TRAIN-ALL - TRIMIS · Web view2012/03/21 · TRAIN-ALL Integrated System for driver Training and...

Co-funded by the European Commission

TRAIN-ALLIntegrated System for driver Training and Assessment using

Interactive education tools and New training curriculafor ALL modes of road transport

Contract no. 031517

Towards application guidelines, standards, certification and accreditation schemes

Deliverable No.: 7.5

Dissemination Level Public

Workpackage No. WP7 Workpackage Title Dissemination and exploitation

Activity No. A7.6 & A7.7 Activity Title: Application guidelines and standardsTraining and assessment certification and accreditation

Activity Leader: CERTH/HIT, VTI

Workpackage Leader Jorrit Kuipers (Green Dino)

Authors (per company, if more than one company provide it together)

E. Bekiaris (CERTH/HIT) Contributors: Bjorn Peters (VTI), A. Dale and B. Lang (TRL)

Status (Final; Draft; Revised Draft): F

File Name: TRAIN-ALL D7.5_final.doc

Project start date and duration: 01 November 2006, 38 Months

Submission date: December ‘09

Version Number: 4

Pages Number: 57

Distribution Public


Version history

Version Date Description

V1 23 November `09 First version available, with overview of used standards.

V2 30 November `09 2nd version, with the contribution to standardisation bodies

V3 11 December `09 All the chapters completed. Sent for review

V4 22 December `09 Final version

TRAIN-ALL Deliverable 7.5 Contract no. 031517


Table of Contents

Table of Contents 3List of tables 5Abbreviations List 6Executive summary 71 Introduction 82 Standardisation actions within TRAIN-LL 9

2.1 Introduction 92.2 Key relevant standards to which the TRAIN-ALL team referred during work 92.3 Contribution to standardization bodies 13

2.3.1 Achievements 152.3.2 Recommendations 15

3 Application guidelines 163.1 What is a guideline? 163.2 Guidelines gathering template 163.3 TRAIN-ALL Guidelines 17

3.3.1 General for simulation training 173.3.2 For manufacturer (s/w and h/w) 183.3.3 For using training 193.3.4 For pilots testing 233.3.5 For public/training bodies/authorities 24

3.4 Summary 24

4 Review of Legislation and Guidance governing the use of Simulators for Driver Training 26

4.1 Introduction 264.2 Method 274.3 Overview of EU legislation 28

4.3.1 EU directive 2006/126/EC 284.3.2 EU directive 2003/59/EC 294.3.3 Driver training and licensing in Great Britain 314.3.4 Austria 334.3.5 Belgium 334.3.6 Cyprus 334.3.7 Czech Republic 334.3.8 Denmark 344.3.9 Finland 344.3.10 France 354.3.11 Germany 354.3.12 Greece 394.3.13 Hungary 394.3.14 Ireland 394.3.15 Italy 394.3.16 Netherlands 404.3.17 Norway 414.3.18 Slovak Republic 414.3.19 Slovenia 414.3.20 Sweden 41

December 2009 - Version 4 Page 3 of 57



4.4 Conclusions 41

5 Conclusions 466 References 477 ANNEX 1 – Minutes of the Road Network Format standardization meeting

with TRAIN-ALL 498 ANNEX 2 – list of contacted organisations 55




List of tables

Table 1: Standards to which TRAIN-ALL referred during work.................................................13Table 2: The Open Road Network Format Standard proposed by TRAIN-ALL........................14Table 3: Guidelines gathering template....................................................................................17Table 4: The table below lists the organisations contacted in each country (for more details

see ANNEX 2 at the end of this document)................................................................27Table 5: European directive 2003/59/EC requirements............................................................30Table 6: Variable and fixed simulator components...................................................................36Table 7: Classification of variable simulator system components............................................37Table 8: Details on fixed system components..........................................................................37




Abbreviations List

Abbreviation DefinitionABS anti-lock braking system

ADI Approved Driving Instructor

BASt Bundesanstalt für Straßenwesen (Federal Highway Research Institute)

BKrFQG Berufskraftfahrer-Qualifikations-Gesetz

BSM British School of Motoring

CBT Compulsory Basic Training

DfT Department of Transport

DSA Driving Standards Agency

DVLA Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

EC European Community

ESC electronic stability control

EU European Union

HGV heavy goods vehicle

LCD liquid crystal display

PCV passenger carrying vehicle

RT Reaction Time

SAFED Safe And Fuel Efficient Driving

TTC Time To Collision

VDV Verband Deutscher Verkehrsunternehmen

VOSA Vehicle and Operator Services Agency




Executive summary

This document is composed of three chapters, dealing with standardisation, application guidelines and specific proposals towards promoting certification & accreditation of driving simulators use in Europe.

The first chapter is the introduction, presenting the need for the preparation of this document.

In the second chapter, the analysis of several relevant standards has taken place as well as their comparison to TRAIN-ALL work. In the same chapter, the actions that were performed in the project, for the proposal of a new standard on open road network, are described.

Chapter 3 provides guidelines for manufacturers and driving schools on required design characteristics, scenarios, modules and operation of each type of application and driver cohort.

The next chapter outlines the results of the review of current legislation and guidance governing the use of driving simulators for driver and rider training, within selected EU countries, followed by suggestions on the factors that should be standardised at a European level, to obtain proper use of driving simulators.

In total, 14 existing standards are included in the analysis of existing standards, which are relevant to TRAIN-ALL, to most of which the TRAIN-ALL project abides. The proposal of a new standard on open road network, namely Road Network Format Standard describes the logical road network, the road and its vicinity, the structure of the datamodel and belonging objects and attributes. This standard allows interoperability (exchange) of Road Network databases between driving simulators and simulation tools of different manufacturers. To explore the feasibility of having one certified standard, a meeting was organised with representatives of both OpenDRIVE and ROADXML standards.

Based on the input from, 24 guidelines are provided that are appropriate for manufacturers, training, pilot testing, public/training bodies, as well as for general simulation training. For each guideline, the reasoning, reference, and the body-user type that it is addressed to, are indicated.

The legislation in 17 countries has been examined for the inclusion or not of the driving simulator in the training procedure. Only the Directive 2003/59/EC has a reference to the use of simulators for training purposes. Also, there are not uniform, common simulator-based training curricula among countries, suggesting that there is a need for development of guidance and recommendations to standardise the use of simulators for training purposes.




1 Introduction

The purpose of TRAIN-ALL is to create a computer-based training system incorporating driving and virtual reality simulation, into a driving programme that can be used for the cost-effective training of different driver and rider groups. Within the TRAIN-ALL project new and innovative training modules for driving simulators are developed using a common architecture to enable their implementation on a variety of simulators.

The rapid development of information and other technologies have produced a large variety of training tools available for practically all driver groups, from basic training of novice drivers to in-service training of experienced drivers. And yet, for all driver types, there still exists no large and European Simulator Based Training tools market, despite the maturity of the relevant technology. One of the major obstacles is the high fractionalisation of the market, with most Simulator Based Training manufacturers operating in few countries and a total lack of standardisation and modularity, that would allow users to expand their systems gradually to different scenarios/user groups or to interconnect different Simulator Based Training tools. Currently, users are totally dependent upon the viability and market plans of the vendor they choose to purchase from and thus are reluctant to invest more. Although technologies have made tremendous strides in the past 10 years, it has been recognized that current Road Network databases are lacking standardization for cost-effective and easy exchange of databases between driver training systems of different manufacturers. Thus, TRAIN-ALL activities focused on providing significant contribution to any standardisation body on simulator training standards announced and to national initiatives.

Furthermore, any development of new simulator-based training modules must be in accordance to the legislative environment governing the use of simulators for training purposes. Thus, a review of the legislation of 16 European countries, in parallel to the EU Directives is presented in this document.

Finally, for the optimal use of the TRAIN-ALL tools, but also for avoidance of problems regarding development, training and testing purposes, important guidelines that emanate from the project during both its development phase and the pilots, are presented in here. These are aimed for manufacturers, installers, training bodies, pilot conductors and public bodies and authorities.




2 Standardisation actions within TRAIN-LL

2.1 Introduction

There are many generic definitions of standards currently available, but none officially recognised. The importance for a correct definition is the clear provision of its scope and all the work that it implies.

The current ISO definition of international standardisation is given below:

‘When the large majority of products or services in a particular business or industry sector conform to International Standards, a state of industry-wide standardization can be said to exist. This is achieved through consensus agreements between national delegations representing all the economic stakeholders concerned - suppliers, users, government regulators and other interest groups, such as consumers. They agree on specifications and criteria to be applied consistently in the classification of materials, in the manufacture and supply of products, in testing and analysis, in terminology and in the provision of services. In this way, International Standards provide a reference framework, or a common technological language, between suppliers and their customers - which facilitates trade and the transfer of technology’.

The definition of a standard for the computers world (which is highly relevant to TRAIN-ALL), defines that a standard is (Webopedia):

“A definition or format that has been approved by a recognized standards organization or is accepted as a de facto standard by the industry”.

Standards exist for programming languages, operating systems, data formats, communications protocols, and products interfaces.

Standards can be clustered as:

With respect to formal standards there are three main groups of standards organizations: International Standards, Regional Standards (Europe and Americas) and National Standards.

De-facto standards are defined as: “format, language, or protocol that has become a standard not because it has been approved by a standards organization but because it is widely used and recognized by the industry as being standard”.

2.2 Key relevant standards to which the TRAIN-ALL team referred during work

This section presents the standards that were taken into account in the TRAIN-ALL project. Relevant standards are not only considered as those that refer to the development part of the project but also to the content of the scenarios and modules. The gathering of existing relevant standards aims to identify previous efforts on standardisation related to TRAIN-ALL. This info comes from all partners the dealt with the design/development of a system/module in the project.




Standard Name

Relevant Body

Relevant TRAIN-ALL WP

Describe the Relevance to this Activity or WP?

Abiding to the standard

References

ISO/IEC 9126

ISO / IEC A4.7 The standard is the basis for the technical verification template applied to the developed modules within Train-ALL.

þyes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_9126

HTML 4.01 W3C A3.5 The standard is the basis for the internal CBT.

þyes http://www.w3.org/

CSS Level 2 (CSS2)

W3C A3.5 The standard is the basis for templates used for the internal CBT.

þyes http://www.w3.org/

HLA 1516 IEEE 2,3,4 Having one interoperability standard within a common architecture provides easy exchange of define modules between different driving simulators, leading to reduction in development costs with more focus on content development of the modules.

þ no

For WP2, this standard was initially selected as the standard for interoperability of the TRAIN-ALL common architecture

Various reasons (costs involved, past experience and competition prohibited implementation of this standard in TRAIN-ALL modules during execution of WP3 and 4. Instead, relevant standard HLA1.3 was used (see below).

http://www.sisostds.org/

HLA 1.3 IEEE A3.4 HLA is used for the communication between the simulator and the

þyes Instead of the IEEE standard HLA 1516, we

http://www.kompetenzzentrum-hla.de/





http://www.w3.org/

http://www.w3.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_9126

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_9126



Standard Name

Relevant Body




References

Remote Control Tool in A3.4.

used HLA 1.3 because there exists an open source implementation of HLA 1.3.

