Published in IET Intelligent Transport SystemsReceived on 27th September 2008Revised on 20th February 2009doi: 10.1049/iet-its:20080083

ISSN 1751-956X

168

& T

www.ietdl.org

Planning and implementing field operationaltests of intelligent transport systems:a checklist derived from the EC FESTA projectM.A. Regan1 J.H. Richardson2

1Institut National de Recherche sur les Transports et leur Securite (INRETS), 25 Avenue Francois Mitterrand,BRON cedex 69675, France2ESRI, Loughborough University, Loughborough LE11 3TU, UKE-mail: michael.regan@inrets.fr

Abstract: To date, the main focus of intelligent transport systems (ITS) research programmes has been ontechnology development and proof of concept, rather than on understanding the implications of systemimplementation. Improved knowledge is needed about the ways in which drivers use ITS, their short- andlong-term effects and how system performance can be optimised. The field operational test, or FOT, is asophisticated evaluation method that can be used to answer these and other critical questions, and tostimulate market acceptance and demand for ITS. Although the large-scale FOTs conducted to date haveyielded important insights into both the positive and potentially negative impacts of ITS, there is considerablescope for improving the design and implementation of FOTs. There are many advantages in doing so. Theauthors outline, in the form of a checklist, the critical steps and considerations involved in successfullyplanning and implementing an FOT, drawing on work undertaken in the EC-funded FESTA (Field opErationalTeSt support Action) project.

1 IntroductionIntelligent transport systems (ITS) employ information andcommunication technologies (ICTs) to enhance the safety,efficiency, user- and environmental-friendliness of thetransport system. Essentially, they are ICTs applied totransport. Although the idea of using ICTs toimprove transport systems emerged during the early 1950s, itis only in the last 20 years that systems technically capable ofmeeting the expectations of stakeholders have been developed[1]. In Europe, the European Commission (EC) has fundedmany ITS-related research and development projects duringthis period, under the EC’s major research frameworkprogrammes. Comparable research programmes have alsobeen funded and undertaken in Japan and the United States.The main focus of these research programmes has been ontechnology development and proof of concept, rather than onestablishing the implications of system implementation [2].Although demonstrations have tested the technical and

he Institution of Engineering and Technology 2009

functional behaviour of systems, they have often beenconstrained by controlled conditions and a limited scale,because of both a scarcity of equipment and restrictions onbeing able to operate pre-production systems in real trafficenvironments [2]. As Zobel [2] points out (p. 16), thissituation has created a need for improved knowledge of somekey questions that are crucial for faster marketimplementation of ITS technologies: ‘..the way drivers useintelligent systems, what their short and long term effects are,and how system performance could be further improved’.

Field operational test (FOT) is a sophisticated evaluationmethod that can be used to answer these sorts of questions. AFOT is ‘a study undertaken to evaluate a function, orfunctions, under normal operating conditions inenvironments typically encountered by the host vehicle(s)using quasi-experimental methods’ [3, p. 1]. Basically, it is alarge-scale, quasi-experimental field evaluation of an ITStechnology or function. A FOT allows for the rigorous

IET Intell. Transp. Syst., 2009, Vol. 3, Iss. 2, pp. 168–184doi: 10.1049/iet-its:20080083

IETdoi

www.ietdl.org

assessment of ITS-based systems in their intendedenvironment by their intended users, on a scale, and with aduration, sufficient enough for statistically robust conclusionsto be drawn. FOTs can be designed to address many issues[2]: to validate system effectiveness in enhancing safer, cleanerand more efficient transport; analyse driver behaviour anduser acceptance of systems; analyse and assess system impact;improve awareness of ITS potential and create marketacceptance and demand; and derive technical data for systemdesign, re-design and product development. Further, the ‘realroad’ assessment context is readily understood by potentialusers, system developers, manufacturers and the regulatoryauthorities, and the extensive data collected can support awide range of post hoc investigations by researchers, for manyyears.

2 Previous FOT activityThere are significant technical, organisational and logisticchallenges in planning, preparing for and implementing alarge-scale FOT – and there is a step change increase inresource requirements compared with traditional, smallerscale, demonstrations. Despite this, there has been a surgein FOT activity during the last decade.

In the USA, for example, the University of MichiganTransportation Research Institute (UMTRI) undertook inthe late 1990s a pioneering assessment of the impact ofintelligent cruise control usage on passenger car drivers [4]. Atotal of 108 drivers drove ten equipped vehicles as their ownpersonal cars for periods of 2–5 weeks, completing some35 000 miles of recorded driving. This was succeeded by anevaluation of autonomous collision avoidance systems inconjunction with General Motors [5]. A sample of driversusing 11 equipped vehicles completed some 137 000 miles ofclosely monitored driving over a 12-month period. Theseinitial FOT activities were significantly extended through theUS Department of Transport’s (DoT’s) Intelligent VehicleInitiative (IVI); a programme of FOTs undertaken with truckmanufacturers, their suppliers and the haulage industry whoseaim was to assess the safety benefits of a range of intelligentvehicle safety systems. The programmeme assessed the valueof collision warning, lane departure warning, intelligentbraking, ACC and roll stability warning systems within astrong cost–benefit analysis methodology.

Large-scale FOTs have also been undertaken in Europe,notably in Sweden, France, the Netherlands and the UK.The then Swedish National Road Authority implementedan extensive FOT to evaluate the effects of IntelligentSpeed Adaptation (ISA), a system that automatically limitsvehicle speed to the posted limit or warns the driver whenit is exceeded. Several variants of the system were evaluated,in over 4500 vehicles in four test sites [6]. In France, theMinistry of Transport sponsored the LAVIA (Limiteurs’Adaptant a la VItesse Autorisee) project, to assess ISA ina test site south of Paris. One hundred volunteer driversused 20 vehicles to assess three variants of ISA: advisory,

Intell. Transp. Syst., 2009, Vol. 3, Iss. 2, pp. 168–184: 10.1049/iet-its:20080083

voluntary and mandatory [7]. In 1999, the NetherlandsMinistry of Transport also conducted an ISA assessment inthe town of Tilburg. The FOT involved 20 passenger carsand some 120 drivers experiencing ISA over an eight-weekperiod [8]. Finally, in the UK the Department forTransport sponsored ISA trials undertaken by theUniversity of Leeds and MIRA Ltd [9]. These trialsinvolved the use of 20 instrumented vehicles by 79volunteer drivers over a period of 24 weeks each. Smaller-scale ISA FOTs have also been conducted in Finland andBelgium [10]. Interestingly, the focus of FOTs in Europehas been almost exclusively on ISA.

FOTs have also been carried out in the southern hemisphere,notably in Japan and Australia. In Japan, vehicle manufacturerstend to use the home market itself as a large-scale FOT for theearly evaluation of new systems, and the FOT is seen as anintegral part of the research and development chain [2]. InAustralia, FOTs have been less common. Notable, however,is the Transport Accident Commission (TAC) SafeCarproject, which evaluated, alone and in combination, three ITStechnologies: ISA, headway warning and seatbelt reminders.In that study, 23 fleet car drivers completed 16 000 km ofdriving in 15 test vehicles [11, 12]. Interestingly the study wasfunded by an insurance company (the TAC).

