Reference FP04 Project Title Human factors related to remote control of automated heavy vehicles Coordinator Scania Project Manager Linda Meiby ([email protected]) Project Duration 2020-01-15 – 2020-04-30 Page 1 of 44 FinalReport_SAFER Pre-studies Stage V_Remote Control_Submitted.docx Contents Summary ................................................................................................................................................ 4 HUMAN FACTORS RELATED TO REMOTE CONTROL OF AUTOMATED HEAVY VEHICLES ............ 5 1. Background .................................................................................................................................... 5 2. Project set up ................................................................................................................................. 6 2.3 Purpose ...................................................................................................................................... 6 2.4 Objectives .................................................................................................................................. 6 2.5 Project period ........................................................................................................................... 6 2.6 Partners ..................................................................................................................................... 6 3. Method and activities .................................................................................................................... 7 4. Results and Deliverables ............................................................................................................... 8 5. Theoretical framework for remote operation ............................................................................. 8 6. Remote operation and its complexity .......................................................................................... 9 7. State of the art .............................................................................................................................. 13 7.1 Literature review .................................................................................................................... 13 7.2 Remote driving companies .................................................................................................... 17 7.3 Relevant Swedish research projects ..................................................................................... 18 iQMatic & iQPilot .......................................................................................................................... 19 DriverSense ................................................................................................................................... 20 AVTCT phase 1 and phase 2 ......................................................................................................... 21 ITRL’s lab facilities ....................................................................................................................... 22 REDO ............................................................................................................................................. 22 MERGEN ........................................................................................................................................ 23 7.4 Relevant European projects ................................................................................................... 23 7.5 Interviews and workshops .................................................................................................... 24 Interview REDO project: WP 2 ..................................................................................................... 24 Interview REDO project: WP 3 ..................................................................................................... 25 Interview Voysys ........................................................................................................................... 25 Workshop 1 ................................................................................................................................... 27 Workshop 2 ................................................................................................................................... 27 Page 2 of 44 FinalReport_SAFER Pre-studies Stage V_Remote Control_Submitted.docx 8 Research gaps and challenges ..................................................................................................... 29 8.1 Literature review research questions ................................................................................... 29 8.2 Workshop 1 research questions ............................................................................................ 29 8.3 Workshop 2 research questions ............................................................................................ 30 9 Conclusions, Lessons Learnt and Next Steps ............................................................................. 37 10 Dissemination and Publications ............................................................................................ 40 11 Acknowledgement .................................................................................................................. 40 12 References ............................................................................................................................... 40 Page 3 of 44 FinalReport_SAFER Pre-studies Stage V_Remote Control_Submitted.docx Summary Currently, most highly automated vehicles still require the presence of a human safety operator in the vehicle, and it is evident that automated driving without human “fallback” might be distant. On the other hand, having a human operator in the vehicle jeopardizes major anticipated benefits of automated driving – productivity. This is especially evident when it comes to heavy automated vehicles. To bridge this gap, stakeholders are exploring teleoperations technology, which enables highly automated vehicles to be remotely operated if necessary. But remote operation comes with its own challenges, both from technical and human behavior perspectives. In this SAFER co-financed prestudy, Scania and RISE have identified potential safety challenges and research gaps related to human behavior in the context of remote operation of heavy automated vehicles. A general view of the human factors related challenges within the remote operation topic can be summarized by highlighting phenomena such as physical and psychological distancing, screen delays, network latency delays, inefficient interface designs, and human operator’s cognitive limitations. These are not exclusive to one single operational level, or application type, and are often interrelated. A larger body of scientific work can be found related to human factors in remote operation in other domains (e.g., robotics, aerial drones, military). Some of the findings from these domains can have value for the automotive domain, however, generally design requirements are not directly transferable between domains as there are domain specific challenges. An overall conclusion from the prestudy is that human factors in remote operation of highly automated road vehicles have been somewhat neglected by industry and research community. By providing an overall conceptualization of remote operation and its complexity, a theoretical framework, a state of the art overview, and a list of gaps and challenges, the expectation is that this pre-study will stimulate more activities in the area. Page 4 of 44 FinalReport_SAFER Pre-studies Stage V_Remote Control_Submitted.docx HUMAN FACTORS RELATED TO REMOTE CONTROL OF AUTOMATED HEAVY VEHICLES Authors: Habibovic, A., Andersson, J., Castor, M., Meiby, L. and Rizgary, D. 1. Background Current questions about automated vehicles (AVs) do not revolve around whether such technologies should or should not be implemented; they are already with us. Rather, such questions are more and more focused on how such technologies will impact evolving transportation systems, our social world, and the individuals who live within it and whether such systems ought to be fully automated or remain under some form of direct human control. It may be that human intervention does not necessarily need to be from inside the vehicle; instead the physical location of the human controller could be remote from the actual vehicle itself. Regardless of the specific spatial relations between the controller and vehicle, the human operator will require effective situation awareness calibrated to ambient environmental demands at all times because the point at which any such human intervention will be required remains unpredictable as yet. Again, this raises the spectre of prolonged vigilance and its well-known decrement and response failure. This human-as-backup architecture, which removes the person from momentary control and instead places him or her in a supervisory context, in many ways defeats the very idea of automation in the first place. However, it is currently seen as a necessary transition phase, and a way to put automated vehicles on the market in the near future. During the last five years of the AVs development boom, there has been a growth in the number of commercial companies promoting control concepts and technical solutions for teleoperation which enables more direct human control of heavy road vehicles, although from a remote location, i.e. remote driving. Many concepts and solutions