OpenDRIVE None 2 Within A2.1 of WP2, the development of a standard on road network format leads to more interoperability (by easy exchange of road network databases) and to more co-operation between manufacturers of driving simulators

þ yes

This de-facto standard was chosen by some partners to be implemented as part of the road network standard development roadmap.

www.opendrive.org

ROAD-XML None 2 Within A2.1 of WP2, the development of a standard on road network format leads to more interoperability (by easy exchange of road network databases) and to more co-operation between manufacturers of driving simulators

þ yes

This de-facto standard was chosen by some partners to be implemented as part of the road network standard development roadmap.

www.road-xml.org

OpenFlight De Facto WP3, WP4 visual database standard

Within the A3.3: development of virtual interiors.

Within the A4.5: development of geometrical databases

þ yes http://www.presagis.com/products/standards/openflight/




Standard Name

Relevant Body




References

implementing the pilots UCs

UDP IETF WP3,

WP4

UDP is used for the data exchange among many parts of the Driving Simulator

þ yes http://www.ietf.org/

CAN SAE WP3,

WP4

CAN is a vehicle bus standard. It has been used for the integration into the Simulation system of the ECUs where the Steering wheel and brake pedal force feedback controls run

þ yes http://www.can-cia.org/

C++ Programming Language

ANSI WP3,

WP4

C++ language was used for the development of all the applications and for the TRAIN-ALL modules integration

þ yes

XML W3C WP3, WP4 XML is the language used for the description of all the parameters that have to be specified for the integration among the USTUTT’s Virtual Mockups and the CRF’s Virtual Mirrors and Parametric Mockup Modules

þ yes

ISO 9000 ISO WP3, WP4, WP5, WP6, WP7

The Quality Control Board of TRAIN-ALL used total quality standards ISO-9000 as a tool. Besides, all the

þ yes http://www.iso9000-standard.com/


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_bus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_bus



Standard Name

Relevant Body




References

Documents written within the project abided to such standards.

Wave Microsoft and IBM

WP3 Development of audio Module (A3.3)

þ yes

Table 1: Standards to which TRAIN-ALL referred during work

2.3 Contribution to standardization bodies

Currently, there is not any standardization for Road Network databases, for cost-effective and easy exchange of databases between driver training systems of different manufacturers. To achieve cost-effective and time-saving use of Road Network Databases which are interoperable between different simulators and simulation tools, a Taskforce was formed by various participants in the TRAIN-ALL project (mainly simulator developers), in order to develop recommendations for general agreements that apply to interoperable driving simulation systems. The objective of this activity is to define and develop an OPEN STANDARD on the road network format, that allows interoperability (exchange) of databases between driving simulators and simulation tools of different manufacturers.

A detailed description on this is included in the TRAIN-ALL Deliverable 2.4 ‘Towards an Open Format for Road Network and 3D Landscape for driving simulators’. Below, a summary of the main points is provided.

To explore existing solutions on Road Network Formats, a survey was prepared. From the survey on Road Network format standards send out to key stakeholders, replies were received. These replies resulted into the conclusion that there were only two existing de-facto standards available, which could be assumed as being serious solutions for TRAIN-ALL. The two de-facto standards were:

OpenDRIVE, an open road network format description available since 2006 and managed by the VIRES company, ROADXML, not open yet when the survey was distributed, is an initiative of Oktal company and was released in October 2009.

Next to these de-facto standards another applicable Road Network Format description was discovered at TNO Science and Industry, department of Automotive. This Road Network format, is incorporated in the PreScan tool for supporting development of Advanced Driver Assistive Systems (ADAS) and In-Vehicle Information Systems (IVIS).

Based on the outcomes of the analysis and discussions, the result was that a unanimous decision of the road network format solution to pursue cannot be achieved. In our view, both solutions OpenDRIVE and RoadXML, have their advantages and disadvantages. Taking into account these results, only OpenDRIVE and ROADXML are selected for further evaluation and discussions on how unification or merging of above initiatives towards one road network format standard is going to be achieved in the near future.




The TRAIN-ALL objective is still to have one standard for the future. How to achieve this is still not clearly understood, but would it be possible to merge current initiatives OpenDRIVE and RoadXML in the future towards one certified standard?

TRAIN-ALL participants believe that merging both OpenDRIVE and RoadXML (where also commercial aspects are dealing), will be eased from a technical point of view if both road network formats share the same functionality. In order to achieve this for the near future a decision was made by a number of TRAIN-ALL participants to start collaboration with both Oktal and Vires companies. Also, to explore the feasibility of having one certified standard, a meeting was organised towards the end of the project (on the 10th of November 2009) with representatives of both OpenDRIVE and ROADXML (see Annex 1 for relevant minutes). From this meeting the following was concluded:

The standardization process should be carried out by a community with representatives of TRAIN-ALL participants, representatives currently in the Management boards of OpenDRIVE and ROADXML, representatives of current communities using OpenDRIVE or ROADXML and representatives of future users.What shall be standardized is the description of the format of the Road Network, preferably through the specification of an XML scheme for file exchange purposes.To provide users with services for evaluating the standard format exchange file. For this, a file assessment tool as a service managed by the standard management authority, shall be delivered with the standard.User acceptance will be created by backward compatibility with the current (de-facto) standards OpenDRIVE and ROADXML in use, meaning that users should be able to use the new standard without large modifications into the legacy systems.The process of merging the current de-facto standards into one common standard is not fully understood at this moment. For defining and implementing this process, a CEN workshop was proposed as the first initiative towards a common certified standard. The standard should be developed in a short timeframe, estimated 3-5 years from now. This would allow present and near-future replacement of old commercial software to adapt to an open road format.

The following table summarises the Open Road Network Format Standard:

Recommended standard specific title

Recommended standard (short description)

Relevant standardisation body

Open Road Network Format Standard (for driving simulators)

The Open Road Network Format Standard describes logical road network, the road and its vicinity, the structure of the datamodel and belonging objects and attributes. This standard allows interoperability (exchange) of Road Network databases between driving simulators and simulation tools of different manufacturers.

Proposed for a new standardisation activity Modification/ extension of existing standard (explain which):.. Revision of existing standard (explain which): … Other (please specify): …

Table 2: The Open Road Network Format Standard proposed by TRAIN-ALL

2.3.1 Achievements

The achievements within the TRAIN-ALL project on standardization of road network, landscape and scenarios are:

TRAIN-ALL requirements for a common road network format have been established.TRAIN-ALL Open Road Network requirements are proposed for implementation into OpenDRIVE and RoadXML.




TRAIN-ALL participants have become members of management boards of OpenDRIVE and RoadXML.TRAIN-ALL participants have adopted current Open Road Network format initiatives OpenDRIVE and RoadXML.A discussion with current owners of de-facto road network standards is initiated towards creation of a single certified road network standard format.

2.3.2 Recommendations

To setup a standardization community and continue the Open Road Network Standardization process, with support of an official standardization body (CEN).




3 Application guidelines

Within TRAIN-ALL Activity 7.6 ‘Application guidelines and standards’, guidelines have been developed for manufacturers and driving schools on required design characteristics, scenarios, modules and operation of each type of application and driver cohort. These, are based on observations from the TRAIN-ALL system development and pilots (verification and demonstration pilots).

3.1 What is a guideline?

Karwowski, W. (Ed.) (2006) defines a recommendation as “a statement of practice aimed at providing a benefit to the served population, usually initiated by an organisation or a group of individuals with expertise or broad experience in the subject matter. A recommendation is not binding on the practitioner, meaning that there is no obligation to carry it out. A statement may be issued as a recommendation because it addresses a fairly new topic or issue, because scientific supporting evidence may not yet exist, or because the practice may not yet enjoy widespread acceptance by the members of the organisation or by the intended audience for the recommendation.”

A guideline is described by Karwowski as “a statement of advice or instruction pertaining to practice. Like a recommendation, it originates in an organisation with acknowledged professional standing. Although it may be unsolicited, a guideline is developed in response to a stated request or perceived need for such advice or instruction.”

3.2 Guidelines gathering template

For a common reporting of the guidelines that emanate from the project, a specific template was created, in which there are 6 different types of guidelines distinguished, as below:

General for simulation training For manufacturer (s/w and h/w) For using training For pilots testing For Public/training bodies/authorities

Guideline no ……: title

short guideline title

Guideline use:

For TRAIN-ALL system optimisation before market (i.e. during industrialisation phase)

For certification/standardisation

For recommendation/checklist to future developers

Other (please specify): …………………………………………………………




Reasoning: Explain with more text the guideline. Why do you think this is the case?

Reference: e.g. reference to the TRAIN-ALL Grrek, or Swedish, or …… pilot, or other internal/external reference…. (i.e. D3.1, D4.2 )

Table 3: Guidelines gathering template.

3.3 TRAIN-ALL Guidelines Input has been given by the following project participants:

- Modules (WP3) developers.- Simulators (WP4) developers.- Pilot site leaders of WP5 tests.- Pilot site leaders of WP6 tests.

In total, 24 guidelines are provided, covering all the above-mentioned areas.

3.3.1 General for simulation training

Guideline no 1: Include distraction testing in trainee training curricula, using driving simulators

Guideline use:

Other: Pilot testing

Reasoning: Distraction is more dangerous in trainees as their visual field is restricted compared to experienced drivers. Distraction tests (and their relation to the respective modules) may prove fruitful for trainees.

Reference: WP6 pilot tests

Guideline no 2: Use new technologies in the drivers’ training procedure

Guideline use:

Other: driving schools and training authorities

Reasoning: It is well known that with simulators, scenarios that cannot be taught on the road can be simulated and this makes them irreplaceable at the training procedure. Moreover, the use of advanced modules in the typical simulator training, offer advanced training possibilities.


The following guideline applies also for the pilots testing section.

Guideline no 3: The trainer should start the simulator by driving a test drive, to let the trainee get acquainted with the Simulator.

Guideline use:




Other: for inclusion into a relevant curriculum

Reasoning: So the students get acquainted with driving in the simulator. Reliability analysis module (WP2) shows that key drivign behavioural parameters (i.e. TTC, TLC) differ between simulator and real driving environment, thus reference data need to be established during an acqaintance ride, as well as learnability reduces differences between the two environments.

Reference: TRAIN-ALL WP6 tests

3.3.2 For manufacturer (s/w and h/w)

Guideline no 4: Adaptation of AI module to a database with diverse behavioural patterns stored

Guideline use:


Reasoning: Creation of problematic behavioural patterns which are common to everyday driving conditions

Reference: WP5 verification tests (realistic driving experience comments)

Guideline no 5: Feedback on driving style and behaviour

Guideline use:


Reasoning:

For the modules such as Virtual Instructor, it would be useful to provide recommendations and information about the participants’ own driving behaviour itself (driving strategies), not only on behaviours related to the traffic law and other ‘hard’ errors.

