1.0000
6 0(0%) 0(0%) 0.00 -0.00 – 0.00 1.0000

Table 6. Do you deactivate the system as it negatively contribute to your driving experience divided according to number of
limitations as experienced.

Deactivate of ADAS ACC ACC LKA LKA


0 limitations 1-5 limitations 0 limitations experienced 1-5 limitations
experienced (n=177) experienced (n=825) (n=52) experienced (n=409)
Always 2(1%) 11(1%) 0(0%) 7(23%)
Often 3(2%) 40 (5%) 2(4%) 34(8%)
Sometime 43(24%) 280 (34%) 10 (19%) 153 (37%)
Rarely 57(32%) 290 (35%) 10 (19%) 96(24%)
Never 68 (38%) 184 (22%) 25(48%) 95 (23%)

Table 7. Respondents experience the need to deactivate the system due to negative experience.

Deactivation due to ACC (n=1002) LKA (n=461) Difference in 95% CI for Significance level (p-
negative driving proportion [%] difference value)
experience
Never 252 (25%) 120 (26%) -23.44 -28.74 – -18.15 <.0001***
Rarely 347 (34%) 106 (23%) 13.37 8.62 – 18.13 <.0001***
Sometime 323 (32%) 163 (35%) 11.85 7.17 – 16.53 <.0001***
Often 43(4%) 36 (8%) 0.60 -1.53 – 2.73 0.5885
Always 13 (1%) 7 (1%) 0.43 -0.67 – 1.53 1.0000
Cannot answer 24 (2%) 26 (6%)

Table 8. Do you deactivate the ACC as it negatively contribute to your driving experience divided according to number of
experienced limitations.

Deactivate of ACC ACC Difference in 95% CI for difference Significance level


ADAS 0 experienced 1-5 experienced proportion [%] (p-value)
limitations limitations
(n=177) (n=825)
Always 2(1%) 11(1%) -0.20 -1.95 – 1.54 1.0000
Often 3(2%) 40 (5%) -3.15 -5.55 – -0.75 1.0000
Sometime 43(24%) 280 (34%) -9.95 -16.74 – -2.55 0.0127*
Rarely 57(32%) 290 (35%) -2.95 -10.56 – 4.67 0.4545
Never 68 (38%) 184 (22%) 16.12 8.41 – 23.82 <.0001***

Table 9. Do you deactivate the LKA as it negatively contribute to your driving experience divided according to number of
experienced limitations.

Deactivate of LKA LKA Difference in 95% CI for difference Significance level


ADAS 0 experienced 1-5 experienced proportion [%] (p-value)
limitations (n=52) limitations
(n=409)
Always 0(0%) 7(23%) -1.71 -2.97 – -0.45 1.0000
Often 2(4%) 34(8%) -4.47 -10.34 – 1.41 1.0000

Klingegård 5
Sometime 10 (19%) 153 (37%) -18.18 -29.87 – -6.48 1.0000
Rarely 10 (19%) 96(24%) -4.24 -15.71 – 7.23 1.0000
Never 25(48%) 95 (23%) 24.85 10.67 –39.03 0.0001**

Activation of ADAS
The respondents were also asked to indicate how often they used a particular ADAS when driving, Table 10. The
result indicates that the participants use the system often (ACC: 37%, LKA: 25%) or always (ACC: 47%,
LKA:32%) with ACC being used to a greater extent than LKA (p <.0001). The use of ADAS also varies by
driving frequency for LKA ( % agreement of activation of ADAS increase by the frequency of drive) but are
more stable across the respondents for ACC (ranging between 83-90%), figure 1, table 12-13.
The respondents were asked in which specific traffic conditions they felt comfortable using the ADAS, Table 11.
Most respondents were comfortable to use the system on highways (ACC 97%, LKA: 88%). Fewer respondents
feel comfortable using ADAS near roadworks (ACC: 17%, LKA:8%) and on curvy roads (ACC: 32%, LKA
26%). There is also lower usage in high intensity traffic (ACC: 41%, LKA: 32%). ACC and LKA follow a
similar pattern, but LKA consistently receives lower scores in each traffic condition. The difference is
statistically significant for the different attributes (p<0.05).

Table 10. Activation of ADAS. Includes answer from question: How often do you use the ADAS in your current used vehicle?