This brief summary has highlighted some of the majorFOTs conducted to date. Details of further significantFOTs are provided in the Appendix, but many otherevaluation studies have been undertaken, many on a smallerscale. If the definition of a FOT is broadened to includethe assessment of intelligent infrastructure (e.g. variablemessage signs), then the number of FOTs is very muchgreater. Although the large-scale FOTs conducted to datehave yielded important insights into both the positive andpotentially negative impacts of ITS, there has beenconsiderable variation between studies in the aims,objectives and approaches undertaken. This diversity canmake it difficult to make robust comparisons between theresults obtained. If, for example, there is inconsistency inthe outcomes of ISA FOTs undertaken in two countries, isthis because of technical differences in the systemsevaluated or because of critical differences in the manysignificant study design-related variables (e.g. driverexperience and training, test duration, traffic environment,data recording and analysis equipment and protocols etc.)?The ability to draw, with confidence, conclusions from theoutcomes of different FOTs requires a degree ofharmonisation in methodology. Furthermore, while thestudies described have been major undertakings at theregional and state level, they are relatively modest whenconsidered at a global level. There is considerable diversityin conditions across, for example, Europe or NorthAmerica (market, traffic conditions, geography, climateetc.) and FOTs involving multiple samples of drivers andthousands of vehicles are necessary in order to achievestatistically reliable results that are representative of thesubject populations.

169& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2009

170

& T

www.ietdl.org

3 Future FOT activity in EuropeAs noted, the EC has played a major role in supporting thedevelopment of ITS in Europe over the past 20 years, withITS being seen as a critical technology in the achievement ofthe Commission’s goals relating to improvements in transportsafety, mobility, efficiency and environmental sustainability.Under the various R&D Framework Programmes, theCommission has supported a wide range of ITS technologydevelopment and demonstration projects. However, it wasonly following the adoption of the Intelligent Car Initiative in2006, and the associated commitment to implement ITSacross Europe, that calls for major FOT evaluations becameinsistent.

The seventh European research framework programme(FP7) will fund EC-supported research and developmentduring 2007–2013, and FOTs will be among the majoractivities undertaken within ICT priority challenge 6 (ICTfor Mobility, Environmental Sustainability and Energy). TheEC has planned FOT deployment in three successive phases[2], with the aim of ensuring compatibility across Europe ofdata collected, data analysed, interoperability of solutions anda common methodological framework: an initial preparationactivity to develop a common methodological approach fordesigning, running and evaluating FOTs; several large-scaleFOTs that address mature or close-to-market technologies;and a third phase that will build on the outcomes of the firsttwo phases and investigate cooperative ITS technologies.

After a call for proposals, and their subsequent review, theEC approved support for three projects within this FOTdeployment path: FESTA (Field opErational TeSt supportAction), a six-month, Phase 1, support action, and two majorPhase 2 FOTs – EuroFOT and TeleFOT. FESTA, which isthe focus of the remainder of this paper, has developed acommon methodology. EuroFOT will assess advanced driverassistance systems (ADAS) and active safety systems, whereasTeleFOT will assess the issues of safe installation and use invehicles of nomadic and aftermarket devices. The two latterprojects commenced in mid-2008.

4 The EC FESTA projectThe FESTA project, completed in August 2008, produced asits major deliverable a handbook of best practice for thedesign and implementation of FOTs in Europe [3]. Thehandbook describes, in nine chapters, the key issues to beaddressed: the steps in planning and running a FOT(Chapter 2 and Annex B); legal and ethical issues (Chapter3); the selection of functions to be tested, and definition ofuse cases, research questions and hypotheses relating tothose functions (Chapter 4); the selection of performancemeasures and indicators for testing research hypotheses(Chapter 5); experimental procedures, including participantselection, study design, study environment and pilot testing(Chapter 6); guidelines on data acquisition (Chapter 7);guidelines for databases and analysis tools (Chapter 8); data

he Institution of Engineering and Technology 2009

analysis and modelling (Chapter 9); and determining socio-economic impact (Chapter 10).

Chapter 2 of the handbook, and in particular Annex B(FOT Implementation Plan), is the focus of the remainderof this paper. The FOT Implementation Plan is describedin the following section.

5 The FOT implementation plan5.1 Purpose

The FOT Implementation Plan, or FOTIP, is intended toserve primarily as a checklist for planning and running FOTs.It serves several sub-purposes: to highlight the main activitiesand tasks that would normally be undertaken in successfullycompleting a FOT; to ensure that, in running a FOT,researchers and support teams are aware of critical issues thatinfluence the success of the FOT; to highlight the ‘dos’ and‘don’ts’ of running a FOT, by drawing on the experiences ofprevious FOTs; and to provide a consistent framework forplanning, running and decommissioning FOTs.

As noted, the FOTIP appears as Annexe B to the FESTAHandbook, in the form of a table that spans 28 pages. TheFOTIP and its development are described below.

5.2 Development of the FOTIP

The content of the FOTIP derives from several researchactivities undertaken within Work Package 2.5 of theFESTA project [3]: (a) A review of the literature on previousFOTs undertaken in different parts of the world: the UnitedStates and Canada; the Asia-Pacific region (including Japanand Australia); Europe; and Scandinavia. This includedreference, where possible, to FOT project plans, internalreports, meeting minutes and related documents. (b) A one-day international workshop with FOT experts who hadpreviously conducted FOTs in Australia, Europe and theUnited States. This activity, along with the outputs of theliterature reviews, identified critical activities and tasksnecessary for successfully conducting FOTs, as well as thepractical ‘dos’ and ‘don’ts’ of carrying out FOTs. (c) Aninternational teleconference with experts with experience inconducting FOTs and so-called ‘naturalistic driving studies’.This augmented the information derived from the workshop.(d) Written feedback from FOT experts, who commented onan earlier draft of the FOTIP. (e) Internal consultation withother members of the FESTA consortium, to identify criticalscientific, technical and administrative activities arising fromother FESTA research activities undertaken in developingother chapters of the FESTA Handbook.

The literature review generated information about factorsthat were common across the many FOTs that have beenundertaken to date. It also identified particularly valuableinformation regarding failures in execution, unanticipatedproblems and remedial measures. However, it generated

IET Intell. Transp. Syst., 2009, Vol. 3, Iss. 2, pp. 168–184doi: 10.1049/iet-its:20080083

IETdoi:

www.ietdl.org

relatively little information about the FOT planning process.This information was secured through the interviews,teleconferences and workshops, in an iterative fashion.Through this process the chronological series of majoractivities were identified, reviewed and refined [3]. Theintent was to provide a guide that would be comprehensive,but also as generic as possible. The FESTA projectdeliverable groups these major activities into four commonproject life-cycle phases: set-up/design, preparation, datacollection and completion. Noteworthy is that most of the22 activities must be considered in the very first phase ofthe project (set-up/design), even if they are only a strongfocus of activity much later in the FOT.

The definition of the major activities then allowed thesubsequent definition of sub-activities and associatedresponsible parties relatively quickly. This initial structurewas then used as a framework for eliciting the collectiveknowledge from FOT experts, which comprises the criticalconsiderations (the ‘dos and don’ts’). This latterinformation is, to our knowledge, not available in any otherpublished form and will provide those planning FOTs withconsiderable collected ‘wisdom’.