Reference: WP6.2 – INRETS demonstration pilots (guideline suggested by the participants).

Guideline no 6: Employ scalable and adaptable training through modules such as AI and enhanced reality driving simulator based training

Guideline use:


Reasoning: Being in control is a feeling lacking in trainees and consequently tension leads to errors, wrong estimations, and more importantly to stiffness in coordination. The enhanced reality elements may change according to needs of the training level. Similarly, ambient intelligent traffic may be scalable. In other words, behavioural patterns during the first 5 driving




lessons should be varyingly different from the ones in the last five lessons (flexibility and adaptability).


Guideline no 7: Simulator scenarios should not be interrupted when the trainee fails in a driving task

Guideline use:


Reasoning: The trainees should have the opportunity to experience all simulator driving tasks in training mode, even if they fail in them. Often or early termination of training session because of trainee errors disrupts the learning procedure.


The following guideline emanates from the TRAIN-ALL initiative towards a standardisation action:

Guideline no 8: To setup a standardization community and continue the Open Road Network Standardization process, with support of an official standardization body (CEN)

Guideline use:

For certification/standardisation

Reasoning: Network databases are lacking standardization for cost-effective and easy exchange of databases between driver training systems of different manufacturers. TRAIN-ALL developed the basic architecture, to build upon towards achieving standardisation.

Reference: TRAIN-ALL D2.4

3.3.3 For using training

Guideline no 9: Use of AI and Virtual Instructor modules

Guideline use:


Reasoning:

The use of AI and Virtual Instructor modules would be improved by combining both modules: firstly, the ADAS/IVICS for the immediate recommendations, which allow becoming aware of the driving errors in real-time, and next, the Virtual Instructor module in order to complete the information provided by visualizing the replay after the runtime of the simulation (guideline




suggested by the participants).

Reference: WP6.2 – INRETS demonstration pilots

The following guideline applies also to s/w manufacturers.

Guideline no 10: Application of driving simulator “play backs” to theoretical curricula

Guideline use:


Other: training bodies/organisations

Reasoning: Theoretical curriculum is an important part of driving training programme. Presentations including “play backs” from scenarios driven in the training simulator would allow the breaking down of trainee’s driving behaviour and learning in a relaxed classroom environment (not in the simulator).



Guideline no 11: Immediate feedback based on measurements with regard to hazard perception skills.

Guideline use:

Other: Training bodies/organisations

Reasoning: The addition of hazards allows the recordings of RTs, TTC, etc. These measurements may be used to create a trainees profile in order to graphically present their performance (i.e. when they will be able to respond safely and effectively to hazards).



Guideline no 12: Driver training and speed adaptation across different road types

Guideline use:


Reasoning: Speed adaptation is a difficult issue for young drivers, thus adaptation to appropriate speed with regard to road type is an important safety guideline. Specific enhanced reality elements shed depth on understanding speed variations across road elements. These




elements may be quite detailed in variations (e.g. differentiations in rural and urban curves).


Guideline no 13: The training means should be as safe as possible for the trainees and assure the avoidance of accidents

Guideline use:


Reasoning: Trainees should have the sense of safety during training in order to feel comfortable with the driving procedure, while accidents may prove to be traumatic for them and for their future attitude to driving procedure. Thus, for any critical or new scenario, simulator training is to be proffered over on-the-road training (i.e. aqua planning).


Guideline no 14: The training time with each module should not be standard but varying, according to each trainee’s needs.

Guideline use:


Reasoning: Each trainee presents his/her own performance. Not only training curricula (i.e. through adaptive and dynamic training), but also training time needs to be adaptable and adjustable (i.e. through the visual instructor module).


Guideline no 15: There should be a possibility of manual repeat of simulator scenarios upon trainee/trainer request.

Guideline use:


Reasoning: Each trainee faces different difficulties and consequently needs to focus on different driving issues. In addition to automatic scenario repeats (i.e. by the virtual instructor) also a manual ‚repeat‘ scenario function by the trainer or the trainee should be available.

Reference: TRAIN-ALL Deliverable 3.6 and WP6 pilots.

The following guideline applies also for the pilots testing (next section).




Guideline no 16: Trainees should be instructed on the purpose of each module used in the simulation

Guideline use:


Reasoning: In order to get them familiar and feel comfortable with new tools. If they test a functionality they don‘t understand and they might get confused.



Guideline no 17: You should conduct post-training group discussions regarding simulators use.

Guideline use:


Reasoning: Trainees should understand what went wrong, gain experiences through other trainees errors and enhance self-awareness. Simple analysis of log files and overall performancei scores is slow and does not provide evidence enough for as much as half of the trainee errors.



Guideline no 18: Before starting each scenario read the instructions out loud to the trainee.

Guideline use:


Reasoning: The trainees will be able in this way to get acquainted with the instructions. Just reading them didn‘t seem enough.



Guideline no 19: After each scenario detect if there were any problems and if trainees understood its purpose.

Guideline use:





Reasoning: To avoid a wrong understanding of each scenario aim/focus, by the trainees. In many cases trainees misinterpreted the purpose of scenarios or their outcomes.


Guideline no 20: A professional trainer should supervise trainees during the use of the training

Guideline use:

Other: for training schools

Reasoning: To avoid trainees' misconceptions and errors in understanding. Also to provide causal analysis and guide each trainees learning procedure.


3.3.4 For pilots testing

Guideline no 21: Personalised Enhanced Reality features

Guideline use:


Reasoning: Create a personal profile of trainee’s safety distance and braking. Both are basic training features, nevertheless very important.


Guideline no 22: ADAS/IVICS training standardisation

Guideline use:


Reasoning: This innovative feature should be implemented in every simulation training programme as it involves familiarisation with new assisting technology, thus it could be added to a driving training course. It promotes safe use of such new equipment as well as strongly boosts their market penetration by trainees awareness creation and familiarisation.


3.3.5 For public/training bodies/authorities

Guideline no 23: Extend/connect and integrate single modules into an all-around training tool




Guideline use:


Reasoning: The development and testing of proposed modules was clearly a stand-alone evaluation testing procedure (i.e. one theme scenario). However, future scenarios could enable the amalgamation of UCs, which encompass training elements from different scenarios (e.g. ADAS warnings in an ambient simulated environment).


Guideline no 24: Adaptation of TRAIN-ALL driving guidelines for different levels of driving experience: trainee, novice, experienced, elder

Guideline use:


Reasoning: TRAIN-ALL modules are innovative features which would be useful to be added in curricula for re-training drivers whose licenses have been suspended and have applied for reinstatement. Similarly, the modules would prove helpful for other driving populations (i.e. elderly drivers getting acquainted to new driving support tools).


3.4 SummaryThe following diagram shows the distribution of the 24 guidelines per use area:

21

714

TRAIN-ALL system optimisation before market certification/standardisation

recommendation/checklist to future developersother

Figure 1: Guidelines per use area

As is it clearly shown a significant number of guidelines are aimed for the category „other“. This category is explained by the following areas:December 2009 - Version 4 Page 24 of 57



Training bodies/organisations Training schools Pilot testing Inclusion into a relevant curriculum Training bodies/organisations.




4 Review of Legislation and Guidance governing the use of Simulators for Driver Training

4.1 Introduction

As new developments in the area of simulation training were accomplished in TRAIN-ALL, the relevant legislation should be examined. Regulations and guidance issued by governing agencies are important determinants of the demand for simulator-based training programmes as they can encourage, prescribe or proscribe the extent of use of new technology for training purposes. This chapter aims to investigate relevant current EU legislation that may affect the use of driving simulators in EU member countries, and to ascertain whether there are any national implementations that may govern the use of simulators in driver training. All currently applicable European Directives as well as any recommendations prohibiting or advocating the use of simulators in driver training issued by non-governmental organisations form part of this review. It is of particular interest, to differentiate between the levels of endorsement of simulation, where possible, i.e. to identify if the regulation/ guidance prescribes, recommends, explicitly accepts or specifically prohibits the use of simulators for training purposes.

Whilst the European Driver Training Directive 2003/59/E permits a proportion of initial and periodic training of drivers of vehicles for the carriage of goods and passengers to be carried out on a “top of the range” simulator, no concrete definition of such simulator has been provided by the European Union to date. An additional aim of the current work is therefore to determine on a national and local level how “top of the range” may be defined, whether there is a body maintaining these standards and to investigate the different types of simulators used in a variety of training facilities in Europe at present.

The current review of regulations and guidance on simulator-based training comprises professional drivers, passenger cars and motorcyclists.

The report outlines the results of the review of current legislation and guidance governing the use of driving simulators for driver and rider training, within selected EU countries.




4.2 Method

The information summarised in this report was drawn together from searches of the internet and from contacting relevant organisations either by email or telephone. Organisations comprised government departments or agencies, research organisations with an interest in simulator-based driver training or commercial simulator/ training providers. A list of contacts was generated at the start of the project on the basis of existing contacts from previous, related, projects as well as from the results of the internet searches. Individuals contacted were asked to provide the following information:

What kinds of simulators are used in the country? (Make and brand, if possible, and description of the vehicle cabin )

What are they used for? Such as driver training and/or research?

Is there any legislation that governs the use of simulators for driver/rider training?

Is there any particular guidance that governs the training learner/novice drivers/riders or professional drivers? Are any examples of training curricula for simulator-based training available? Who has been in charge of creating these curricula?

Is the simulator training curriculum produced by a governing body or do the driving schools create the curriculum themselves?

In total, 68 organisations were contacted by email or phone up to six times. Of these, thirty responded to the query, resulting in a 44% response rate. Many of the individuals initially contacted could not answer the questions themselves and forwarded them to individuals with the necessary expertise. The following table provides an overview of the organisations providing information as part of this review.

Table 4: The table below lists the organisations contacted in each country (for more details see ANNEX 2 at the end of this document).

Country Organisation

Austria AISÖBelgium CIECA

Mobility & Transport Federal Public ServiceCyprus Ministry of Labour

Czech Republic CDVDenmark DTUFinland VTT

SimracTTSAKE

France FAROSGermany BASt

Foerst GmbhIZVWVDV

Greece CERTHHungary KHEM




Country Organisation

NKHIreland Sim2LearnItaly Polito

CRFLatvia CSDD

Road Traffic ResearchLuxembourg CLCNetherlands Greendino

ST SoftwareTNO

Norway SintefSlovenia Ministry of TransportSweden VTI

STRGB DSA

4.3 Overview of EU legislation

4.3.1 EU directive 2006/126/EC

The EU directive 2006/126/EC aims to harmonise the rules on driving licences in EU member countries (Europa, 2007). It recasts and repeals the directive 91/439/EEC on driver licences and incorporates into it the amendments previously introduced by Directives 94/72/EC, 96/47/EC, 97/26/EC, 2000/56/EC and 2003/59/EC.