Frequency of activation ACC LKA Difference in 95% CI for Significance level (p-
(n=1002) (n=461) proportion [%] difference value)
% agreeness 84% 57%
(always/often)
Always 474 (47%) 148 (32%) 15.20 9.94 – 20.47 <.0001***
Often 371 (37%) 113 (25%) 12.51 7.58 –17.45 <.0001***
Sometime 128 (13%) 134 (29%) -16.29 -20.92 – -11.66 <.0001***
Rarely 24 (2%) 43 (9%) -6.93 -9.75 – -4.11 <.0001***
No knowledge 5 (1%) 23 (5%) -4.49 -6.53 – -2.46 1.0000

Table 11 Respondents comfortable using ADAS in different traffic environments. Includes answer to question: on what
roads/traffic conditions are you comfortable to use the system?

Type of road ACC (n=1002) LKA (n=461) Difference in 95% CI for Significance
proportion difference level (p-value)
[%]
Country roads 913 (91%) 375 (81%) 9.77 5.80 – 13.74 <.0001***
City streets 368 (37%) 113 (25%) 12.21 7.28 – 17.15 <.0001***
Highway 968 (97%) 405 (88%) 8.75 5.57 – 11.94 <.0001***
Roads with separated lanes (2+1 lanes) 833 (83%) 321 (70%) 13.50 8.71 – 18.30 <.0001***
curvy roads 316 (32%) 118 (26%) 5.94 1.03 – 10.85 0.0208*
Roads with traffic lights and/or round about 229 (23%) 65 (14%) 8.75 4.65 – 12.86 0.0001**
Low intensity traffic 567 (57%) 203 (44%) 12.55 7.08 – 18.03 <.0001***
High intensity traffic 410 (41%) 149 (32%) 8.60 3.35 – 13.84 0.0017*
Roadwork 167 (17%) 35 (8%) 9.07 5.73 – 12.42 <.0001***
Slow traffic 552 (55%) 159 (34%) 20.60 15.28 – 25.92 <.0001***

Klingegård 6
Chart Title
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Some occasions Some occasions An occasion a At least three Every day
a year a month week days a week

% agrrement ACC % agreement LKA

Figure 1 Overview of frequency of drive and activation of ACC and LKA (% agreement: (often/always) activated). See table
12, 13.

Table 12 Activation of ACC vs driving frequencies

Frequency of Some 95% Some 95% CI An 95% CI At least 95% Every 95% Total 95%
activation occasions CI occasions occasion three CI day CI CI
a year a month a week days a
week

Always 2 (0%) - 8 (1%) 0.25 – 56 (6%) 4.17 – 120 9.97 288 25.94 474 44.21 –
0.08 1.35 7.01 (12%) – (29%) – (47%) 50.40
– 13.99 31.54
0.48

Often 5 (1%) 0.06 10 (1%) 0.25 – 43 (4%) 3.04 – 106 8.67 207 18.15 371 34.04 –
– 1.35 5.55 (11%) – (21%) – (37%) 40.02
0.94 12.48 23.17

Sometime 0 (0%) 2 (0%) -0.08 – 18 (2%) 0.97 – 27 1.69 81 6.40 – 128 10.71 –
0.48 2.62 (3%) – (8%) 9.77 (13%) 14.84
3.70

Rarely 1 (0%) - 0 (0%) 2 (0%) 8 (1%) 0.25 13 0.60 – 24 (2%) 1.45 –


0.10 – (1%) 2.00 3.34
– 1.35
0.30

No 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (0%) 3 (0%) 5 (1%) 0.06 –


knowledge 0.94

No answer 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

Total 8 (1%) 0.25 20 (2%) 1.13 – 119 (12%) 9.87 – 263 23.52 592 56.04 1002
– 2.86 13.88 (26%) – (59%) – (100%)
1.35 28.97 62.13

Klingegård 7
Table 13. Activation of LKA vs driving frequencies

Frequency Some 95% Some 95% An 95% At least 95% Every 95% CI Total 95% CI
of occasions a CI occasions a CI occasion a CI three CI day
activation year month week days a
week

Always 1 (0%) -0.21 0 (0%) 15 (3%) 1.63 – 47 7.43 – 85 14.90 – 148 27.84 –
– 4.87 (10%) 12.90 (18%) 21.98 (32%) 36.37
0.64

Often 0 (0%) 2 (0%) -0.17 10 (2%) 0.84 – 26 (6%) 5.36 – 75 12.90 – 113 20.59 –
– 3.50 10.26 (16%) 19.64 (25%) 28.44
1.03