5.3 Description of the FOTIP

The original FOTIP, developed within the FESTA project,is presented in the form of a table with five column headings.These are labelled, from left to right, ‘Activities’, ‘Tasks andSub-Tasks’, ‘Person/Organisation Responsible for Activity’,‘Critical Considerations (the ‘dos’ and ‘don’ts’)’ and‘General Advice’ [3]. The original table is a 28-pagedocument that is too long to reproduce in this paper.Instead, we have summarised and distilled here the criticalinformation deriving from the original table. This ispresented in Table 1.

The table contains three columns. Column 1 (labelled‘Activities’) lists the 22 key activities that were identified inthe FESTA project as being necessary in successfullyplanning, running and de-commissioning a FOT. Column 2(labelled ‘Tasks’) lists the 161 Tasks that were identified asbeing necessary to directly support these Activities.Essentially, this column contains a series of action statements– ‘do this’; ‘do that’; etc. Generally, the Tasks in this columnare listed in the chronological order in which they wouldnormally proceed. Column 3 (labelled Critical considerations(the ‘dos’ and ‘don’ts’)) summarises the more importantadvice relating to the planning, design and setting up of aFOT. The recommendations in Column 3 are in noparticular order.

Although the table is self-explanatory, some key messagescan be discerned [3]. A FOT is a large and complex activitythat requires a dedicated project manager, careful planningand a competent, multidisciplinary team. Effectivecommunication and coordination within the FOT, andbetween FOT teams and external parties and stakeholders,

Intell. Transp. Syst., 2009, Vol. 3, Iss. 2, pp. 168–18410.1049/iet-its:20080083

is essential. There should be mutual agreement on all risksto all parties before signing contracts, and all FOTactivities should be signed off as they are completed. Legal,ethical and other obligations and issues must be identified,addressed and resolved early in the FOT. Aims, objectivesand research questions must be identified, prioritised andagreed on by all relevant stakeholders early in the project,as they critically determine everything that follows. To caterfor uncertainty, the time and budget required to completethe FOT should not be underestimated.

FOTs generate a lot of information. The project team shoulddocument as much information as possible, especially criticalprocedural knowledge, decisions, problems and lessons learnt.Communication with the media, especially early in the FOT,should be carefully controlled so as not to experimentallycontaminate the FOT. The FOT design should includecontrol conditions that enable changes in driver performanceand safety (positive and negative) attributable to systemexposure to be measured and quantified, and which ensurethat the effects observed cannot be attributed to anyconfounding factors (e.g. seasonal changes in weather)unrelated to the systems being evaluated. The time requiredfor public authorities to provide supporting infrastructure forthe FOT is often considerable, and must be anticipated.Project teams should not underestimate the time required torecruit participants, especially from corporate fleets – andshould be well prepared for driver dropout. All systems,procedures and equipment should be thoroughly pilot testedbefore running the FOT, and project teams should ensurethat all participants in the FOT know how to operate thesystems being evaluated – if not, participants may not use them.

During the FOT, it is critical to ensure that all data arebeing properly recorded and downloaded, and thatparticipants report technical problems. Project teams shouldbe prepared for emergencies and incidents around the clock(e.g. a crash). It is important to decide early how tomanage post-project data – to decide what will happen toit, and who will have access to it. Finally, it is common forFOTs to lose momentum after the final report is written.Final reports must contain practical recommendations forimplementation activity, derived in consultation withrelevant stakeholders, and key stakeholders must be lobbiedto implement these recommendations.

6 DiscussionPrevious sections of this paper have defined what is meant bya FOT, what they can achieve, past, current and futureanticipated FOT activity, especially within Europe, and theoutcomes of the EC-funded FESTA project – with aparticular focus on the development of the FOTIP. Somefurther, more general, comments can be made about theFOTIP in Table 1.

The FOTIP is not intended to be prescriptive, but ratherto serve as a generic guide in conducting FOTs. There are

171

& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2009

172

&

www.ietdl.org

Table 1 Activities, tasks and critical considerations in planning and executing aFOT (Adapted from Centro Ricerche Fiat, 2008.With permission)

Activities Tasks Critical considerations(the ‘dos’ and ‘don’ts’)

1. convene FOT teamsand people

† appoint FOT project manager† appoint research team† appoint technical support team† appoint administrative support team† appoint team leaders in each of the research,technical and administrative teams† appoint project steering committee† appoint project management team (for day-to-daymanagement)† appoint accounting/auditing advisor† appoint a legal and ethics advisor† appoint sub-contractors† appoint a public relations/communications advisor† sign off on agreed research and support structure

appoint a multidisciplinary researchteam./don’t vest critical knowledgein just one person/appoint astandby for all key roles/appoint,early, ethics and legal advisors/include ‘gizmo expert’ on top of ICTand GIS developments/have regularproject management meetings/choose contractors with backupcapacity/ensure the FOT evaluationprocess is independent/identifyearly a disputes resolution arbiter

2. define aims,objectives, researchquestions andhypotheses

† define aims and objectives of FOT, in conjunctionwith relevant stakeholders† identify systems and functions to be tested† identify use cases/situations in which systems andfunctions are to be tested† define research questions and prioritise them† formulate hypotheses to be tested, deriving fromresearch questions† determine and resolve constraints that may preventthe aims and objectives from being met† define final aims and objectives of the FOT, and seekagreement from relevant stakeholders† sign off on aims and objectives of FOT

anticipate that FOT objectives maychange when administrationschange/anticipate that differentstakeholders may have conflictingviews about what they want toobtain out of the FOT/defineresearch questions and prioritisethem early to ensure they remainthe focus of the FOT

3. develop FOT projectmanagement plan

† define project activities, tasks and sub-tasks† decide who is accountable for completion ofactivities, tasks and sub-tasks† determine timelines for completion of activities,tasks and sub-tasks† determine budget for project activities, tasks andtimelines† develop a project GANTT chart to guide projectmanagement† implement procedures for monitoring projectactivities, timelines, budgets and resources (e.g. projectmanagement team meetings)† undertake a risk assessment for the FOT and plancontingencies as required† determine sign off procedures (meetings anddocuments) to ensure that there is sign off on all criticaldecisions and stages in the FOT by all relevant parties† agree on project issues that are confidential andimplement mechanisms for safeguarding theirconfidentiality

try and negotiate a 5–10%contingency budget/anticipate theneed to consult external specialists/3rd party vehicle fleets may changeduring the FOT (e.g. vehicleupgrades and changes in operatingroutes)/develop procedural manualsto ensure that, if staff leave,procedural knowledge does not gowith them/document outcomes ofall project meetings to record criticaldecisions, lessons learnt and justifypotential problems/use a budgetingstructure that accommodatesunanticipated events/be aware thatin some jurisdictions project papersmay be publicly accessed

(Continued)

IET Intell. Transp. Syst., 2009, Vol. 3, Iss. 2, pp. 168–184The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2009 doi: 10.1049/iet-its:20080083

IETdoi

www.ietdl.org

Table 1 Continued

Activities Tasks Critical considerations(the ‘dos’ and ‘don’ts’)

† develop a manual for conducting the FOT thatdocuments critical procedural knowledge† sign off on project management plan