The main text of the directive 2006/126/EC outlines the requirements for a European driving licence including its format, issuing and transposition procedures as well as licence categories, minimum ages and definitions. In the annex of the directive detailed requirements are listed regarding:

the format of the driving licence;

the minimum requirements for the theory and practical tests for drivers/ riders of all vehicle categories;

the minimum standards of physical and mental fitness prescribed for all power-driven vehicle licence categories;

the minimum qualification standards for persons conducting the practical driving test;

the minimum requirements regarding testing and training of vehicle-trailer combinations as well as for motorcyclists within category A.

Whilst the directive details the skills, knowledge and behaviour required for passing the theoretical and practical driving test, it does not make any reference to the process of how these skills, behaviours and knowledge should be imparted to the learner and thus does not address the use of simulators for training purposes at all.

4.3.2 EU directive 2003/59/EC

Explicit reference to the use of simulators in driver training is made in Directive 2003/59/EC on the initial qualification and periodic training of drivers of certain road vehicles for the carriage of goods or December 2009 - Version 4 Page 28 of 57



passengers (EURLex, 2003). The Directive amends Council Regulations No 3820/85 and Council Directive 91/439/EEC and repeals Council Directive 76/914/EEC.

In the main text, directive 2003/59/EC lays out the need for a certificate of professional competence to ensure high standards of driving in goods and passenger vehicle drivers and details the initial and periodic training requirements to maintain this certificate of competence. The training of drivers of other vehicle types is not covered by this Directive. Additional information on training requirements is provided in annexes which include:

1. Minimum qualification and training requirements; and

2. Arrangements for the European Communities model for a driver qualification card

The possibility of carrying out a proportion of the training in a simulator mentioned in Annex 1 of the directive which addresses in Section 2 the compulsory initial qualification of professional drivers in Article 3(1)(a) and states that “Each driver may drive for a maximum of eight hours of the 20 hours of individual driving on special terrain or on a top-of the-range–simulator so as to assess training in rational driving based on safety regulations, in particular regard to vehicle handing in different road conditions and the way they change with different atmospheric conditions and the time of day and night”.

Further reference to simulators is made in Section 3 which addresses accelerated initial qualification provided for in Article 3(2) and stipulates that each trainee must drive for at least 10 hours, four of which can be conducted in a top of the range simulator.

Section 4 states that for compulsory periodic training as provided for by Article 3(1)(b) courses must be organised by an approved training centre. Their duration must be of 35 hours every five years, given in periods of at least seven hours. It also states that periodic training may be provided, in part, on top-of-range simulators”.

The definition of a “top-of-the-range” simulator is described in the Directive 2003/59/EC of the European parliament and of the council of 15 July 2003 as: “…or on a top-of-the-range simulator so as to assess training in rational driving based on safety regulations, in particular with regard to vehicle handling in different road conditions and the way they change with different atmospheric conditions and the time of day or night”.

The quoted requirements here are:

meteorological environment simulation, traffic simulation, rationality of the driving, safety driving rules.

The EC Directive meant initially to define the criteria for the “top-of-the-range” simulator, but it finally felt short of that to leave the market open.

The implementation of the Directive or rather the interpretation into national law still leaves room to negotiate within the countries in the European Union. The basic qualification and continuous training are taken into the law of the respective member states but the final realization can slightly differ in the countries (see Error: Reference source not found).

Table 5: European directive 2003/59/EC requirements




Initial qualification

Period and test Practice and theory

280 hours with 20 hours of driving and 8 hours on special terrain or on simulator

Theory 4 hours, driving 90 minutes plus 30 minutes (30 minutes in simulator in option)

Periodic training

Compulsory period

35 hours (in 7 hours periods) every 5 years: a simulator can be used

The implementation of the directive in member countries of the European Union was due to be completed by:

10th September 2008 for the initial qualification for D1, D1+E, D and D+E vehicles;

10th September 2009 for the initial qualification for C1, C1+E, C and C+E.

The quotes illustrate that whilst the Directive prescribes the proportion of the overall training time a simulator can be used for within initial training and periodic retraining, it lacks a precise outline of what the simulator should be used for and how it should be integrated into the overall training process. The use of simulators in the directive is referred to as an option rather than a prescription. No definition of what may constitute a top-of-the-range-simulator is provided or what the hours of training must comprise. The Directive also does not set out standards for minimum training benefits a simulator must deliver to be deemed an effective training tool. In summary, the Directive does thus not address the following points:

the types of simulators that can be used for specific learning goals;

the training curriculum to be followed in the simulator;

general constraints on who may or may not use the simulator for training;

the skills and qualifications required by the instructor;

In summary, legislation issued by the European Union only refers to the possibility of using driving simulators for the training of goods and passenger carrying vehicles. It does not define system requirements of simulators appropriate for such training nor success parameters of effective or efficient training. The Directive that specifies licensing and testing of all driver groups, including car drivers and motorcycle riders does not make any reference to the use of simulators or the way training curriculums should be delivered. But specifying test requirements, the question of through which process these may be obtained remains open.

The following parts of this chapter review national legislation for references to simulator-based training and, in the absence of legislation explore any existing guidance that may advise, if and how driving simulators should be used for training purposes.




4.3.3 Driver training and licensing in Great Britain

Within the wider framework of European legislation on driver licences, training, testing and licensing systems do vary between European countries. In Great Britain four agencies govern transportation and licensing. The four organisations are:

The Department of Transport (DfT);

The Driving Standards Agency (DSA);

The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA); and

The Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA).

The governing agency that sets the standards for drivers, riders and trainers is the DSA. It aims to work closely with public and private stakeholders to deliver higher standards. The DSA set the standards for drivers, riders and trainers in Great Britain and develop, implement and monitor theoretical and practical driving/ riding tests for drivers and riders of powered vehicles in Great Britain. The DSA also publish training materials such as books and DVDs aimed at preparing learners for the requirements of their test. Driver training is provided by various driver training institutions throughout Great Britain, including driving schools and individual driving instructors.

4.3.3.1 Mopeds/Motorcycles

A Compulsory Basic Training (CBT) must be completed before being allowed to ride on public roads on a moped/motorcycle in Great Britain. Only instructors certified by the DSA can teach CBT at an approved training body.

The CBT course involves five elements:

Introduction;

Practical on-site training;

Practical on-road training;

Practical on-road riding.

Age restrictions apply in that riders who are under 21 are limited to a bike of up to 25Kw with a power/weight ratio not exceeding 0.16Kw/kg for two years. Riders aged 21 years and over, or who reach 21 within two years of passing their test, can complete an accelerated or direct course on a vehicle with a power output of at least 35Kw.

4.3.3.2 Cars

The British system allows individuals to begin to learn to drive when they are seventeen years old. Firstly they must apply for a provisional license, which allows them to drive on public roads with an Approved Driving Instructor (ADI) or an accompanying driver. The accompanying driver must be over twenty-one and have held a licence for more than three years. Minimum requirements for Approved Driving Instructors wishing to register with the DSA are:

Holding a full licence for at least four years;

Passing a theory and practical test;




Passing regular reviews by the DSA.

Upgrading from a provisional license to a full driving license requires the driver to pass a theory and practical test. The theory test comprises of a multiple choice examination and a computer-based hazard perception test. Once these components have been completed successfully the practical test can be taken. In the practical test drivers are assessed by a DSA examiner on general driving and two reversing exercises.

Once the theory and practical tests have been passed, the drivers are allowed to drive unaccompanied. The only restriction in place for novice drivers is that if they receive six penalty points within their first two years of obtaining their full license, their license is revoked. After two years this restriction is lifted and the standard maximum number of twelve points applies.

4.3.3.3 Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGV) and Buses (PCV)

Individuals wishing to drive an HGV or bus need to take a theory and practical test in addition to the test undergone for their category B licence to prove they have the competence to drive larger vehicles. The practical test involves vehicle safety questions, a test of specific manoeuvres and a test of general driving ability.

Exercises drivers have to demonstrate in the practical test are:

• An ‘S’ shaped reverse into a bay;

• A braking exercise;

• Demonstrating the uncoupling and re-coupling of a trailer.

According to representatives of the DSA the use of simulators for training purposes is currently not addressed by the DSA with the exception of the EU directive 2003/59/EC for which DSA holds the regulatory responsibility for implementation. In this process, however, DSA have not further specified the training goals or type of simulator to be used by training providers with a reference to the original Directive being made in the following quote: “The Directive does not define what this term means, though DSA understands some other national authorities interpret it to mean a ‘cab type’ fully moving simulator.” (DSA, 2005)

The decision to use simulators for the training of any of the driver/ rider groups outlined above is thus left to British driver training providers. No guidance document could be identified that advises on the technical minimum requirements of simulators for particular training purposes or on how and what training goals should be covered in simulator training. A brief review of organisations that currently use simulator-based driver training was thus carried out to explore the guiding principles for current training curricula. Examples of simulator use for driver training in Great Britain comprise car simulators used by the British School of Motoring (BSM), bus simulators for the training of bus drivers by ARRIVA and truck simulators used for Safe And Fuel Efficient Driving (SAFED).

BMS use a basic three screen simulator developed by FAROS without vehicle cab or motion system but with steering wheel and pedals. Training goals are the acquisition of very basic vehicle control including steering, gear changes, using car controls and simple manoeuvres such as moving off and stopping before the learners’ first exposure to a real car.

The truck simulator at TRL is utilised as a training tool for fuel efficiency training with truck drivers. For the training a full mission simulator with six degrees of freedom was supplied by




EADS and consisted of a Mercedes Auto cabin mounted within a pod and surrounded by a curved screen. An array of seven projectors provided the driver with a 270º field of view plus the facility to use the rear-mirrors as normal. The training curriculum was created and administered by experts at TRL and is loosely based on the SAFED (Safe And Fuel Efficient Driving) programme (DfT, 2003).

ARRIVA, a large transport service organisation, uses a bus simulator as part of a comprehensive programme of measures to reduce the crash risk of its bus drivers. The training takes approximately 1.5 days and is used as a one-off training for new recruits who already have obtained their PCV licence. The development of the simulator training was informed by the findings from a training needs analysis. The analysis highlighted turns and stopping as manoeuvres often associated with collisions, they were therefore focussed on in the simulator training. To obtain a gold standard of driving, a group of experienced, non-accident involved drivers completed the simulator exercises. Subsequent pupils’ performance was then compared to this standard and fed back to the trainees in combination with comments from driving instructors. The simulator training continued, until the performance of the trainee had reached the golden standard. In subsequent evaluations of the training, significant reductions in ARRIVA’s annual collision costs were observed, suggesting that the training may have led to a decrease in the number of severity of incidents (Dorn & Stannard, 2006).