Sometime 3 (1%) -0.08 3 (1%) -0.08 17 (4%) 1.97 – 35 (8%) 5.17 – 76 13.10 – 134 24.92 –
– – 5.41 10.01 (16%) 19.87 (29%) 33.21
1.38 1.38

Rarely 1 (0%) -0.21 0 (0%) 3 (1%) -0.08 15 (3%) 1.63 – 24 (5%) 3.18 – 43 (9%) 6.67 –
– – 1.38 4.87 7.23 11.98
0.64

No 0 (0%) 1 (0%) -0.21 3 (1%) -0.08 9 (2%) 0.69 – 10 (2%) 0.84 – 23 (5%) 3.00 –
knowledge – – 1.38 3.22 3.50 6.98
0.64

No answer 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

Total 5 (1%) 0.14 6 (1%) 0.27 48 (10%) 7.82 – 132 24.51 – 270 54.07 – 461
– – 13.20 (29%) 32.76 (59%) 63.07 (100%)
2.03 2.34

Perceived driving experience


The respondents were asked if the specific ADAS contributed to a positive driving experience. ACC contributed
to a larger extent to a positive driving experience as compared to LKA (ACC 86% vs. LKA 64%, p<0.0001).
Considering how the system contribute to the driving experience LKA is considered to a lager extent as a safety
system by the respondents compared to ACC (LKA 72% and ACC 25%). Subsequent statistical analysis show
statistically significant difference (p<0.001). LKA is also considered to a greater extent to increase mental ease
(p< 0.001). ACC is mainly reportedly used to decrease fuel consumption (45%). Only a minority of the
respondents uses the ADAS to enable the performance of other activities that are not related to driving (ACC:
6%, LKA: 10%).
There is a significant difference in trusting the ADAS to maintain distance to vehicle in front (ACC, 88%) or
maintain position in lane (LKA, 56%) (p<0.001).

Table 14. ADAS Contributes to a positive driving experience. Includes respondents answer to the question: the ADAS
contribute to a positive driving experience?

Positive driver ACC (n=1002) LKA (n=461) Difference in 95% CI for Significance level (p-
experience proportion [%] difference value)
% agreement (4/5) 853 (85%) 294 (64%) 21.36 16.45 – 26.67 <.0001***
Strongly agree (5) 535(54%) 152 (33%) 20.42 15.13 – 25.71 <.0001***
Agree to large 318 (32%) 142(31%) 0.93 -4.17 – 6.04 0.7208
extent (4)
Somewhat agree 122(12%) 110 (24%) -11.69 -16.07 – -7.30 <.0001***
(3)
Disagree (2) 15 (2%) 20 (4%) -2.84 -4.85 – -0.84 0.0010*
Strongly disagree 4 (0.4%) 11 (2%) -1.99 -3.43 – -0.54 1.0000
(1)
Cannot answer 8 (1%) 26 (6%) -4.84 -7.02 – -2.66 1.0000

Table 15 Respondents answer to the question: How does the ADAS use contributes to the driving experience?

Type of positive experience ACC (n=1002) LKA (n=461) Difference 95% CI for Significance level
in difference (p-value)
proportion

Klingegård 8
[%]
Increased safety 252 (25%) 333 (72%) -47.08 -51.98 – -42.19 <.0001***
Increased physical comfort 315 (31%) 215 (47%) -15.20 -20.59 – -9.82 <.0001***
Increased mental ease 68 (7%) 221 (48%) -41.15 -45.97 – -36.33 <.0001***
Decreased fuel consumption 451 (45%) 45 (10%) 35.25 31.15 – 39.35 <.0001***
Opportunities to do other 62 (6%) 44 (10%) -3.36 -6.43 – -0.29 0.0214*
things
Becoming a better driver 432 (43%) 125 (27%) 16.00 10.91 – 21.09 <.0001***
More enjoyable driving 203 (20%) 42 (9%) 11.15 7.53 – 14.77 <.0001***
Other 86 (9%) 36 (8%) 0.77 -2.23 – 3.77 0.6190

Table 16 Overall experience with ACC and LKA

Type of experience ACC LKA Difference in 95% CI for Significance level


(n=1002) (n=461) proportion [%] difference (p-value)
Trust: Keeps speed and distance to vehicle in 884 (88%) 256 32.69 27.74 – 37.65 <.0001***
front / keep the car in the middle of lane (56%)
Accelerates and brakes smoothly 798 (80%) n/a
Been helpful in dangerous situations 448 (45%) 106 21.72 16.79 – 26.64 <.0001***
(23%)
Increases risk to be in dangerous situations 53 (5%) 23 (5%) 0.30 -2.12 – 2.72 0.8100
Have good understanding of function of system 956 (95%) 378 13.41 9.67 – 17.15 <.0001***
(82%)
Is easy to use 952 (95%) 375 13.67 9.86 – 17.47 <.0001***
(81%)
Good collaboration in driving the car 780 (78%) n/a
Fights against the system n/a 32 (7%)