4. implementprocedures andprotocols forcommunicating withstakeholders

† commission communications advisor to designcommunications plan† develop and implement communications plan† appoint media spokespeople† sign off on agreed communication protocols

control communication with themedia through a trained mediaspokesperson/build political supportfor the project early in the FOT/limitmedia attention until data collectionis complete/budget for unsolicitedmedia attention/plan to have someresults available early in project/prepare a response in case ofserious incidents, such as crashing ofa test vehicle/anticipate directcontact between the media andparticipant drivers/maintain opencommunication with all stakeholdersto ensure objectives of FOT are clearand that stakeholders are committedto the project/decide in advancemaximum turnaround time forapprovals to speak to media

5. design the Study † become familiar with the methods, measures andprocedures of previous FOTs:

– read the FESTA Handbook– attend FOTNET seminars and similar events and

networking activities– talk to experts who have conducted FOTs previously– review the relevant literature

† identify the performance indicators necessary to testthe hypotheses derived in Activity 1† select measures (objective and subjective) that allowperformance indicators to be derived to test thehypotheses† identify the sensors and sensor requirements forobtaining the required measures† design the experimental methods, tools andprocedures for testing the hypotheses† define the experimental environment in which toconduct the FOT† define methods, tools, requirements and proceduresfor acquiring, storing, transferring, de-coding, reducing/transcribing, filtering, backing up and verifying the data† define methods, tools and procedures for analyzingthe data† determine sample characteristics and optimal size(conduct power analyses) to ensure sufficient statisticalpower

historic data (e.g. data on vehiclespeeds on certain roads) is necessaryfor baseline comparisons and cost–benefit Analysis/plan for directcomparisons to be made betweenobjective data and subjective data/employ a multidisciplinary team todevelop hypotheses/ensure allterms and phrases making up theresearch questions and hypothesesare clearly defined andunambiguous/don’t change thestudy design (e.g. reduce the samplesize in order to save money) if itcompromises the scientific integrityof the study/don’t assume studyparticipants will be the only driversof the vehicles/everyone mustunderstand the FOT study design, sothat they appreciate the timingissues and the consequences ofchanges/delays in one area of theprogramme cannot always be madein other areas/when performing thesample size calculations, allow forparticipant attrition/anticipate that,

(Continued)

Intell. Transp. Syst., 2009, Vol. 3, Iss. 2, pp. 168–184 173: 10.1049/iet-its:20080083 & The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2009

174

& T

www.ietdl.org

Table 1 Continued

Activities Tasks Critical considerations(the ‘dos’ and ‘don’ts’)

† select models for estimating the potential safety,environmental and other benefits of the technologiestested† sign off on study design, methods and tools,questionnaires and associated procedures

for the business sector, thecommercial impact of systemdeployment (e.g. on productivity)will be important to evaluate

6. identify and resolveFOT legal and ethicalissues

† seek specialist advice to identify relevant legal andethical issues† resolve all legal and ethical issues that can beidentified in advance† create contracts and confidentiality agreements withall relevant parties (e.g. car leasing organisations,suppliers, consultants, fleet managers, researchers etc.)for all relevant issues (e.g. data collection, provision andusage, theft, insurance, privacy, duty of care, property,disposal of vehicles after the study etc.)† seek ethics approval to conduct study (whererequired) from relevant ethics committee† seek expert advice regarding liability issues and toensure insurance provision is adequate for allforeseeable eventualities† ensure that vehicles’ licensing requirements areadhered to in spite of the modifications(implementation of data logging equipment andpossibly systems to be evaluated etc.)† obtain informed consent of participants before theyare allowed to participate in the FOT† sign off on all aspects of the FOT design andprocedures pertaining to legal and ethical matters

mutually agree on risks to all partiesbefore signing contracts/check theFOT accords with ethical and legalrequirements in all relevantjurisdictions/ensure that allintellectual property issues areresolved early/clarify the conditionsunder which a participant will beexpelled from the FOT/clarifyparticipant responsibilities and thestudy’s obligations to theparticipants/data use agreementsshould allow for anonomised data tobe passed to third parties. (NB withGPS and video data it may be verydifficult to guarantee anonymity)/allstudy team members mustunderstand the agreed response to amajor incident/identify and satisfyall ethics committee requirementswhen and if required

7. select and obtainFOT vehicles

† specify functional requirements, performancespecifications and user requirements for the testvehicles needed for the study† specify functional requirements and performancespecifications for the integration into vehicles of alltechnologies needed for the FOT (FOT technologies,support technologies and data collection technologies),if these are not already in the vehicles† select test vehicles (makes and models) that meetabove requirements† purchase, lease, hire or borrow (where the driverowns the vehicle) the test vehicles† sign off on selection and obtaining of test vehicles

choice of vehicles must beundertaken early in the project’splanning, and may impinge on theselection of participants/obtainone or two extra vehicles to act asreserves and demonstrators/chooseconservative model vehicles astest vehicles/consider vehiclemaintenance requirements andthe dealer network that is availablein the FOT area

8. select and obtainsystems and functionsto be evaluated duringFOT (if they are notalready implementedin the vehicles)

† develop selection criteria for choosing systems andfunctions (OEM, aftermarket and nomadic) to be tested(if the technologies to be tested have not already beenselected by the sponsor)† use above selection criteria to select and obtainsystems to be tested

ensure selected technologies caninterface with data-logging system/beware of costs required to adapttechnologies for research purposes/public authorities will usually require

(Continued)

IET Intell. Transp. Syst., 2009, Vol. 3, Iss. 2, pp. 168–184he Institution of Engineering and Technology 2009 doi: 10.1049/iet-its:20080083

IETdoi

www.ietdl.org

Table 1 Continued

Activities Tasks Critical considerations(the ‘dos’ and ‘don’ts’)

† if commercial systems do not exist, that meet theabove criteria, develop functional requirements andperformance specifications for systems that do,(including for HMI and security issues)† develop functional requirements and performancespecifications for the infrastructure needed to supportthe deployment of the technologies to be tested (e.g.digital maps, roadside beacons)† source infrastructure that meets the abovefunctional requirements and specifications† where infrastructure is not commercially available,develop supporting infrastructure that meets the abovefunctional requirements and performancespecifications† if appropriate, issue expressions of interest/requestsfor tenders for provision of systems and supportinginfrastructure† if appropriate select preferred tenderers, negotiatecontracts and award contracts† decide what will be done with the test vehicles, andthe equipment in them, once the FOT has beencompleted† sign off on selection and obtaining of technologies tobe evaluated during the FOT

considerable time to provideinfrastructure to support a FOT

9. select and obtaindata collection andtransfer systems forFOT vehicles

† specify data to be logged (measures and samplingrate)† specify functional requirements and performancespecifications for systems for collecting and transferringthe data to be logged† source, purchase and/or develop systems for loggingand transferring the data that meet the abovefunctional requirements and performancespecifications† sign off on selection and obtaining of data collectionand transfer system for test vehicles

plan for software upgrades andsensor recalibration during the FOT– preferably remotely/make sure in-vehicle data logging systems areunobtrusive, safe, secure andaccessible to enable routine repairs/keep a stock of spares for criticalitems (eg flash memory cards)/minimise driver involvement in datadownload from test vehicles/testsystem and logger boot-up timemust be fast enough to prevent dataloss at the beginning of each trip/ensure that a common time stamp isused for all recorded data sources/regular confirmation that datacollection is proceeding correctly isessential/anticipate ad hoc and posthoc interrogation of raw data files toanswer additional questions