4.3.4 Austria

Responses received from contacts in Austria suggest that simulators are not formally utilised for driver training in Austria. A review of national legislation on the licensing, training and testing (RIS, 2009a, b, c) showed that no reference is made to the use of simulators for the training of novice car drivers.

4.3.5 Belgium

According to contacts Belgium formally only utilises simulators for professional truck drivers. The curriculum for this training is specific to the organisations running the training.

4.3.6 Cyprus

Respondents from Cyprus confirmed that the Directives 2003/59/EC and 91/439/EEC have been transposed into national law, the former under the title “The initial and periodic training of drivers of certain vehicles for the transport of goods or passengers law of 2007”; the document, however, apparently does not provide any guidance on the use of simulators in driver education. However, plans to introduce driving simulators in it are already issued and being discussed.

4.3.7 Czech Republic

In the Czech Republic driving simulators have been used for more than 40 years. According to respondents the use of simulators for the training of passenger carrying vehicle drivers was compulsory until 1991 when four hours of the course were designated to simulator-based training. The current guidelines in the Czech Republic are written under law 247/2000 Annex 4. The potential use of simulators is prescribed as a percentage of overall training duration.

The use of simulators for training in the Czech legislation prescribes different system requirements depending on the stage of the learning to drive process.




The first stage requires a driving simulator with basic features, i.e. gear stick, steering wheel, brake and accelerator that allow the training of basic manoeuvres. In this first phase, driving simulators can substitute up to 30% of on the road driving.

In the second stage more advanced driving simulators are required that feature a computer-generated image on the road environment, specifically country roads with one lane, road markings and signs and reduced visibility conditions.

The third stage expands on previous instruction and allows training of reversing on the roads, additional lanes and driving in the countryside and urban environment with light traffic and simple traffic interactions in various lighting conditions and enabling training of risky situations.

The fourth stage requires a simulator with a motion platform, sufficiently wide field of view and rear view and aims at the training of different traffic densities and weather conditions as well as the training in potentially dangerous situations in traffic.

Even though a national training curriculum has been devised in the Czech Republic that is readily used throughout driver training organisations, the armed forces and the police, the curricula enforced does not have a specific skill set per lesson.

4.3.8 Denmark

Use of simulators for training purposes in Denmark currently seems to be limited according to the responses obtained. Basic driver training is conducted solely on the road and driving simulators are only used for the training of professional drivers (bus and truck).

Denmark follows a Directive that reflects that of the EU regulations where professional drivers have to undergo 5 days of simulator training – 3 days are of structured training (compulsory) and the other 2 days are free of choice for the driver and can be lessons related to traffic safety, advanced driver training, etc.

The curriculum is proposed by the driver training organisations/institutes and then approved by the Danish Road Safety and Transport Agency. Thus a certain degree of freedom exists for the training centres.

4.3.9 Finland

Finland utilises Simrac truck, bus and FAROS car simulators for the training of learner drivers and professional drivers. Simulators can be used as part of the basic learner driver training, thus replacing parts of mandatory driving training, but can also be used for advanced training of drivers after they have passed their test. All training providers and curricula need to be accredited by appropriate Finnish authorities.

Finland has transposed the 2003/59/EC and has detailed the required training process to maintain professional competency; however, no further specification of what should qualify as a “top-of-the-range simulator” is given. It is stated that it is the responsibility of the national authorities to ensure that the simulators are of a high fidelity quality to comply with the EU regulations, nevertheless, there are no explicit criteria to what is termed as high fidelity.

No other national legislation was found that may govern the use of simulators for training purposes.




Due to the geographic location of Finland and the varying amount of light and darkness it receives throughout the year, training of night/day driving is conducted in the simulator; the practical driving test is, however, still exclusively carried out on the road.

4.3.10 France

In its transposition of the EU legislation the French Ministry of Transport has specified that up to four hours of the required minimum of 20 hours in-vehicle training may be carried out in a simulator. The simulator training is usually scheduled to take place at the beginning of the learning to drive process, but may also be used to cover more advanced training goals such as hazard perception, following distances or a driving at night. According to the organisations contacted there is no further national legislation in place. No information could be obtained as to whether the curricula created by various training providers are approved by a government body. France has direct links to a driving school in Ireland. Both countries use the same type of simulators for training. They collaborate to produce a curriculum, though it could not be ascertained whether it is approved by the appropriate authorities. For professional drivers, information received from a phone call with France states that the current directive for driver training is based on the original legislation from France for this type of training. It was also highlighted that individual training providers create their own training syllabus. Knowledge and recommendations are, however, shared between providers, such as the FTA, AFTIM and Eurotra.

4.3.11 Germany

Information obtained from the Federal Highway Research Institute (BASt) suggests that the EC Directive 2006/126/EC is currently being implemented into national law with the first phase of implementation having been completed in January 2009. Full implementation is anticipated for 2011. As the EC Directive makes no reference to simulator training, this is also the case for its national implementation in Germany.

The Directive 2003/59/EC was transcribed into national law in October 2006 as the “Berufskraftfahrer-Qualifikations-Gesetz BKrFQG. In line with the EU directive, the use of top-of-the-range simulators is permitted for a proportion of the training. Skills, and knowledge required as part of the BKrFQG are detailed in Appendix 1 of the law (Bundesministerium der Justiz, 2006). Training centres, the training curricula and qualification of the trainers have to be accredited by the authorities. The law does not specify, however, how the simulator should be used within the curriculum.

According to a German traffic psychologist car driver training is carried out by a large number of small driving schools across Germany for the majority of whom the use of driving simulators is too expensive. Searches on the internet, however, suggest that individual driving schools may use comparatively low-end simulators for training purposes. In these cases, instructors describe the use of the simulator to comprise training of seat and mirror adjustments, familiarisation with vehicle controls, braking exercises, practising basic manoeuvres, and experiencing different weather conditions as well as the effects of driving when under the influence of alcohol.

A small simulator manufacturer contacted as part of this review reported creating the training curricula for the training of car learner drivers on behalf of its customers. Curricula were modified and updated on the basis of customer feedback.

The association of public transport providers (VDV), established in its current form in 1991, aims to improve public urban transport provision by enabling its members to exchange experiences and good practice and by working towards the introduction of common technical, economical and legal




standards that will promote the efficiency of tram, rail and bus service provisions. It furthermore represents public transport service providers’ interests with industry and the government. In October 2008 the VDV published a guidance document (VDV Mitteilung 9041, “Anforderungen an einen Simulator Linienbus”) on the use of simulators for the training of urban public transport bus drivers. The creation of the guidance followed discussions about the potential role of simulators for training purposes. According to the VDV the increased interest of organisation in simulators as potential training tools is prompted by (a) the decreasing prices of simulation technology, (b) by an increased demand in organisations to be able to address certain training goals independent of the availability of driving school vehicles and (c) by the stipulations of the directive 2003/59/EC (Rheinberger-Schueller, 2009). In deliberating the advantages of simulator training, the VDV identified four areas where simulator use may be particularly beneficial:

1. Fuel-efficient and environmentally friendly driving

2. Fault management

3. Safe interactions in traffic

4. Customer service

The VDV guidance emphasises that learning goals relating to these four topic areas could vary with regards to their complexity, and therefore, different levels of technical complexity of simulators may be required to enable the effective training of this learning goal. The association thus argues that a simulator may be described as “top of the range” (the phrase used in the EU directive 2003/59/EC) if it can be used to successfully train the specified learning objectives.

In their description of simulators VDV differentiate between variable and fixed simulator system components, which are shown in the following table. VDV propose a classification of simulators into three categories (type A, B & C) based on differences in the variable system components. At the same time, VDV concede that the fixed components are more important than the variable components, which predominantly determine the required infrastructure, initial purchase costs, and running costs.

Table 6: Variable and fixed simulator components.

Variable components Fixed components

Vehicle cabin Vehicle noise

Projection system Vehicle dynamics

Motion system Realistic feel of driving

Replay station Other road users

Simulator mobility Traffic simulation

Setting of driving events

Visual database

Instructor station

Both, variable and fixed components of simulators are described in more detail in the following tables. Whilst Table 7outlines the requirements of each simulator class (type A, B and C) for each variable




system component, Table 8 provides more detail on fixed components that are prerequisites on all simulators according to the VDV.

Table 7: Classification of variable simulator system components.

Vehicle cabin Type A: No vehicle cabin, no front screen, possibly simulated A-pillars

Type B: Open/closed generic vehicle cabin, driver seat separated from front door, front door simulated in visual system

Type C: Full cabin, generic or original, including the first third of the bus front segment, driver seat separated from front door, closed driver cabin, air condition, front and middle door fully functional

Other variable components of the vehicle cabin: controls, mirrors, passenger compartment

Projection system Type A: Field of view (horizontally: 180°, vertically 40-45°); display projection

Type B: Field of view (horizontally: 210°, vertically 40-45°); on screen projection

Type C: Field of view (horizontally: 210-240°, vertically 40-45°); on screen projection

Other variable components of the projection system: resolution, update/refresh rate, reaction time display/beamer

Motion system Type A: Seat vibration, seat movement, impact generator (i.e. hitting the curb)

Type B: Seat vibration, seat movement, impact generator (i.e. hitting the curb), longitudinal movements (three degrees of freedom)

Type C: Seat vibration, longitudinal and rotational movements (six degrees of freedom).

Review station Type A: No separate review station; possibly simple review station with front channel view; no interactivity

Type B: Simple review station (driver’s view and mirrors); no interactivity

Type C: Elaborate review station (driver views, vehicle control displays, bird’s eye view, interactivity)

Simulator mobility Type A: Transportable; can be taken apart

Type B: Transportable; installed in trailer or container

Type C: Transportable; installed in trailer or container

Table 8: Details on fixed system components.

Vehicle noise Realistic motor noise, varying with revolutions

Driving noise including wind, rain, surface, tyres, other traffic, possibly noise from passenger compartment

Speaker announcements

Vehicle dynamics Engine faults, realistic acceleration/ revolution patterns, realistic braking and associated vehicle reactions, ABS, vehicle dynamics for single-deck, double-deck and articulated buses, different vehicle loads, low tyre pressure

Different types of buses regarding length, number of axles, articulation, different manufacturers

Realistic feel of driving

Realistic steering

Feeling of a perceptible contact with the road surface

Realistic ABS braking

Realistic feedback when entering the hard shoulder




Other road users Representative profile of other road users (cars, trucks, agricultural vehicles)

Urban public transport vehicles

Cyclists and motorcyclists

Pedestrians

Children

Passengers waiting at bus/tram stop

Traffic simulation Rules guiding behaviour of other road users, different speed and acceleration profiles

Adjustments to local driving conditions (fog, rain, snow, ice), noticeable differences in behavioural profilers of other road users

Tram traffic with different types of stops, exit and entry of passengers

Traffic light system controllable manually, pedestrian behaviour controllable manually

Setting of driving events

Individual vehicles controllable manually, speed selection for individual vehicles possible, violation behaviour of individual vehicles possible;

Triggering of driving events not tied to the main vehicle, but independent from it;

Simulation of emergency vehicles with blues and twos, game on the road

Change in surface friction due to leaves, snow, ice for specified sections of the road, aquaplaning, side wind events

Visual database The use of visual databases that represent local and geotypical conditions is recommended; this implies higher costs as such databases are custom built software.

