Research on the acceptability of assistive systems for improving the safety of powered two-wheelers (PTWs) is a pressing issue. The use of safety-enhancing assistive systems for motorised vehicles, including advanced driver assistance systems and in-vehicle information systems is widespread in many countries. Yet, there is only a limited number of equivalent intelligent transport systems (ITS) for PTWs, namely advanced rider assistance systems and on-bike information systems. This study describes the methodological development of a specific tool for assessing motorcyclists’ acceptability of ITS, as part of the motorcyclists’ profiling questionnaire (MOPROQ). There were three stages of development. First, a literature review was undertaken to assess the current state of the art regarding ITS for PTWs and to determine the most relevant facets of acceptability that should be measured. Second, a series of focus group interviews were conducted to explore riders’ attitudes towards ITS. Finally, the focus group results were used to develop a large-scale survey (MOPROQ), which was administered to an initial sample of over 6000 riders internationally. The designed tool can be used as a basis for the determination of rider acceptability of ITS systems in the future.

References

1. 1)
  - 9. Simpkin, B., Lai, F., Chorlton, K., Fowkes, M.: ‘ISA-UK, Intelligent Speed Adaptation. Results of motorcycle trial’ (University of Leeds, Leeds, UK, 2007).
2. 2)
  - 34. Schade, J., Schlag, B.: ‘Acceptability of urban transport pricing’. VATT Research Report 72, VATT, Helsinki, Finland, 2000.
3. 3)
  - 14. Giovannini, F., Savino, G., Pierini, M., Baldanzini, N.: ‘Analysis of the minimum swerving distance for the development of a motorcycle autonomous braking system’, Accident Anal. Prev., 2013, 59, pp. 170–184 (doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2013.05.020).
4. 4)
  - 22. Nilsson, G.: ‘The effects of speed limits on traffic accidents in Sweden’. Proc. of Int. Symp. on the Effects of Speed Limits on Traffic Accidents and Transport Energy use, Ireland, Dublin, October 1982, pp. 1–8.
5. 5)
  - 21. Haworth, N.L., Rowden, P.J.: ‘Challenges in improving the safety of learner motorcyclists’. Proc. 20th Canadian Multidisciplinary Road Safety Conf., Ontario, Niagara Falls, June 2010.
6. 6)
  - 38. Arndt, S.: ‘Evaluierung der Akzeptanz von Fahrerassistenzsystemen – Prüfung eines Modells zur Vorhersage des Kaufverhaltens von Endkunden’ (University of Technology, Dresden, Germany, 2010).
7. 7)
  - 27. Beanland, V., Lenné, M., Underwood, G.: ‘Safety in numbers: Target prevalence affects detection of vehicles during simulated driving’, Attention, Percept., Psychophys., 2014, 76, (3), pp. 805–813 (doi: 10.3758/s13414-013-0603-1).
8. 8)
  - J.D. Van Der Laan , A. Heino , D. De Waard . A simple procedure for the assessment of acceptance of advanced transport telematics. Transp. Res. C, Emerg. Technol. , 1 , 1 - 10
9. 9)
  - 16. ACEM (Association des Constructeurs Européens de Motocycles): ‘In-depth investigations of accidents involving powered two-wheelers (MAIDS)’ (Brussels, Belgium, 2009), pp. 1–179.
10. 10)
  - 18. Rizzi, M., Strandroth, J., Tingvall, C., et al: ‘The effectiveness of antilock brake systems on motorcycles in reducing real-life crashes and injuries’, Traffic Injury Prev., 2009, 10, pp. 479–487 (doi: 10.1080/15389580903149292).
11. 11)
  - 44. Joshi, S., Bellet, T., Banet, A., et al: ‘Understanding risk taking behaviour within the context of PTW riders: A report on rider diversity with regard to attitudes, perceptions and behavioural choices’, 2 BESAFE Proj. Deliv. 7 Work Package, 2011, 3, pp. 27–28.
12. 12)
  - 35. Schade, J.: ‘European research results on transport pricing acceptability’, in Schade, J., Schlag, B. (Eds.): ‘Acceptability of transport pricing strategies’ (Elsevier, Oxford, UK, 2003), pp. 109–123.
13. 13)
  - 33. Schlag, B., et al: ‘Public acceptability of transport pricing’, IATTS Res., 1997, 21, (2), pp. 134–142.