10. select and obtainsupport systems forFOT vehicles

† define the support systems needed† develop functional requirements and performancespecifications for systems needed to supportthe study

ideally support systems should becapable of remote operation toallow, for example, remote systemre-boot/anticipate data analysis

(Continued)

Intell. Transp. Syst., 2009, Vol. 3, Iss. 2, pp. 168–184 175: 10.1049/iet-its:20080083 & The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2009

176

& T

www.ietdl.org

Table 1 Continued

Activities Tasks Critical considerations(the ‘dos’ and ‘don’ts’)

† where appropriate, develop functional requirementsand performance specifications for the HMI, to ensurethat the HMI for support systems is safe and user-friendly† source, purchase and/or develop support systemsthat meet above functional requirements andperformance specifications† sign off on selection and obtaining of supportsystems for test vehicles

requirements before specifying datato be logged (e.g., rates andresolution)/ensure that missing dataare uniquely indicated in data files/log more parameters if performanceof the data logging system or storagecapacity are not affected

11. equip FOT vehicleswith all technologies

† prepare a system installation/integrationspecification† equip test vehicles with the FOT technologies to beevaluated (if not already in vehicles)† equip test vehicles with data collection and transfersystems† equip vehicles with FOT support systems (e.g. panicbutton, for turning systems on and off etc.)† sign off on system integration activities, ensuringthat all systems have been installed in accordance withthe system installation/integration specification

FOT-related in-car computer musthave sufficient processing power toavoid delays/all systems (FOT, datacollection and support) mustoperate identically across testvehicles/try to make all adaptationsto test vehicles invisible to reducethe likelihood of theft or behaviourmodification by other drivers/allowa burn in period (around 1000 km)so that vehicle faults that coulddisrupt the FOT are resolved/createprotocols that standardise theprocedure for installing all in-vehicleequipment

12. design andimplement driverfeedback andreporting systems

† design, develop and implement systems andprocedures to allow drivers to report technicalproblems in a timely manner† design, develop and implement systems andprocedures to allow drivers to provide feedback toresearchers, in real time or retrospectively(e. g. usability problems, opinions of systems,confirmation that systems are operating as requiredetc.)† design, develop and implement systems andprocedures that allow researchers to monitorparticipant progress (e.g. to ensure they are adheringto study requirements)† sign off on implementation of driver feedback andreporting systems and procedures

implement driver trip diaries ifnecessary/implement a timetablefor collection of qualitative data/note – drivers may not completediaries or attend interviews/appointa driver liaison person as a singlepoint of contact/ensure projectteam is responsive to emergenciesand incidents on a 24/7 basis/knowwhen participants are going onholiday/or not driving/record allreported problems and documentthem/document feedback andreporting procedures in a referencemanual/decide how to collect fuelconsumption information/appreciate that drivers will notalways use fuel cards, return fueldockets or fill in fuel logbooks

13. select, obtain andimplement standardrelational database forstoring FOT data

† design, develop and implement a database forstoring data logged from the test vehicles† design, develop and implement a database forstoring the subjective data collected from participants

ensure a system evaluator reviewsthe database architecture prior toFOT launch/make copies of rawdata, reduced raw data and all

(Continued)

IET Intell. Transp. Syst., 2009, Vol. 3, Iss. 2, pp. 168–184he Institution of Engineering and Technology 2009 doi: 10.1049/iet-its:20080083

IETdoi:

www.ietdl.org

Table 1 Continued

Activities Tasks Critical considerations(the ‘dos’ and ‘don’ts’)

(e.g. from questionnaires, from focus groups, fromfeedback lines etc.)† develop data navigation and visualisation tools† sign off on database for storing FOT data

processed data files, and store awayfrom primary data store/useindustry standard relationaldatabase to store data/ensure nounauthorised access to database/design database to reduce need forpost-collection manipulation/decideearly how to manage post-projectdata. Key issues are: What happensto data when project ends? Who hasdata usage rights? Who can accessit? Who pays for possible storage?/Where data is taken off-line, whatmeta data should be kept, and how?

14. test alltechnologies againstfunctionalrequirements andperformancespecifications

† develop ‘acceptance testing’ protocols to determinewhether systems meet specifications† test the technologies for acceptance, using theacceptance testing protocol† develop a usability test plan for the purpose ofassessing the systems for usability† conduct usability testing, using the usability testingplan, to ensure systems are user-friendly and that thesystems meet all usability assessment criteria† obtain or develop a valid and reliable ergonomicchecklist† assess systems, using the ergonomic checklist, toensure that they meet all relevant criteria† assess vehicles against relevant certificationprocedures to ensure that vehicles are safe, roadworthyand comply with all relevant National, State andTerritory laws, treaties and other protocols† ensure that all vehicle modifications that affectprimary safety are signed off by a competent engineeror appropriate testing authority† rectify all technical, usability, ergonomic andcertification issues where deficiencies are noted† sign off on completion of all systems tests

don’t sign off on previous activitiesuntil all technologies have beentested and refined/don’t let systemsdrain the battery when the engine isoff/legally secure all retrofittedsystems/implement qualityassurance programmes for sub-contractors/beware – system clockscan drift significantly/ensure thatalignment and calibration of sensorsis maintained and tested in allpotential weather conditions/beware – system components maybecome corrupted over time withcontinuous use/create aninstallation manual for all vehiclemodification procedures/obtainwaivers or special licenses forequipment that is non-compliant(e.g. radars outside legalbandwidths)/employ a competentauthority to test vehiclemodifications for safety (e.g. properdeployment of airbags followingmodification to vehicle interiors)/Beware – some systems (e.g.displays) that are not OEM-installedmay fail in automotiveenvironments/test for radiofrequency (RF) interference effects/ensure normal vehicle systems (e.g.remote locking) are not affected byinstalled equipment/ensuresufficient computer ‘grunt’ to powerall relevant systems/assess the HMI

(Continued)

Intell. Transp. Syst., 2009, Vol. 3, Iss. 2, pp. 168–184 17710.1049/iet-its:20080083 & The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2009

178

& T

www.ietdl.org

Table 1 Continued

Activities Tasks Critical considerations(the ‘dos’ and ‘don’ts’)

for all systems prior to deploymentto identify problems that mayexplain or confound system effects/provide a written statement forparticipants to keep in vehicles toconfirm their participation in thestudy and explain vehiclemodifications/anticipate thatresolving technical, usability,ergonomic and certification issuestakes a lot of time

15. develop FOTrecruitment strategyand materials

† develop recruitment strategy, including driver entryand exit requirements and procedures† develop recruitment materials and procedures† sign off on recruitment strategy, materials andprocedures

assume an attrition rate of10–15% when using companydrivers/beware – company driversmay change jobs within a company,which may affect annual mileagerates/if fleet drivers are recruited viaa fleet owner or manager, get buy-in also from individual drivers/beware – it is harder to recruitwomen than men when usingcompany drivers/select drivers whodo not pose a risk to themselves, theproject or others, but withoutbiasing the participant sample/beware – company drivers areharder to recruit than privatedrivers/beware – some commercialoperations may have driver turnoverrates approaching 100% per annum