Landscape: flat, hilly, mountainous, with/without trees

Built-up areas: inner city areas, small/ medium sized towns, villages, building typical for the region, open spaces.

Road environment: roads to be representative of all road types in the area (motorways, federal roads, country roads, narrow lanes), tram lines and stops, bus lanes, public transport depots, road work areas

Road signs: Road signs in accordance with the Highway Code, road markings, road crossings, traffic lights

Textures: Varied buildings typical for the area, replicated correctly, identifiable danger areas (driveways, car parks, schools, etc.)

Night time driving: Simulation of night time driving with lit-up areas, e.g. shop windows, tram stops etc,

Winter driving: Simulation of landscapes, built-up areas and roads covered in snow

Instructor station System start, control and monitoring

Development and administration of training exercises, supervision, intervention and assessment of training exercises

Online control of simulated vehicles (trainee and other road users), communication with the driver, simulation of technical faults

Monitoring and assessment of (performance) data relating to the exercise and of driver violations (e.g. driven speeds, violations of the Highway Code)

Replay of training exercises including driven speeds, braking distances, distance to vehicle in the front, fuel usage, revolutions

Change of perspectives in replay

Documentation of trainee performance, development of training sequences for specific trainee groups

Change of environmental factors




The proposed classification of simulators into three bands on the basis of their technical components, and the simultaneous prescription of minimum standards for the simulation software acknowledges the varying degrees of technical sophistication, but also implies that effective training predominantly relies on appropriate software. The authors of the guidance emphasise that high fidelity is required in the appropriate representation of local conditions and roads as well as other situational characteristics. They argue that users’ acceptance of the simulator and, consequently, training effectiveness, depends very much on the realism of the simulated road environment.

4.3.12 Greece

Simulators currently used are fairly basic. Respondents were unaware of legislation governing the use of simulators for training purposes. The development of training curricula was reported to be the responsibility of the individual driving schools.

4.3.13 Hungary

The responses indicate that Hungary has implemented 2003/59/EC on the training of professional drivers into national legislation. Two additional programmes are currently in use by training centres for Category B, C and D licence training. The first programme, an Eco-Driving programme, was originally developed as in-vehicle training and was subsequently translated into a simulator-based training. The simulator-based eco training resulted from a collaboration of the German company SimuTech, the University of Groningen (NL) and a Swiss Institute and is copyright-protected. The second programme is addressed at car learner/ novice drivers and comprises the training of dangerous situations to allow trainees to experience adverse conditions before being confronted with them in the real world. The driving programmes utilised are governed by the National Transport Authority in Hungary. The review suggests that no further national legislations makes any reference to simulator-based training in Hungary.

4.3.14 Ireland

No national legislation governing simulator usage for driver training was identified as part of this review. Training curricula in Ireland are created by experts in the field. Professional judgement is also applied in the development of a training programme utilised by the FAROS simulator company and the software associated with the simulators. FAROS work in conjunction with a lead developer in Ireland to create the curricula, which is subsequently implemented into the driving schools in Ireland. A contact in Ireland revealed that FAROS simulators are utilised in at least one driving school, where simulators are available for training. The FAROS simulators deliver programmes from basic applications progressively through to more advanced driving programmes. These can include eco-safe training, hazard perception, night driving and adverse weather driving for all driving standards. The simulator can also be used to train using different vehicle features such as engine yield, fuel type, ABS, ECS and traction control, plus simulation of vehicle defect.

4.3.15 Italy

No national legislation addressing the use of simulators for training purposes was identified, with the exception of the Legislative Decree 22 created in 2008 which applies to professional drivers. The decree implements the requirements of the Directive 2003/59/EC but does not specify or expand on the use of simulators for this purpose. It rather states the number of hours you can use the simulator for, out of the total hours of training. The decree does state that the simulators utilised for training




must meet the standards of quality suitable to accurately simulate the environment for the training courses provided.

4.3.16 Netherlands

The Netherlands have considerable experience with simulator training and the use of simulators for the purpose of learner/ novice car drivers is well established. Despite this, no national legislation for learner driver training was identified to govern the use of simulators and no generalised training curricula used by all driving schools or simulator companies were found. Rather, the creation of suitable training curricula was carried out by the individual driving schools, simulator companies or software developers.

ANWB was the first driving school in the Netherlands to introduce driving simulators into the process of learning to drive, and other driving schools quickly followed. Currently Rozendom Technology, Green Dino and ST software simulators are in use in initial driver training in the Netherlands. There are more than 150 driving simulators are currently utilised in schools across the country. Different systems are in use, with projectors (both large and small projection surfaces) or with 3 or 5 LCD screens. The mock-up is either a real car or truck cabin, or a smaller size replica with all the controls and the required dashboard features This is to introduce the student to the fundamentals of driving before being introduced to the core driving lessons in a real car on the road.

The simulators are integrated in the curriculum in different ways. ANWB has a two week driving programme where each day students will learn new ‘basic’ skills in the simulator which are then repeated and reinforced in a practical driving lesson. Students have eighteen lessons in the simulator of approximately twenty minutes per each session. The simulator can create about five hundred different situations and additionally can give instruction and feedback. Following each module completion the degree of difficulty can increase. The modules are developed in cooperation with the driving instructors of the driving schools. Other driving schools use the simulator prior to the practical driving lessons. The Green Dino simulators allows students to follow 3 modules (control, intersections, highways) with 5 lessons each, 15 hours total duration. Students that train with the simulators of ST software can choose whether they take their simulator lessons as a single package prior to practical driving lessons (‘standard’) or take simulator- and practical driving lessons intermittently (‘mix’)

Professional drivers’ training is governed by the national implementation of the EU directive 2003/59/EC. As a part of this implementation, CCV has composed a set of technical requirements for truck driving simulators. Driving simulators have to be compliant with these requirements. CCV will certify the driving simulators and perform audits at driving schools. If the requirements are met than the driving school receives a permission to use the simulator for the professional driver training. The requirements contain a section of necessary technologies and a section of important technologies. The important technologies should be added to the simulator within a period of 5 years after certification.

Four Thales Truck driving simulators are in use at VTL. These feature a variety of lessons for both initial truck driver training as well as for the training of expert drivers. Their training center has a separate room where students can watch and discuss the performance of their colleagues in the simulator. Green Dino delivered 3 multipurpose driving simulators (D4.6) to clients in the Netherlands.

There is currently a discussion in the Netherlands how efficient truck driving simulators are, in comparison with practical driver training. Simulators allow specific circumstances like driving in mountains, in the dark, in icy conditions to be practiced, and may allow that more instructive situations can be practiced per unit of time. If simulators are more efficient, how then does simulator training relate to the 7 hours of practical driver training that are mentioned in the directive. Can a driving course with 4 hours of simulator based training equal to 7 hours of practical driver training? As there are no large scale simulator based professional driver training courses in operation, such a question is difficult to answer. Based on interviews and observations of both practical and simulator based truck driver training courses, TNO has some indication that 4 hours on the simulator can be




equivalent to 7 hours on the road. Research by VTL using the multipurpose simulator of Green Dino and the Thales truck simulator of VTL showed a 1:1 replacement of 4 hours of training.

The Dutch police uses two RheinMetall driving simulators for their initial and advanced police driving courses. They too feature a common classroom where students discuss the performance of their colleagues in the simulator. Police driver trainers claim that 60% of the learning value of their course is obtained from these discussions.

4.3.17 Norway

In Norway research has been conducted on driver training with simulators, but there are still no formally published didactic strategies. The simulators currently used in driving schools are, according to the respondents, relatively simplistic in nature and not sufficiently realistic. Respondents described Norway to be in the early stages of integrating simulators as training tools, with no real guidance for their current implementation.

4.3.18 Slovak Republic

Simulators are in use in the driving schools in the Slovak Republic; however, they are privatised institutions that create their own curriculum. No further information could be obtained on this country.

4.3.19 Slovenia

Slovenia does not use simulators for the training of learner drivers. According to respondents, the police use a motorbike simulator for the training of their motorbike unit. It is used to train beginners up to advanced level motorcyclists to deal with hazardous situations on the road. The only curriculum that is followed is what is programmed into the software on the bike simulator itself.

4.3.20 Sweden

A driving license permit is needed in order to become a learner driver. Driver training (Category B) can start at the age 16 and a driving license test can be done at the age of 18. Sweden allows driver training and education both by professional driving teachers (driving schools) and lay instructors (private training). There are no prescribed numbers of lessons to be completed before a driving license test can be done. The only mandatory parts of the driver training is a practical and theoretical risk training that has to be completed before applying for a driver license test (Category A (from 1/11 2009) and B (1/4 2009)). Lay instructors and their students also has to pass a mandatory introduction course. The driver license is provisional the first two years, but there is no penalty point system as in some other countries.

In Sweden there is no legislation or guidance currently that prevents or promotes the use of driving simulators for the training of learner drivers (all categories). The only exception is the European Driver Training Directive 2003/59/E. There are only a few driving simulators used for driver training in Sweden. Some are used for training of various professional drivers e.g. forestry machines, busses and trucks. There can be several reasons why the use is so low e.g. lack of financial incentives, driving schools are small enterprises with limited financial resources, the cost effectiveness has not been proved and the training curricula has not yet been adapted to Swedish conditions.

4.4 Conclusions

Currently the use of simulators for training purposes is only referred to in the Directive 2003/59/EC which addresses the initial training and continuous development of competence of professional drivers. With this exception current EU legislation does not make any reference to the use of




simulators for training purposes. Even the Directive 2003/59/EC does not specify how lessons should be structured to ensure their appropriateness for training. The simulator-based training curricula currently used by training providers across the EU countries seem to be predominantly created on an individual basis by practitioners and experts; therefore there is currently no standardisation of simulator-based training curricula and contents. Curricula seem to rarely undergo systematic evaluation to assess training effects.

It can be argued that the differences in the curricula used by different training providers are a result of the variances in regulations for licensing in the different countries. This is reflected in the numerous types of simulators utilised for training and the differences in training requirements between organisations. The problem of creating a common driving programme for all simulators and countries is that each country has different ways of training their learner drivers and therefore the guidelines will have to be country specific or so general that they can incorporate different training programmes.