DISCUSSION
Studies have shown that many ADAS, both individually and in combination, can increase the safety of a vehicle
and reduce the risk of personal injury, e.g., [4, 5, 27, 28]. However, there are known limitations to ADAS that
can impact their effectiveness [8]. A combination of technical limitations in sensor technology and variations in
driving conditions reduce their ability to be used.
This study confirms previous research that ADAS are being used in daily driving, with Adaptive Cruise Control
(ACC) being used (significantly) more frequently than Lane Keeping Assist (LKA). However, the study
highlights that most respondents experienced limitations and the respondents regularly turn off the systems,
limiting their potential effectiveness. Research has indicated that limitations can affect the use and perceived
value of ADAS [13]. Even the naming of the systems influences the driver’s perception of its capabilities [29].
Previous studies have listed possible technical limitations that could limit the use of ADAS [8]. This study
revealed a significant difference between LKA and ACC in terms of situations for which the driver experienced
that they could not use the system (i.e., limitations as experienced): LKA was more affected by bad weather
(48%), glare (48%), position in lane (27%), and complex traffic (27%), while ACC was more affected by dirty
sensors (45%), complex traffic (43%), and weather (31%).
Previous studies have shown that bad weather conditions had no substantial impact on driving behaviour (e.g.,
frequency of activation) [30]. This study shows that 31% of the ACC respondents and almost 50% of the LKA
respondents were limited by bad weather. However, as the author note in [30], the absence of results may be due
to the absence of extreme weather during the test period. ADAS performance in adverse weather and different
light conditions will come into focus in the coming years, as EuroNCAP have released their Vision 2030 with an
increased effort of testing systems in a multitude of conditions [31].
As the study of [30], and this study, complex traffic is experienced as a limited factor more frequently than bad
weather, but, in this study it was only true for ACC (not LKA). Previous research has identify that traffic
conditions to be the most critical part of the driving context [30]. The study shows that respondents, as
previously indicated, are comfortable using ACC and LKA on highway (ACC: 97%, 88%) and country roads
(ACC: 91%, LKA: 81%). Less on curvy roads and by road works. This study thus show that many respondents
are affected by the driving context (e.g., road type, traffic intensity) and that it limits the use of ADAS.
Interestingly, as much as 27% of the respondents using LKA have turned of the system due to position in lane.
7% of the LKA respondents consider that they have to argue with the system. Previous research has identified
that: “Situations where drivers reported feeling uncomfortable with the automation during their drive were

Klingegård 9
dominated by instances where lane centring struggled with common roadway features such as hills and
intersections”[26]. This research confirms that the respondents feel less comfortable using the systems on curvy
roads (ACC:32%, LKA: 26%); most participants feel comfortable using the systems on Personalisation, and a
greater flexibility in the system may be required for decreasing the frequency of experience of this limitation.
Previous studies have shown a variety of frequency of use vary [13-17]. In this study the majority of the
respondents uses the systems often or always (ACC:85%, LKA 64%). But we also see that a majority of the
respondents had experienced the need to turn off the ADAS system due to a negative driving experience (only
25% for ACC and 26% for LKA had never experienced the need to turn it off). The frequency of turning off the
system also significantly varies depending on the specific ADAS technology being used. Previous research has
indiated a “strong relationship between system activation and the capability to prevent lane drifts and the timing
of steering input” [32]. In this study we see that ACC positively contributes to the driving experience (85%) and
is experienced to accelerate and break smoothly (80%), and is experienced to have a good collaboration (78%).
The benefits of ADAS to the driving experience have been previously identified as a factor influencing its usage
[21]. This study highlights that of the choses given (table 13): ACC are being used to decrease fuel consumption
(ACC: 45%) and to become a better driver (43%), while LKA is being used to increase safety (71%), physical
comport (47%), mental ease (48%).
For these systems to be safely used, research has highlighted the need that drivers understand their limitations
[18-19]. Previous research has demonstrated that there is a lack of awareness or understanding of key limitations
in ADAS [12]. However, the respondents in this survey judge themselves having good understanding of the
function of system (ACC: 95%, LKA 82%). The result from the presented survey indicates that even though
respondents experience limitations in their use of the systems, they believe that the systems positively contribute
to the driving experience; at least for ACC (ACC:85%, LKA 64%). Previous research has identified pleasantness
of use and perceived benefits as most important factors determine the use of ADAS [23].
The results from this paper show that the trust towards the ACC (88%) is higher than LKA (56%) with a
significant difference. Previous research has shown that “automation failures do not negatively affect trust and
acceptance if they are known beforehand”[9]. This research indicates no significant difference in experienced
limitations (comparing 0 limitations vs. 1-5 limitations) for those who turned off the system at least once due to
negative driving experience. This study shows that 95% of those using ACC consider that they have a good
understanding of system functionality, significant lower for LKA (82%). Trust and correct understanding of
system functionality are considered key variables for appropriate system use [9]. Due to sensor limitations, not
every situation can be handled by the system and, therefore, driver intervention is required.
Throughout this study it is shown that ACC significantly differ from LKA and, ACC consistently receives better
scores. Previous research has identified a difference between LKA and ACC. For instance, the study by [26]
indicated that “drivers reported significantly higher trust in adaptive cruise control than in lane centering”.
There is thus more work needed, especially for LKA. Experienced limitations influence the frequency of use.
Future studies include identifying the effect of respondent demographics, attitude towards the system and the
frequency of experience of limitations. Future studies should also include a wider population to better represent
the total of Swedish drivers.