16. develop FOT drivertraining and briefingmaterials

† conduct training needs analysis (TNA) to identifytraining requirements (if appropriate)† design and develop driver briefing and trainingmaterials, based on outputs of the TNA† design and develop briefing materials forparticipating car/truck fleet managers (if appropriate)† design and develop FOT system(s) user manual(if appropriate)† design and document the procedures for the deliveryof the briefing and training to the FOT participants† sign off on driver training and driver (and company)briefing materials and delivery processes

design training and briefing protocolsso as not to confound system effects/ensure all drivers understand existingin-vehicle systems as well as testsystems, especially if use of them isrequired as part of a baselinecomparison/beware – developmentof briefing and training materials isvery time consuming/anticipate thatsome car manufacturers will not wishparticipating drivers to receive anytraining. In such cases, ‘structuredfamiliarisation’ may be acceptable/provide drivers with a mini-systemsoperating manual and give themmaterials that can be taken away afterbriefing sessions as memory joggersfor important information

(Continued)

IET Intell. Transp. Syst., 2009, Vol. 3, Iss. 2, pp. 168–184he Institution of Engineering and Technology 2009 doi: 10.1049/iet-its:20080083

IETdoi:

www.ietdl.org

Table 1 Continued

Activities Tasks Critical considerations(the ‘dos’ and ‘don’ts’)

17. pilot test FOTequipment, methodsand procedures

† develop protocol for pilot testing FOT equipment,methods, procedures and materials (including training,briefing materials and data collection, downloading andanalysis procedures)† recruit, brief and train pilot participants† deploy a small sample of FOT vehicles under arepresentative range of driving conditions that will beexperienced in the FOT, as per the pilot testing protocol† fine-tune FOT vehicles and technologies, systems,procedures and protocols, as required, on the basis ofthe pilot data yielded† sign off on pilot testing

undertake a ‘full dress rehearsal’ ofthe FOT on a scale that is smallerthan the FOT but big enough toproperly test all systems, proceduresand equipment/do not truncatepilot testing – it is critical/use pilottesting also to estimate timerequired to complete activities, toinform budgeting/ensure that theroutes used in pilot studies maximisethe likelihood of critical situations ofrelevance to the FOT/addindependent monitoring systems topilot vehicles to ensure the validityof data derived from sensors/listento drivers as well as owners ofvehicle fleets – their ideas are likelyto be different

18. run the FOT † ensure that all sign offs have occurred for previousactivities† manage the FOT:– monitor project activities, timelines, budgets andresources– prepare regular progress and financial reports forsponsor– convene and attend regular meetings with researchand support teams– maintain communication with sponsor and keystakeholders† recruit participants† organise training session times/materials† brief and train participants† brief fleet managers (if appropriate)† deploy FOT vehicles† regularly monitor participant progress, includingkilometres travelled† administer questionnaires and implement other datacollection methods at pre-determined intervals† collect, enter into database (unless automated) andstore subjective data† record, download and store objective (i.e. logged)data† collect special data (e.g. fuel dockets) needed toanalyse surrogate performance indicators† monitor for, collect and document data on technicalproblems and user feedback† commence preliminary evaluation of data, to identifyinstances of dangerous driving and any other findings ofinterest/relevance to FOT outcomes

plan for, driver ‘dropout’ – over-sample/develop protocols forresponding quickly to drivers withtechnical and other problems/anticipate problems that mayincrease the drop out rate/ensurethat data are being properlyrecorded and downloaded/adhereto calibration procedures to ensureaccuracy of measurements andsensors over time and help preventdata drift problems/if the number ofkilometres driven by drivers is beingcontrolled for, conduct regularcalibration checks of cumulativedistance travelled/check logged dataas soon as received to verifyaccuracy and completeness of data,and verify kilometres travelled/monitor and record critical factorsthat could impact on measuredoutcomes (e.g. changes in policeenforcement strategies)/givesponsors early warning of potentialproblems that could compromisethe study, or increase the budget/encourage participants to reportquickly any technical problems/regularly check that all systems intest vehicles are functioning asrequired/drivers need regular

(Continued)

Intell. Transp. Syst., 2009, Vol. 3, Iss. 2, pp. 168–184 17910.1049/iet-its:20080083 & The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2009

180

& T

www.ietdl.org

Table 1 Continued

Activities Tasks Critical considerations(the ‘dos’ and ‘don’ts’)

† repair and re-deploy vehicles (as required)† routinely ensure vehicles and vehicle systems areproperly maintained and legal in other ways (e.g.registered, licensed, tyres properly inflated)† report dangerous driving behaviours (if legallyrequired)† conduct exit interviews with drivers and fleetmanagers† remove systems and equipment from privatevehicles (if used)† sign off on completion of this activity of the FOT

reminding and follow-up – don’tforget/don’t forget to replace fullflash memory cards, or other manualstorage devices, with empty ones/iflegally required, report toappropriate authorities dangerousdriving by test drivers/beware –trailers, bike racks and otheraccessories may adversely affect theoperation of some FOT systems/minimise interference to commercialoperations during FOTS/make surefleet managers are, and remain,motivated and engaged/allowsufficient time for data entry thathas to be done manually – and don’tleave it to the end/develop a systemfor basic inventory management forFOTs with more than a few vehicles

19. analyse FOT data † develop a data analysis plan† analyse objective (i.e. logged and recorded data)† analyse subjective data (i.e. data obtained frominterviews, questionnaires, focus groups, hotlines etc.)† draw conclusions with respect to the hypothesesgenerated for the FOT† sign off on completion of all required analyses

anticipate the demand for studyfindings (e.g. trends) early in theproject/anticipate the need toperform supplementary analyses forthe sponsor, which may beexpensive and not budgeted for/run‘reality checks’ on the data, to besure that they are ‘clean’/if data arereduced or aggregated, keep a copyof un-aggregated data/ensure thatall data analysts have used the testvehicles and understand thecircumstances in which data were orare collected/brief all teammembers who handle participantdata on data privacy issues/work outhow best to filter logged data anddeal with missing data

20. write minutes andreports

† write minutes of project management teammeetings† write minutes of Project Steering Committeemeetings† write quarterly progress reports for the sponsor(s)† write the draft FOT report† send the draft FOT report to relevant stakeholdersand peers for peer-review† convene 1 or 2 meetings to discuss feedback withsponsor/peers† incorporate feedback and write final report

document problems, solutions andlessons learnt in progress reports/agree on a reasonable time forsponsor to review reports/considerpeer reviewing of majordeliverables/document all lessonslearnt in the final FOT report/includein the final report practicalrecommendations for wider-scaledeployment of systems found to beeffective, and for fine-tuning of

(Continued)

IET Intell. Transp. Syst., 2009, Vol. 3, Iss. 2, pp. 168–184he Institution of Engineering and Technology 2009 doi: 10.1049/iet-its:20080083

IETdoi:

www.ietdl.org

Table 1 Continued

Activities Tasks Critical considerations(the ‘dos’ and ‘don’ts’)

† deliver final report to sponsor(s)† sign off on completion of all required reports

those with potential to be moreeffective/document in the finalreport a plan for implementing therecommendations deriving from theFOT/FOTs have long lifecycles –write separate reports on eachcritical stage to ensure nothingimportant is forgotten