Whilst there are studies that show clear benefits of simulator training, e.g. for fuel consumption, the comprehensive assessment and comparison of the benefits obtained through simulator-based training and on road training is still outstanding (Parkes, 2004). The use of simulators in training is thus frequently based on the argument that they allow the training of driving situations that would put other road users at risk or to use them for the training of drivers in conditions that rarely occur on the roads and are thus difficult to sufficiently train in real life conditions. It can be argued that in the absence of robust and unequivocal evidence on the superiority of simulator training compared to conventional training methods, authorities are unlikely to legislate towards the use of simulators as training tools.

The purchase and running costs of simulators are important factors that influence their use by training providers. Whilst purchase costs are high simulator lessons may be cheaper than on-road lessons, as simulators do not require refuelling or insurance expenditure.

The development of guidance and recommendations to standardise the use of simulators for training purposes would be beneficial and would allow users with limited experience in the field to make informed decisions on the use of simulators for training purposes. Furthermore standardisation would facilitate quality control of training standards and the delivery of equal levels of training across organisational boundaries.

Training programmes should be considered in their entirety, as focusing solely on the simulator aspect of training does not suffice. Researchers and practitioners seem to agree that simulator-based training should be embedded in a comprehensive training programme that also includes on-road elements to maximise training benefits (e.g. Neukum, Lang & Krueger, 2003).

The frequent absence of guidance and legislation to promote or proscribe the use of simulators observed in this review indicates that further work on this matter is needed. In the absence of legislation, the development of simulator-based training curricula is frequently left to training providers and driving schools. For the development and introduction of standardised training curricula and technical specifications of minimum requirements for training simulators support from national agencies seems indispensable. TRAIN-ALL evidence (D5.2, D6.2, D7.3) and architecture (D2.1, D2.4) provide further data towards this direction.

The following table presents a summary of the laws on the use of the driver simulator, per country:




Country

Simulators used officially (i.e. simulators specifically

mentioned in national law or

directive)

If ‘yes’ which driver category

Substitution of theoretical and/or practical training

Relevant laws (if existing) – where simulator training is mentioned*

Austria No

Belgium No, but actually used

Professional truck drivers No No information

Cyprus No

Czech Republic Yes Passenger car

drivers

Prescribes as a percentage of overall training to be done in a simulator

Law 247/2000 Annex 4

Denmark Yes Professional driversNo substitution but 5 days (3 mandatory content, 2 free)

According to EU regulation

FinlandYes Passenger car divers

Mandatory driving in darkness training can be done in either simulator or on the road

Finnish authorities approves of training curricula

Yes Professional drivers Training curricula approved by the authorities According to EU regulation

France No, but actually used Passenger car divers Not regulated No information

Germany No, but actually used Passenger car divers Not regulated No

Yes Professional drivers VDV recommendations:1. Fuel-efficient and

environmentally friendly driving2. Fault management3. Safe interactions in traffic4. Customer service

Based on EU Directive 2003/59/EC there is the Berufskraftfahrer-Qualifikations-Verordnung (BKrFQV):

§2 Abs. 3 – accelerated initial qualification (practical): up to 4 hours of the




Country



directive)




mandatory 10 hours can be done on special terrain or a “top of the range” simulator

§4 Abs. 2 – periodic training: a part of the periodic training can be done on special terrain or a “top of the range” simulator

Great Britain No, actually used Passenger car divers Not regulated No

Greece No, actually used Passenger car drivers

Not regulatedIndividual schools decide training curriculum

No

Hungary

No, but actually used

Professional driversNot regulated According to EU regulation

No, Passenger car drivers

o Eco drivingo Basic training

No information

Ireland Not, but actually used Passenger car drives Training curricula by experts Nothing

Italy No Professional drivers No information According to EU regulation

NetherlandsNo, but actually usedYes

Passenger car driversProfessional drivers

R

Curricula developed by driving schools and simulator developers

No, but recommendation from driving school association.According to EU regulation

Norway No, but actually used No information No information

Slovak No Not specified Curricula individually developed No information




Country



directive)




RepublicSlovenia No

Sweden


Passenger car drivers

Not regulatedTraining curricula has to be approved by the authorities

No


Professional bus, truck drivers

No applications for using simulators so far According to EU regulation




5 Conclusions

The guidelines that are reported in this document have been provided by the developers of the systems and by the test leaders in each pilot site that are responsible for the proof of concept trial activities, in order to support the proper use and application of the simulators and the modules. In addition, several user-related recommendations for system and product optimisation are reported, according to the feedback that was given during the tests.

On a broader scale, standardisation applied on the input required for running the simulator, such as scenarios, road network and landscape databases (the 3D environment) has significant benefits during development and operation of the simulator. Reduction in development time/costs by using existing road network and landscape databases and reduction in time/costs during simulator operation by using existing scenarios/lessons are the main drivers to promote an open standard. This has been recognized by the participating driving simulator manufacturers of TRAIN-ALL, leading to sigificant work towards the development of a new stanrd on road network, landscape and scenarios.

There is a general absence of regulation and legislation to promote or proscribe the use of simulators indicating that further work on this matter is needed. Current EU legislation does not make any reference to the use of simulators for training purposes apart from Directive 2003/59/EC which addresses the initial training and continuous development of competence of professional drivers. The simulator-based training curricula currently used by training providers across the EU countries seem to follow a different, country-specific approach, as there is no consensus/standardisation on this issue. The development of guidance and recommendations to standardise the use of simulators for training purposes would be beneficial and would increase the use of simulators all over Europe.

Conclusively, TRAIN-ALL project highlights the need for further research on training technologies regarding several categories of drivers, such as novice, motorcycle, professional drivers (truck drivers, bus drivers, dangerous goods vehicles' drivers, emergency vehicles' drivers, etc.). The improvement of their training is a very important issue, since, very often, the integrity of many human lives depends on them or is directly influenced by them. Thus, the improvement of training courses may clearly offer some potential solutions to one of the most intense and unwelcome social phenomena, which is the unjustified loss of human life due to accidents caused by improper driving behaviour.




6 References

Webopedia (Encyclopedia dedicated to computer technology): www.webopedi a.com

http://www.cen.eu

TRAIN-ALL Deliverable_2 4_final, “Common Scenario, Road Network and Landscape Requirements for driving simulators”, December 2009

Karwowski, W. (Ed.) (2006) - Handbook of Standards and Guidelines in Ergonomics and Human Factors, pp. 80-81. LEA, N. Jersey.

Bundesministerium fuer Justiz (2006). Verordnung zur Durchfuehrung des Berufskraftfahrerqualifikationsgesetzes (BKrFQV). Retrieved on 9th July 2009 at http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bundesrecht/bkrfqv/gesamt.pdf

DfT (2003).The Safe And Fuel Efficient Driving Standard (SAFED). Retrieved 2nd July 2009 on http://www.transport-research.info/Upload/Documents/200607/20060728_163035_17819_SAFED_Final_Report.pdf

Dorn, L. & Stannard, J. (2006). Simulator performance differences between experienced and novice bus drivers. Special Issue. Advances in Transportation Studies; An International Journal, pp 45 – 52.

Driving simulators for driver training: state of the art. Accessed on 15th June 2009. http://esafetysupport.org/download/research_and_development/HumanistA_02Driving.pdf

DSA (2005). Driver CPC Directive. European Directive 2003/59/EC - Initial Qualification And Periodic Training For Drivers Of Road Vehicles For The Carriage Of Goods Or Passengers. Retrieved 2nd July 2009 from www.dsa.gov.uk/Documents/policy/Explanatory_Note.doc

EURLex (2003). 32003L0059. Retrieved on 9th July on http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32003L0059:EN:HTML.

Europa (2007). Road safety: Driving licences. Retrieved on 9th July 2009 on http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/transport/road_transport/l24141_en.htm

Neukum, A, Lang, B & Krueger, H.-P. (2003). A simulator-based training for emergency vehicle driving. Proceedings of the Driving Simulator Conference (DSC) 2003, Detroit, Michigan.

Parkes, A.M. (2004). Synthetic training for the truck driving industry: from could to should? Proceedings of Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 48th Annual Meeting, New Orleans, Sept 20-24, CD-ROM.

Rechtsinformationssystem des Bundeskanzleramts (2009a). Gesamte Rechtsvorschrift fuer Fuehrerscheindurchfuehrungsverordnung. Retrieved on 9th July 2009 on http://ris.bka.gv.at/GeltendeFassung.wxe?Abfrage=Bundesnormen&Gesetzesnummer=10012724

Rechtsinformationssystem des Bundeskanzleramts (2009b). Gesamte Rechtsvorschrift fuer Fahrpruefungsverordnung. Retrieved on 9th July 2009 on http://ris.bka.gv.at/GeltendeFassung.wxe?Abfrage=Bundesnormen&Gesetzesnummer=10012725


http://ris.bka.gv.at/GeltendeFassung.wxe?Abfrage=Bundesnormen&Gesetzesnummer=10012725



http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/transport/road_transport/l24141_en.htm

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32003L0059:EN:HTML

http://www.dsa.gov.uk/Documents/policy/Explanatory_Note.doc

http://esafetysupport.org/download/research_and_development/HumanistA_02Driving.pdf

http://www.transport-research.info/Upload/Documents/200607/20060728_163035_17819_SAFED_Final_Report.pdf

http://www.transport-research.info/Upload/Documents/200607/20060728_163035_17819_SAFED_Final_Report.pdf

http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bundesrecht/bkrfqv/gesamt.pdf

http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bundesrecht/bkrfqv/gesamt.pdf

http://www.cen.eu/

http://www.webopedia.com/



Rechtsinformationssystem des Bundeskanzleramts (2009c). Gesamte Rechtsvorschrift fuer Fuehrerscheingesezt. Retrieved on 9th July 2009 on http://ris.bka.gv.at/GeltendeFassung.wxe?Abfrage=Bundesnormen&Gesetzesnummer=10012723#header

Rheinberger-Schueller (2009). Anforderungen an einen Bus Simulator aus Sicht des VDV. Proceedings of the Second Technology-based Trainings for Drivers Conference, Jan. 21-22, CD-ROM.


http://ris.bka.gv.at/GeltendeFassung.wxe?Abfrage=Bundesnormen&Gesetzesnummer=10012723#header

http://ris.bka.gv.at/GeltendeFassung.wxe?Abfrage=Bundesnormen&Gesetzesnummer=10012723#header



7 ANNEX 1 – Minutes of the Road Network Format standardization meeting with TRAIN-ALL

The meeting was on the 10th of November 2009, in Paris, next to the TRAIN-ALL project final plenary meeting.

Agenda

Time Topic Responsible 09:45 Welcome INRETS / Stephane Espié10:00-10:30 Introduction TRAIN-ALL roadmap on Road

Network Format StandardizationTNO / Henk Janssen

10:30-10:45 Status OpenDRIVE, new/planned developments

Vires / Marius Dupuis

10:45-11:00 Status ROAD-XML, new/planned developments

Oktal / Gilles Gallee

11:00 -11:15 Coffee break 11:15 – 13:00 Brainstorm/workshop on feasibility, content

and implementation of a roadmap towards 1 (one) Road Network Format standard

TNO/ Henk Janssen

13:00-14:00 Lunch break14:15 – 15:00 European Committee for Standardization

(CEN) - how can CEN support standardization initiatives?