Limitations
The study was distributed via social media and based on self-reported experiences, and though care has been
made to describe systems clearly, there may still be some confusion. Also, one should take care with the results
as the respondents cannot be considered to be representative of all Swedish drivers.

CONCLUSION
Studies have shown that many ADAS, on their own and together, increase the safety of the vehicle and lower the
risk of personal injury. However, for the systems to fulfil their safety potential they need to be used. This study
highlights that the majority of the respondents experience limitations, and they regularly experience the need to
turn off the systems. The study reveals that the limitations as experienced significantly varies depending on the
specific ADAS technology. For ADAS to fully realize their safety potential, technological advancements,
standardization efforts, and infrastructure adaptations may be necessary. This study is based on a self-reported
survey and may not represent the view of all drivers in Sweden.

Klingegård 10
REFERENCES
1. Lubbe, N., et al. Predicted road traffic fatalities in Germany: The potential and limitations of vehicle
safety technologies from passive safety to highly automated driving. in Proceedings of IRCOBI
conference. 2018. Athens, Greece.
2. WHO, Global Status Report on Road Safety 2018. 2018, World Health Organization: Geneva,
Switzerland.
3. Kullgren, A., H. Stigson, and A. Axelsson, Developments in car crash safety since the 1980s in
IRCOBI. 2020. p. 86-99.
4. Cicchino, J.B., Effectiveness of forward collision warning and autonomous emergency braking systems
in reducing front-to-rear crash rates. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 2017. 99: p. 142-152.
5. Sternlund, S., et al., The effectiveness of lane departure warning systems—A reduction in real-world
passenger car injury crashes. Traffic Injury Prevention, 2017. 18(2): p. 225-229.
6. Isaksson-Hellman, I. and M. Lindman, Evaluation of Rear-End Collision Avoidance Technologies
based on Real World Crash Data, in Proc. 3rd International Symposium on Future Active Safety
Technology towards zero traffic accidents. 2015: Gothenburg. p. 471-476.
7. Spicer, R., Vahabaghaie, A., Murakhovsky, D., Bahouth, G., Drayer, B., Lawrence, S, Effectiveness of
Advanced Driver Assistance Systems in Preventing System-Relevant Crashes. SAE Int. J. Adv. & Curr.
Prac. in Mobility 2021. 3(4): p. 1697-1701.
8. Capallera, M., Meteier, Q., de Salis, E., Angelini, L., Carrino, S., Kahale, O A., Mugellini. Owner
Manuals Review and Taxonomy of ADAS Limitations in Partially Automated Vehicles. in AutomotiveUI
'19: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive
Vehicular Applications. 2019. Netherlands.
9. Beggiato, M. and J.F. Krems, The evolution of mental model, trust and acceptance of adaptive cruise
control in relation to initial information. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and
Behaviour, 2013. 18: p. 47-57.
10. Mueller, A.S., I.J. Reagan, and J.B. Cicchino, Addressing Driver Disengagement and Proper System
Use: Human Factors Recommendations for Level 2 Driving Automation Design. Journal of Cognitive
Engineering and Decision Making, 2021. 15(1): p. 3-27.
11. Caber, N., P. Langdon, and P.J. Clarkson. Designing Adaptation in Cars: An Exploratory Survey on
Drivers’ Usage of ADAS and Car Adaptations. in Advances in Human Factors of Transportation. 2020.
Cham: Springer International Publishing.
12. McDonald, A., C. Carney, and D.V. McGehee, Vehicle Owners’ Experiences with and Reactions to
Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (technical report), in AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. 2018:
Washington, D.C.
13. Lijarcio, I., et al., Availability, Demand, Perceived Constraints and Disuse of ADAS Technologies in
Spain: Findings From a National Study. IEEE Access, 2019. 7: p. 129862-129873.
14. Boelhouwer, A., et al., How are car buyers and car sellers currently informed about ADAS? An
investigation among drivers and car sellers in the Netherlands. Transportation Research
Interdisciplinary Perspectives, 2020. 4: p. 100103.
15. Reagan, I.J., et al., Disengagement from driving when using automation during a 4-week field trial.
Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 2021. 82: p. 400-411.
16. Harms, I.M., L. Bingen, and J. Steffens, Addressing the awareness gap: A combined survey and vehicle
registration analysis to assess car owners’ usage of ADAS in fleets. Transportation Research Part A:
Policy and Practice, 2020. 134: p. 65-77.
17. Wozniak, D., et al., Analysis of advanced driver assistance systems in police vehicles: A survey study.
Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 2021. 83: p. 1-11.
18. DeGuzman, C.A. and B. Donmez, Drivers Still Have Limited Knowledge About Adaptive Cruise
Control Even When They Own the System. Transportation Research Record, 2021: p.
03611981211011482.
19. Hungund, A.P. and A.K. Pradhan, A survey on knowledge and perceptions of advanced driver
assistance systems in Massachusetts drivers. Traffic Injury Prevention, 2022: p. 1-3.
20. Larsson, A.F., Driver usage and understanding of adaptive cruise control. Appl Ergon, 2012. 43(3): p.
501-6.
21. Larsson, A. and K. Emanuelsson, Examining Factors for Low Use of Driver Assistance Systems, in In
FAST-zero. 2021.
22. DeGuzman, C.A. and B. Donmez, Drivers don’t need to learn all ADAS limitations: A comparison of
limitation-focused and responsibility-focused training approaches. Accident Analysis & Prevention,
2022. 178: p. 106871.
23. Biassoni, F., D. Ruscio, and R. Ciceri, Limitations and automation. The role of information about
device-specific features in ADAS acceptability. Safety Science, 2016. 85: p. 179-186.

Klingegård 11
24. NHTSA, Vehicle Shopper’s Guide: Driver Assistance Technologies. 2018.
25. AAA, Advanced driver assistance technology names: AAA's recommendation for common naming of
advaced safety systems. 2019.
26. Reagan, I.J., J.B. Cicchino, and D.G. Kidd, Driver acceptance of partial automation after a brief
exposure. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 2020. 68: p. 1-14.
27. Sternlund, S., The safety potential of lane departure warning systems—A descriptive real-world study of
fatal lane departure passenger car crashes in Sweden. Traffic Injury Prevention, 2017. 18(sup1): p.
S18-S23.
28. Cicchino, J., Effects of automatic emerency braking systems on pedestrian crash risk. 2022.
29. Teoh, E.R., What’s in a name? Drivers’ perceptions of the use of five SAE Level 2 driving automation
systems. Journal of Safety Research, 2020. 72: p. 145-151.
30. Orlovska, J., et al., Effects of the driving context on the usage of Automated Driver Assistance Systems
(ADAS) -Naturalistic Driving Study for ADAS evaluation. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary
Perspectives, 2020. 4: p. 100093.
31. NCAP, E., Euro NCAP vision for 2030 A safer future for mobility 2022.
32. Reagan, I.J., J.B. Cicchino, and C.J. Montalbano, Exploring relationships between observed activation
rates and functional attributes of lane departure prevention. Traffic Inj Prev, 2019. 20(4): p. 424-430.

APPENDIX
Table A 1. Overview of respondents’ demographics.