21. disseminate theFOT findings

† send regular project reports to the sponsor† disseminate preliminary and final findings atseminars, conferences and special events† prepare reports on preliminary findings for thesponsor† send sponsor draft and final FOT reports† provide other stakeholders with access to FOT finalreport (s) and, if allowed, raw or filtered data from theFOT† showcase the vehicles at relevant events later in theFOT (e.g. Smart Demos, motor shows) to promoteawareness and wider deployment of systems.† sign off on completion of all dissemination activities

disseminate the findings inaccordance with thecommunications plan, and othercontractual obligations/agree onwhat can and cannot bedisseminated and said at differentpoints in the study/seek necessarypermissions before divulging FOTfindings to any third party/allocatesufficient budget for printing, ifrequired/prepare a 1 or 2 pagesynopsis of the study outcomes thatcan be read and easily digested bypoliticians, chief executives andrelevant others in positions ofauthority/agree in advance who isempowered to release andcomment on results

22. decommission theFOT

† conduct de-briefing interviews with participants toelicit feedback on the FOT that can be used to improvefuture FOTs† dispose of test vehicles that are no longer needed(if vehicles are not privately owned).† retrieve installed data logging and other equipment(if vehicles are privately owned)† sign off on completion of all FOT activities

ensure that participants returnrelevant items at the end of thestudy and perform other requiredactivities to decommission the FOTvehicles (e.g. disconnect power tosupport systems)/keep one vehicleuntil all data analyses are complete/consider providing public access toFOT databases, where ethicallyallowed, that enables others to usethe data for other research purposesafter the FOT/don’t lose momentumat the end of the FOT – lobbystakeholders to ensure that there iscommitment to implementing therecommendations of the FOT

many political, economic, scientific, logistical and otherpractical issues that ultimately define the nature andsequencing of activities that characterise them [3].

The FOTIP describes what needs to be done, andapproximately when, in running a successful FOT. Relevant

Intell. Transp. Syst., 2009, Vol. 3, Iss. 2, pp. 168–18410.1049/iet-its:20080083

chapters in the FESTA Handbook describe in detail whythese activities are necessary and how they can be accomplished.

Significant previous FOTs that have failed to deliver theiranticipated outcomes have done so primarily because offailures to anticipate problems that compromised their

181

& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2009

182

& T

www.ietdl.org

successful execution. The FOTIP attempts to map out allknown critical issues that need to be taken into account inplanning and undertaking a successful FOT [3].

The history of FOTs suggests that no two will be the same,and that there often are many unforeseen tasks that arise duringtheir lifecycle. The list of Tasks contained in the FOTIP is not,therefore, exhaustive. It is based on the collective wisdom ofthose that have been involved in planning and runningprevious FOTs. There may be specific requirements for futureFOTs conducted in Europe that will need to be decided on acase-by-case basis [3].

There is no one way of conducting a successful FOT. Thereview of the literature on FOTs conducted during theFESTA project revealed that many different approacheshave been taken in planning, running, analysing anddecommissioning FOTs. The FOTIP draws togetherprocedural activities that are most common to the knownFOTs that have been conducted, and the collective wisdom ofthose who conducted them. The FOTIP can be considered askeleton into which the requirements of particular FOTs canbe melded [3].

The FOTIP is relevant both to FOTs in which the ADASand IVIS systems to be evaluated already exist as productionsystems in vehicles, and to studies in which the systems to beevaluated must be chosen by the FOT project team,purchased or developed, and installed (e.g. as in Activity11) [3]. Although the former scenario is most likely to bethe case for the large-scale FOTs to be run in Europe, thelatter one may be more likely in other continents andcountries in which FOTs are only starting to emerge.

The FOTIP provides only a general guide to the sequencein which Activities and Tasks should be performed. TheFESTA Handbook lists the 22 Activities identified in theFOTIP, and highlights the main dependencies that existbetween them. Within Activities, it is up to the FOTProject manager to further decide which Tasks shouldproceed sequentially and in parallel [3].

Some of the major Tasks listed in the FOTIP (e.g. ‘recruitparticipants’, within the Activity ‘Run FOT’) are given only aone-line description and, as such, may appear to be downplayed in the plan. A judgement had to be made about howmuch detail to include in the FOTIP. Where such one-liners exist, this is because either the Task in question is onethat most researchers would normally be familiar with (e.g.,recruiting study participants) or because the Sub-Tasksinvolved are described in detail in relevant chapters of theFESTA Handbook [3].

Some general advice can be offered to those using theFOTIP: read through the FOTIP before starting to plan aFOT; use the FOTIP as a checklist both for guiding theplanning, design and running of the FOT and as a qualitycontrol mechanism for ensuring during the study that

he Institution of Engineering and Technology 2009

nothing critical has been forgotten; ideally read the FOTIPin conjunction with relevant chapters of the FESTAHandbook; and, if desired, use the FOTIP as the basis forthe development of GANTT charts and other projectmanagement tools [3].

The user-centred design of any tool or product criticallyinvolves evaluation – and, as a result of feedback fromevaluation, the refinement of the tool or product. TheFOTIP described here, and indeed the FESTA Handbook,are products – but they have not been formally tested forusability, and there is no direct mechanism by whichfeedback from FOTs that use the FOTIP can be used torefine them. The EC has, however, funded under FP7 thetwo-year FOTNET project, which will create among otherthings a networking platform for promoting adoption of theFESTA results and a common methodology. This mayprovide a forum for the collection of user feedback that canbe used to refine the FOTIP.

7 ConclusionThis paper has outlined the critical steps, and considerations,involved in successfully planning and implementing a FOT,drawing on work undertaken in the EC-funded FESTAproject. The authors have distilled the most importantinformation contained in Chapter 2 and Annex B of theFESTA Handbook. The FESTA Handbook containsmuch more detailed information on each of these activitiesand tasks. Anyone intending to plan and implement aFOT is therefore advised to read that document as theprimary reference source.

8 AcknowledgmentsThe work reported here was funded by the EuropeanCommission DG Information Society and Media in the 7thFramework Programme. The authors are grateful to FabrizioMinarini, from the EC, for his support.

The following members of the FESTA Work Package 2.5project team provided scientific and technical input used todevelop the FOT Implementation Plan [3]: Virpi Anttila,Maxime Flament, Stig Franzen, Tom Gasser, ChristardGelau, Magnus Hjalmdahl, Katja Kircher, Sylvain Lassarre,Petri Mononen, Pirkko Rama, Farida Saad and RonaldSchindhelm. We also thank the following members of theFESTA consortium for their input: Luisa Andreone, VincentBlervaque, Gianfranco Burzio, Oliver Carsten, Marco Dozza,Riku Kotiranta, Friedemann Kuhn, Samantha Jamson, KerryMalone and Trent Victor.

We are grateful to the following external experts for theirvaluable insights: Jim Sayer of UMTRI, Charlie Klauer ofVTTI, Tom Triggs, Kristie Young, Eve Mitsopoulos-Rubens, Nebojsa Tomasevic and Karen Stephan of MUARC,Harri Peltola of VTT and Riku Kotiranta of ChalmersUniversity of Technology. Finally, we thank Corinne Brusque

IET Intell. Transp. Syst., 2009, Vol. 3, Iss. 2, pp. 168–184doi: 10.1049/iet-its:20080083

IETdoi:

www.ietdl.org

from INRETS for her insightful comments on an earlier versionof this paper.