14. 14)
  - 46. Wong, J., Chung, Y., Huang, S.: ‘Determinants behind young motorcyclists’ risky riding behaviour’, Accident Anal. Prev., 2010, 42, (1), pp. 275–281 (doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2009.08.004).
15. 15)
  - 45. Chen, C.: ‘Personality, safety attitudes and risky driving behaviours – Evidence from young Taiwanese motorcyclists’, Accident Anal. Prev., 2009, 41, pp. 963–968 (doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2009.05.013).
16. 16)
  - 40. Mayerhofer, W.: ‘Das Fokusgruppeninterview’, in Buber, R., Holzmüller, H. (Eds.): ‘Qualitative Marktforschung. Konzepte. Methoden. Analysen’ (Gabler, S., Wiesbaden, 2007), pp. 479–488.
17. 17)
  - 42. Webb, C., Keverin, J.: ‘Focus groups as a research method: a critique of some aspects of their use in nursing research’, J. Adv. Nurs., 2011, 33, (6), pp. 798–805 (doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2001.01720.x).
18. 18)
  - V. Huth , F. Biral , Ó. Martín , R. Lot . Comparison of two warning concepts of an intelligent curve warning system for motorcyclists in a simulator study. Accident Anal. Prev. , 1 , 118 - 125
19. 19)
  - 36. Schade, J., Schlag, B.: ‘Kognitive Bedingungen der öffentlichen Akzeptanz von Straßenbenutzungsgebühren’, Umweltpsychologie, 2004, 8, (1), pp. 210–224.
20. 20)
  - I. Spyropoulou , M. Penttinen , M. Karlaftis , T. Vaa , J. Golias . ITS Solutions and accident risks: prospective and limitations. Transp. Rev. , 5 , 549 - 572
21. 21)
  - 43. Bayly, M., Regan, M., Hosking, S.: ‘Intelligent transport systems and motorcycle safety’. Report No. 260, Monash University Accident Research Centre, Melbourne, Australia, 2006, pp. 1–76.
22. 22)
  - 2. Spyropoulou, I., Yannis, G., Winkelbauer, M., Golias, J.: ‘Powered Two Wheelers safety measures: recommendations and priorities’. Proc. of the 12th WCTR Conf., Portugal, Lisbon, 2010.
23. 23)
  - 12. Marumo, Y., Katagiri, N.: ‘Control effects of steer-by-wire system for motorcycles on lane-keeping performance’, Veh. Syst. Dyn.: Int. J. Veh. Mech. Mobility, 2011, 49, (8), pp. 1283–1298 (doi: 10.1080/00423114.2010.515030).
24. 24)
  - 5. Rakotonirainy, A., Haworth, N.: ‘Institutional challenges to ITS deployment and adoption’. 29th Australasian Transport Research Forum, Australia, Gold Coast, September 2006.
25. 25)
  - 15. Savino, G., Giovannini, F., Baldanzini, N., Pierini, M., Rizzi, M.: ‘Assessing the potential benefits of the motorcycle autonomous emergency braking using detailed crash reconstructions’, Traffic Injury Prev., 2013, 14, pp. 40–49 (doi: 10.1080/15389588.2013.803280).
26. 26)
  - 20. ETSC (European Transport Safety Council): ‘Vulnerable riders: Implications of motorcycling in the European Union’ (ETSC, Brussels, Belgium, 2008), http://www.etsc.eu/documents/ETSC_Vulnerable_riders.pdf, December 2013.
27. 27)
  - 24. Cook, S., Frampton, R., Grant, R., et al: ‘Powered two wheeler Integrated Safety (PISa): Review of current PTW accident data’ Vehicle Safety Research Centre, Loughborough University, D2, 2007.
28. 28)
  - 47. Bellet, T., Banet, A., Paris, J., et al: ‘Motorcyclists’ Risk Awareness’ (2 BE SAFE User Forum, Paris, France, 2011).
29. 29)
  - 28. Lenné, M., Beanland, V., Füssl, E., et al: ‘Relationships between rider profiles and acceptance of Advanced Rider Assistance Systems’, 2 BESAFE Project Deliv. 9 Work Package, 2011, 3.3, pp. 91–96.
30. 30)
  - 17. Elliot, M., Baughan, J., Broughton, C., et al: ‘Motorcycle safety: a scoping study’ Prepared for Road Safety Division, Department for Transport’. TRL Report TRL581, 2003.
31. 31)
  - 39. Regan, M., Mitsopoulus, E., Haworth, N., Young, K.: ‘Acceptability of in-vehicle intelligent transport systems to Victorian car drivers’. RACV Public Policy, Report No 02/02, Monash University Accident Research Centre, Melbourne, Australia, 2002.
32. 32)