Demographics ACC (n=1002) LKA (n=461)


Year
18-29 73 (7%) 23 (5%)
30-39 151 (15%) 59 (13%)
40-49 243(24%) 128 (28%)
50-59 243 (24%) 127 (28%)
>60 292 (29%) 124 (27%)
Gender
Female 143 (14%) 59 (13%)
male 853 (85%) 399 (87%)
Other /do not want to specify 6(0.6%) 3 (0.6%)
Living environment
City 243(24%) 119(26%)
(Stockholm, Göteborg, Malmö)
Urban 555(55%) 253(55%)
rural area 204(20%) 89(19%)
Risk taking in traffic (1-10) 3,7 Mean 3,5 Mean
Technology readiness
Innovator 65 (6%) 40 (8%)
Early adopter 559 (56%) 284(62%)
Early majority 332 (33%) 126 (27%)
Late majority 30 (3%) 7(2%)
Laggards 9(1%) 2 (1%)
Top 5 represented vehicle brands Volvo (343/34%), Volkswagen Volvo (150/32%), Kia (57/12%), Volkswagen
(183/18%), Kia (69/7%), Skoda (48/11%), Tesla (40/8%), Hyundai (20/4%)
(54/5%), Toyota (46/5%)
Attitude towards ADAS systems
Very negative 6 (1%) 1 (0.2%)
Fairly negative 15 (2%) 3 (1%)
Neutral 40 (4%) 13 (3%)
Little positive 246 (25%) 96 (21%)
Very positive 695 (70%) 348 (75%)
Frequency of driving
Daily 592 (59%) 270 (59%)
Minimum 3 days a week 263 (26%) 32 (29%)
At least once a week 119 (12%) 48 (10%)
At least once a month 20 (2%) 6 (1%)
At least once a year 8 (1%) 5 (1%)
Experience of vehicle
month (262/26%) 28 (6%)
1-6 months (185/18%) 113 (25%)
7-12 months (165/16%) 83 (18%)

Klingegård 12
13-24 months (262/26%) 126 (27%)
>24months (350/35%) 110 (24%)
Number of ADAS systems
1 37 (4%) 0 (0%)
2 101 (10%) 6 (1%)
3 145 (15%) 19 (4%)
4 226 (23%) 48 (10%)
5 238 (24%) 133 (28%)
6 255 (25%) 255 (55%)

Table 17 ACC contributes to positive driving experience versus driving frequencies

Type of positive Some Some occasions An occasion a At least three Every day Total
experience occasions a a month week days a week
year
Increased security 0 (0%) 3 (0%) 27 (3%) 63 (6%) 159 (16%) 252 (25%)

Increased fysical 3 (0%) 5 (1%) 35 (3%) 79 (8%) 193 (19%) 315 (31%)
comfort
Increased mental 0 (0%) 1 (0%) 10 (1%) 20 (2%) 37 (4%) 68 (7%)
relaxation
Opportunities to do 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 9 (1%) 18 (2%) 35 (3%) 62 (6%)
other things
Becoming a better 5 (1%) 10 (1%) 63 (6%) 105 (10%) 249 (25%) 432 (43%)
driver
Decreased 6 (1%) 9 (1%) 44 (4%) 99 (10%) 293 (29%) 451 (45%)
fuelconsumption
More enjoyable 0 (0%) 7 (1%) 24 (2%) 52 (5%) 120 (12%) 203 (20%)
cardriving
Other 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 9 (1%) 30 (3%) 47 (5%) 86 (9%)

Table 18 LKA contributes to positive driving experience versus driving frequencies

Type of positive Some Some An occasion a At least three Every day Total
experience occasions a occasions a week days a week
year month
Increased security 3 (1%) 4 (1%) 40 (9%) 99 (21%) 187 (41%) 333 (72%)

Increased fysical 1 (0%) 4 (1%) 25 (5%) 56 (12%) 129 (28%) 215 (47%)
comfort
Increased mental 1 (0%) 5 (1%) 28 (6%) 60 (13%) 127 (28%) 221 (48%)
relaxation
Opportunities to do 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 5 (1%) 13 (3%) 26 (6%) 44 (10%)
other things
Becoming a better 0 (0%) 2 (0%) 22 (5%) 29 (6%) 72 (16%) 125 (27%)
driver
Decreased 1 (0%) 0 (0%) 5 (1%) 8 (2%) 31 (7%) 45 (10%)
fuelconsumption
More enjoyable 1 (0%) 0 (0%) 9 (2%) 11 (2%) 21 (5%) 42 (9%)
cardriving
Other 1 (0%) 1 (0%) 3 (1%) 10 (2%) 21 (5%) 36 (8%)