9 References

[1] ETSC: ‘Intelligent transport systems and road safety’(European Transport Safety Council, Brussels, Belgium,1999)

[2] ZOBEL R.: ‘Intelligent systems for better mobility:Bringing to market’, Intell. Transp. Syst. Soc. Newslett.,2008, 10, (1), pp. 16–18

[3] Centro Ricerche Fiat: ‘FESTA Handbook (2008;Version 2)’ (Turin, Italy, Centro Ricerche Fiat) (Available athttp://www.its.leeds.ac.uk/festa/)

[4] FANCHER P., ERVIN R., SAYER J., ET AL.: ‘Intelligent cruisecontrol field operational test’. Final report. Volume I:Technical report. UMTRI-98 – 17; DOT/HS 808 849;University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, TransportationResearch Institute, 1998

[5] ERVIN R.D., SAYER J., LEBLANC D., ET AL.: ‘Automotive collisionavoidance system field operational test methodology andresults’. Volume 1: Technical report: UMTRI-2005-7-1; DOTHS 809 900; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor,Transportation Research Institute, 2005

[6] Swedish National Road Administration: ‘Results of theworld’s largest ISA trial’. [Brochure], Swedish National RoadAdministration, Borlange, Sweden, 2002

[7] EHRLICH J.: ‘Carnet de route du Lavia – Limiteurs’adaptant a la vitesse autorisee’ (Paris, France, InstitutNational de Recherche sur les Transports et leur Securite,2006)

[8] BESSELING H., VAN BOXTEL A.: ‘Intelligent speed adaptation:results of the Dutch ISA Tilburg trial’. Ministry of Transport,Public Works and Watermanagement, Directorate Generalof Public Works and watermanagement, TransportationResearch Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 2002

[9] CARSTEN O., FOWKES M., LAI F., ET AL.: ‘Final Report’.Intelligent Speed Adaptation. Institute for TransportStudies, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom,2008, Ch. 3, pp. 4–26

[10] VLASSENROOT S., BROEKX S., DE MOL J., ET AL.: ‘Driving withintelligent speed adaptation: Final results of the BelgianISA-trial’, Transp. Res., Part A: Pol. Pract., 2007, 41, (3),pp. 267–279

[11] REGAN M., YOUNG K., TRIGGS T., ET AL.: ‘Impact on drivingperformance of intelligent speed adaptation, followingdistance warning and seatbelt reminder systems: key

Intell. Transp. Syst., 2009, Vol. 3, Iss. 2, pp. 168–18410.1049/iet-its:20080083

findings from the TAC SafeCar project’, IEE Proc. Intell.Transp. Syst., 2006, 53, (1), pp. 51–62

[12] YOUNG K.L., REGAN M.A., TRIGGS T.J., ET AL.: ‘Field operationaltest of a seatbelt reminder system: effects on driverbehaviour and acceptance’, Transp. Res., Part F: TrafficPsychol. Behav., 2008, 11, (6), pp. 434–444

10 Appendix10.1 Selected major international FOTs

Batelle Memorial Institute: ‘Evaluation of the freightlinerintelligent vehicle initiative field operational test’. FinalReport to the US Department of Transportation, ProjectDTFH61-96-C-00077 Work order 7718. USDoT,Washington, DC, http://www.itsdocs.fhwa.dot.gov//JPODOCS/REPTS_TE//13871.html, 2003

Besseling H., van Boxtel A.: ‘Intelligent speed adaptation –results of the Dutch ISA Tilburg trial’, Ministry ofTransport, Public Works, and Water management, AVVTransport Research Center, 2001

Carsten O., Fowkes M., Lai F., et al.: ISA-UK: Final Report.Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds, 2008

Dingus T.A., Klauer S.G., Neale V.L., et al.: The 100-CarNaturalistic Driving Study, Phase II—Results of the 100-Car Field Experiment Virginia Tech TransportationInstitute, Blacksburg, VA, NHTSA DOT HS 810 593

Ehrlich J. et al.: ‘LAVIA, The French ISA project: main issuesand first technical results, the French ISA project’. Proc. 10thWorld Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems, Madrid,Spain, 16–19 November 2003

Ervin R.D., Sayer J., LeBlanc D., et al.: ‘Automotive collisionavoidance system field operational test methodology andresults’. Volume 1: Technical Report. UMTRI-2005-7-1;University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Transportation ResearchInstitute, 2005

Fancher P., Ervin R., Sayer J., et al.: ‘Intelligent cruise controlfield operational test’. Final Report UMTRI-98-17;University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, TransportationResearch Institute, 1998

LeBlanc D., Sayer J., Winkler C., et al.: ‘Road departure crashwarning system field operational test: methodology and results’.Volume 2: Appendices, 358pp. Report No. UMTRI-2006-9-2, http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/49244, 2006

Najm W.G., Stearns M.D., Howarth H., Koopman J., Hitz J.:‘Evaluation of an automotive rear end collision avoidancesystem’. DOT HS 810 569. DOT VNTSC-NHTSA-06-01.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation,National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2006

183

& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2009

184

& T

www.ietdl.org

Orban J., Hadden J., Stark G., Brown V.: ‘Evaluation of theMack intelligent vehicle initiative field operational test’. FinalReport, FMCSA-06-016, Batelle, Columbus, OH, 2006

Regan M., Triggs T., Young K., et al.: ‘On road evaluation ofintelligent speed adaptation, following distance warning andseatbelt reminder systems: Final Results of the AustralianTAC SafeCar Project’. Volume 1: Report. Monash UniversityAccident Research Centre Report 253. MUARC:Melbourne, Australia. http://www.monash.edu.au/muarc/reports/muarc253.html, 2006

Regan M., Triggs T., Young K., et al.: On road evaluation ofintelligent speed adaptation, following distance warning andseatbelt reminder systems: Final Results of the AustralianTAC SafeCar Project’. Volume 2: Appendices, MonashUniversity Accident Research Centre Report 253, MUARC,Melbourne, Australia, http://www.monash.edu.au/muarc/reports/muarc253.html, 2006

Sanghoon B.: ‘Issues and lessons learned from ITS fieldoperational test in Korea’. The 1st Asia Pacific Conferenceon Transportation and the Environment, Singapore, May13–15, 1998

he Institution of Engineering and Technology 2009

US Department for Transportation: ‘Volvo trucks fieldoperational test: evaluation of advanced safety systems forheavy truck tractors’. Final Report, DTFH61-99-X-00102,US DOT Federal Highway Administration, Washington,DC, 2005

US Department of Transportation, NHTSA: ‘Automotivecollision avoidance system field operational test report:methodology and results’. http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/49539/1/99798.pdf, 2006

Vagverket: ‘Intelligent speed adaptation (ISA)’. Resultsof large-scale trials in Borlange, Lidkoping, Lund, andUmea during the period 1999–2002, Publication2002:89E, 2002

Volvo Trucks North America Inc.: ‘Volvo trucks fieldoperational test: evaluation of advanced safety systems forheavy truck tractors’. Final Report to US Department ofTransportation, Federal Highway Administration,Cooperative Agreement No. DTFH61-99-X-00102.USDoT, Washington DC, http://www.itsdocs.fhwa.dot.gov/JPODOCS/REPTS_TE/14352.htm, 2007

IET Intell. Transp. Syst., 2009, Vol. 3, Iss. 2, pp. 168–184doi: 10.1049/iet-its:20080083