  - F. Biral , R. Lot , S. Rota , M. Fontana , V. Huth . Intersection support system for powered two-wheeled vehicles. Threat assessment based on a receding horizon approach. IEEE Intell. Transp. Syst. Trans. Mag.
33. 33)
  - S. Vlassenroot , K. Brookhuis , V. Marchau , F. Witlox . Towards defining a unified concept for the acceptability of intelligent transport systems (ITS): a conceptual analysis based on the case of intelligent speed adaptation (ISA). Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour , 3 , 164 - 178
34. 34)
  - 48. Ulleberg, P., Rundmo, T.: ‘Personality, attitudes and risk perception as predictors of risky driving behaviour among young drivers’, Safety Sci., 2003, 41, pp. 427–443 (doi: 10.1016/S0925-7535(01)00077-7).
35. 35)
  - 1. European Commission-Press release: Improved safety for motorcycles: European Commission welcomes Council approval, Brussels, 2012, http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-12-1348_en.htm, December 2013.
36. 36)
  - 50. Cairney, P., Ritzinger, A.: ‘Industry and rider views of ITS for safe motorcycling’. 23rd ARRB Conf. – Research Partnering with Practitioners, Adelaide, Australia, 2006.
37. 37)
  - L. Aarts , I. Van Shagen . Driving speed and the risk of road crashes: a review. Accident Anal. Prev. , 215 - 224
38. 38)
  - 41. Mayring, P.: ‘Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Grundlagen und Techniken’ (Beltz, 2003), pp. 1–135.
39. 39)
  - 49. Beanland, V., Lenné, M., Füssl, E., et al: ‘Acceptability of rider assistive systems for powered two-wheelers’, Transp. Res. F: Traffic Psychol. Behav., 2013, 19, pp. 63–76 (doi: 10.1016/j.trf.2013.03.003).
40. 40)
  - 29. Schade, J.: ‘Individuelle Akzeptanz von Straßenbenutzungsentgelten’, in Schlag, B. (Ed.): ‘Empirische Verkehrspsychologie’ (Pabst Science Publishers, Lengerich, 1999), pp. 227–244.
41. 41)
  - 8. Nordqvist, M., Gregersen, N.: ‘Study on motorcyclist's behaviour and attitude towards road safety 2010’ (SMC, Borlänge, Sweden, 2011).
42. 42)
  - 25. Hughes, P., Cole, B.: ‘What attracts attention when driving?’, Ergonomics, 1986, 29, (3), pp. 377–391 (doi: 10.1080/00140138608968272).
43. 43)
  - F.D. Davis . Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quart. , 3 , 318 - 341
44. 44)
  - 3. Regan, M., Triggs, T., Young, K., et al: ‘On-road evaluation of intelligent speed adaptation, following distance warning and seat belt reminder systems’. Final Results of the Australian TAC Safecar Project, Report No. 253, Monash University Accident Research Centre, Australia, Melbourne, 2006.
45. 45)
  - 7. Brenac, T., Clabaux, N., Perrin, C., et al: ‘Motorcyclist conspicuity-related accidents in urban areas: A speed problem?’, Adv. Transp. Stud., 2006, 8, pp. 23–29.
46. 46)
  - 19. Savino, G., Pierini, M., Rizzi, M., Frampton, R.: ‘Evaluation of an autonomous braking system in real-world PTW crashes’, Traffic Injury Prev., 2013, 14, (5), pp. 532–543 (doi: 10.1080/15389588.2012.725878).
47. 47)
  - 26. Doğan, A., et al: ‘Evaluation of intersection collision warning system using an inter-vehicle communication simulator’. Proc. of the Seventh Int. IEEE Conf. on Intelligent Transport Systems, Washington, USA, 2004, pp. 1103–1108.
48. 48)
  - 31. Morris, M., Turner, J.: ‘Assessing users’ subjective quality of experience with the world wide web: An exploratory examination of temporal changes in technology acceptance’, Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud., 2001, 54, pp. 877–901 (doi: 10.1006/ijhc.2001.0460).
49. 49)
  - 32. Nielsen, J.: ‘Usability Engineering’ (Academic Press, Inc., San Diego, CA, 1993).
50. 50)
  - 13. Valtolina, S., Vanzi, S., Montanari, R., Minin, L., Marzani, S.: ‘Design of warning delivery strategies in advanced rider assistance systems’. ASME 2011 World Conf. on Innovative Virtual Reality, Italy, Milan, June 2011, pp. 41–50.

Methodological development of a specific tool for assessing acceptability of assistive systems of powered two-wheeler-riders

References

Related content