Table 19 Overall experiences with ACC versus driving frequencies

Type of experience Some occasions a Some An At least three days Every day Total

Klingegård 13
year occasions occasion a a week
a month week
Contributes to a positive driving 5 (1%) 17 (2%) 103 (10%) 231 (23%) 497 (50%) 853 (85%)
experience
Keeps speed and distances to 7 (1%) 18 (2%) 105 (10%) 238 (24%) 516 (52%) 884 (88%)
vehicle in front
Accelerates and brakes smoothly 7 (1%) 14 (1%) 102 (10%) 211 (21%) 464 (64%) 798 (80%)
Been helpful in dangerous 2 (0%) 8 (1%) 56 (6%) 117 (12%) 265 (26%) 448 (45%)
situations
Increases risk to be in dangerous 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 10 (1%) 15 (2%) 28 (3%) 53 (5%)
situations
Have good understanding of 7 (1%) 19 (2%) 112 (11%) 246 (25%) 572 (57%) 956 (95%)
function of system
Is easy to use 7 (1%) 18 (2%) 108 (11%) 253 (25%) 566 (56%) 952 (95%)
Good coworking in driving the car 5 (1%) 13 (1%) 92 (9%) 216 (22%) 454 (45%) 780 (78%)
Feels to disconnected from driving 1 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (0%) 4 (0%) 22 (2%) 29 (3%)
the car

Table 20 Overall experiences with LKA versus driving frequencies

Type of experience Some occasions a Some An At least three days Every day Total
year occasions occasion a a week
a month week
Contributes to a positive driving 2 (0%) 5 (1%) 35 (8%) 83 (18%) 169 (37 %) 294 (64%)
experience
Keeps the car in middle of lane 3 (1%) 4 (1%) 31 (7%) 69 (15%) 149 (32%) 256 (56%)
Been helpful in dangerous 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 12 (3%) 28 (6%) 66 (14%) 106 (23%)
situations
Increases risk to be in dangerous 1 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (0%) 6 (1%) 15 (3%) 23 (5%)
situations
Have good understanding of 3 (1%) 4 (1%) 36 (8%) 107 (23%) 228 (49%) 378 (82%)
function of system
Is easy to use 3 (1%) 5 (1%) 38 (8%) 106 (23%) 223 (48%) 375 (81%)
Fights against the system 2 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (0%) 9 (2%) 19 (4%) 32 (7%)
Feels to disconnected from driving 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (1%) 6 (1%) 15 (3%) 24 (5%)
the car

Table 21 Ability to use ACC on different types of roads and traffic enviroments versus driving frequencies

Type of road Some Some occasions An occasion a At least Every day Total
occasions a a month week three days
year a week
Country roads 7 (1%) 19 (2%) 110 (11%) 241 (24%) 536 (53%) 913 (91%)

Citystreets 2 (0%) 7 (1%) 47 (5%) 100 (10%) 212 (21%) 368 (37%)

Highway roads 8 (1%) 20 (2%) 116 (12%) 251 (25%) 573 (57%) 968 (97%)

Roads with separated 7 (1%) 17 (2%) 99 (10%) 219 (22%) 491 (49%) 833 (83%)
lanes (2+1 lanes)
Winding roads 3 (0%) 2 (0%) 34 (3%) 78 (8%) 199 (20%) 316 (32%)

Roads with traffic lights 1 (0%) 4 (0%) 24 (2%) 56 (6%) 144 (14%) 229 (23%)
and/or traffic circle

Table 22 Ability to use LKA on different types of roads and traffic environments versus driving frequencies

Type of Road Some occasions Some occasions a An occasion a At least three Every Total
a year month week days a week day
Country roads 1 (0%) 4 (1%) 44 (10%) 108 (23%) 218 375
(47%) (81%)

Citystreets 1 (0%) 1 (0%) 14 (3%) 29 (6%) 68 113


(15%) (25%)

Klingegård 14
Highway roads 3 (1%) 4 (1%) 41 (9%) 117 (25%) 240 405
(52%) (88%)

Roads with separated lanes 2 (0%) 3 (1%) 33 (7%) 98 (21%) 185 321
(2+1 lanes) (40%) (70%)

Winding roads 1 (0%) 1 (0%) 14 (3%) 33 (7%) 69 118


(15%) (26%)

Roads with traffic lights 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 6 (1%) 18 (4%) 41 (9%) 65


and/or traffic circle (14%)

Klingegård 15

You might also like