Bernard Jacob (Technical Director for Road Safety and Operation Laboratoire Central des Ponts et Chaussées)

15:00-15:15 Coffee break15:15-16:00 Projects Terra Data-1, Terra Magna

The need for road network format standardization ?

Participants List

Name Company Tel. E-mailMary Panou CERTH/ HIT +302109844360 [email protected] Bekiaris CERTH/ HIT +302109844360 [email protected] Parkes TRL +44134770421 [email protected] Kuipers GREENDINO +31317467760 [email protected] Julien Chaplier OKTAL +33562115022 [email protected] Stel TNO +31346356441 [email protected] Lidstrom VTI +4613204392 [email protected] Janssen TNO +31703740205 [email protected] Delahaye COAT +41613255668 [email protected] Jacob LCPC +33140435312 [email protected] Marius Dupius VIRES +498031/463640 [email protected]


mailto:[email protected]













Stéphane Espié INRETS +33 1 40 43 65 54 [email protected] 1. Short participants introduction

All the participants presented themselves.

Marius Dupuis of VIRES explained that he, for this meeting was representing the OpenDRIVE Management board, not his company.

2. TRAIN-ALL roadmap on Road Network Format Standardization - Presented by: Henk Janssen (TNO)

A short history of simulator related standards was shown. The standardization of the open road network, as conceived within TRAIN-ALL was presented.

One of the basic aims is the development of recommendations for general agreements that would lead to interoperable driving simulation systems. This includes, but is not limited to, federation management, time-management, terrain database formats and network standards.

For the road network as part of the terrain database formats, the achievements within TRAIN-ALL towards this goal include:

• TRAIN-ALL Requirements on Road Network format.• Identification (by survey) and start of collaboration with owners of available open road network

formats (mainly OKTAL and VIRES), to implement TRAIN-ALL requirements.• Approach for the future towards one common road network format standard.

Currently two “de-facto” standards exist on the road network format, supported by tools of two competitive companies. The target for the future is to end up in ONE standard by reducing the differences in capabilities/support of current road network format solutions and trying to merge afterwards. Current suppliers will keep business in providing support tools for this one standard as they do now for their “de-facto” standard.

To reduce differences in the current Road Network standards, adoption of both road network solutions is foreseen through participation in boards by TRAIN-ALL participants, who will provide recommendation of changes to road network “standards” OpenDRIVE and ROAD XML..

Discussion:

It was commented that a European view is taken; is industrial input from other world areas taken into account?

The reply from TNO was that the worldwide survey showed only European initiatives, but that the industrial/end-user input should be taken into account when developing the new and only standard..

In summary, there are 4 options for the future:

- no Open Road Network standard, the current de-facto standards will evolve;- Open Road Network standard initiated by TRAIN-ALL and other Parties;- TRAIN-ALL to select OpenDRIVE or ROADXML towards development of a certified standard;- all parties to work together towards a future standard (de facto or de jure).

VIRES: who is the authority to decide which is the standard? Their opinion is that the customer/user is the authority.





HIT: In our workshop last month we took into account the market: Swedish, Greek and Finnish Driving School Associations, as well as Research Institutes from many European countries, through FERSI. The end customer in many cases selects not to buy a simulator, because there are no interoperable scenarios, thus depends upon the viability of its manufacturer. For the moment, one manufacture opts for one standard, while another manufacturer for a different. In the CAD world it is possible to transfer files from one system to another (i.e. Autocad, CATIA, RAMSES) and that is missing from simulators today, to be able to transfer some minimum functionality from one system to another. In FERSI there are 22 Institutes, many of them with simulators. In the TRAIN-ALL event, all TRAIN-ALL developers (TNO, VTI, FOERST, THALES, GD, WIVW, INRETS, CRF) plus several important ones (FAROS, AUTOSIM, KRAUS MAFEI) agreed on the need to work towards interoperability and standardization.

The only authority appropriate is a legal authority (ISO, CEN) and some 10-15 major manufacturers and users may try to start such an activity under such a standardization authority umbrella.

3. OpenDRIVE status & new/planned developments Presented by: Marius Dupuis (VIRES)

VIRES represents the OpenDRIVE initiative.

A brief history of OpenDRIVE was presented, which started in 2004, with the big launch in 2006.

Open Drive is trying to be a de-facto standard.

The total number of users is unknown, as OpenDRIVE is open and can be downloaded form the internet for free, but there are more that 50 followers in 8 countries. Road, tram and railroad applications are using it.

The OpenCRG standard was also introduced, which deals with road surface issues; a first release of it will be in December ’09.

The next OpenDRIVE meeting will be held in Jan’28, where extensions of it will be discussed. At this meeting, one issue to be discussed is if it will go itself for a European standard or if merging with other initiatives will be considered.

4. ROADXML status & new/planned developments Presented by: Julien Chaplier (OCTAL)

The road from RND to ROADXML was presented. RND 1st version was released 3 years ago.

Currently board members are being selected (users, vendors, scientists), for managing the de-facto open standard.

Also, proposals are being received for ROADXML specification evolution. OCTAL is open to work with others towards the creation of a common standard.

5. Brainstorminga) What do we need to standardize (format description, open source parsers,….)?

The replies follow below:

VTI: It is enough if we only have specifications available, such as XML.

VIRES: We need to standardize a scheme, a test tool to check/assess if the provided input is according to the standard, i.e. new development/systems must be tested through the tool to proof that




the work performed is according to specifications. The first simple test could be: to check the XML scheme.

HIT: This is exactly what it is done within OASIS IP, with the ontological framework of web services. HIT proposed to ‘copy’ this concept in the simulators area.

The assessment tool cannot be a standard, but a service.

There was agreement on the XML scheme standardization for the Open Road Network format, supported by test services.

b) VTI Question: We don’t have to specify everything at the beginning, but having a roadmap, step by step.

VIRES: there is a process installed for extension of OpenDRIVE.

HIT: The procedure to update the standard is part of the standard or should belong to the Organisation that manages the standard.

INRETS: It needs to be compatible to what people already use, to the first layer, without major modifications.

c) Would we support the idea of having one standard at the end? Is it better than having 2 or 3 or more?

VIRES: Of course we agree to one good standard; they need to discuss with OpenDRIVE consortium at the meeting of Jan’28. They need to look if there is a solution for filling more tasks, e.g. microscopic simulation. OpenDRIVE can go up to a point and then a standard continues, or merge OpenDRIVE with the new standard.

HIT: Whether OpenDRIVE works alone or not, when working to a ‘de jure’ standard it will have to discuss with all other actors. In CEN procedures, it must standards Committees are open, so that other people will join; thus other actors will be eventually involved.

d) TNO: We need ideas on how we can get to 1 standard, of course taking into account constraints.

HIT: We don’t need necessarily to merge 2 standards, we can interface them.

VTI: The point is if the involved parties are willing to participate in the work to create the new standard, so organization issues are more important at this stage.

GreenDino: The personal interests of each company should be left out otherwise GreenDino (and probably other simulator development companies) will not participate with other competitors in.

It was decided to work on how we can get to 1 standard on the Road Network Format during a standard initialization meeting, probably hosted by CEN workshop initiative.

e) VIRES: Are we going to re-invent the wheel and start again? OpenDRIVE is managing the data flow, most of the users are not VIRES customers, many of the board members are competitors. How we design the process, so that people that are using sw do not have to change things? This is the key problem, the technical challenge!

All agreed that these were key issues needed to be solved.

HIT: We need a gateway for the old versions of sw, to update them in new ones.

VIRES: Actually translations to both directions are needed.




HIT: We need some resources to make the standard and the time for the transferring.

As for the funding, we can have it as European project of 2 years, or as a CEN Workshop (may also be EC funded), with max 150k funding. We need to send an application for a CEN workshop and then in about 6 months the EC will reply. Also, a national CEN secretariat will be paid to support (minutes, etc.) with about 15kE. We need min. 9 participants in the proposal and we may get funding for roughly another 5 external. The cost of meetings will be covered. At the end they want to see minutes and progress results, not necessarily building the standard. For an EC project, we need to wait for about 2 years to have a relevant call open, send the application and start the new project (if successful). In this case, we need to develop the standard. Probably about 1.5ME funding is enough for an EC project.

TNO: We need to set up an organization of future users, composed of industries, research laboratories and universities in order to create the standard and choose a standardisation body. Who can be the leader?

HIT: A suggestion was given, to prepare the proposal under the auspices of FERSI.

TRL: Is there an existing CEN Committee, which already deals with simulator standards for military or other applications? This is interesting as there are other simulators applications. We have to look upon that.

TNO: In TRAIN-ALL we decided to start the merging process by adopting to both formats by participants companies: INRETS is with Oktal, TNO with VIRES, GD has not decided yet, THALES probably with OKTAL.

The session was concluded with the statement that all participants are willing to create or merge to ONE common Road Network Standard Format. The way on how and with what means this could be achieved is not clear yet. Some thoughts and boundary conditions were defined in this meeting.

6. CEN application procedurePresented by: Bernard Jacob (LCPC)

The timeframe to develop a European standard is in principle no more than 36 months (it can get up to 54 months), but it is possible in even 16 months.

There are 4 tools for CEN:

1. European standard2. Technical specification (shorter procedure)3. CEN workshop agreement4. Primary questionnaire

FEHRL and FERSI Organisations can submit directly to CEN requirements for standards and don’t need to go through the national members. They also may initiate standardisation actions as an output of research projects. They cannot decide if it is good or not.

If it is an approach or two merging approaches, then the CEN workshop is the most appropriate; technical specifications are mainly for product-oriented standards.

The timeplan including the two above cases is shown below:




TASK January February March April May June July August September October November December … September October … end 20121 meeting among Consortium for application writing discussion (responsibilities, deadlines, etc.)Proposal writingSubmission of application Call openingSubmission of proposalStarting of project (if successful)

2010Application for standard to CEN

2011Submission of project proposal to EC




8 ANNEX 2 – list of contacted organisations

Country OrganisationAustria AISÖ – Arbeitsgemeinschaft Internationaler

Straßenverkehrsunternehmer Ö[email protected] Peter Tropper

Belgium CIECA – Commission Internationale des Examens de Conduite [email protected] Vandenberghe

Mobility & Transport Federal Public [email protected] Pourtois

Cyprus Ministry of [email protected] Savva

Czech Republic CDV – Centrum Dopravního Vý[email protected] matejka

Denmark DTU – Department of Transport (DTU Transport) at the Technical University of [email protected] Troglauer

Finland VTT Technical Research Centre of [email protected]

[email protected] Kosonen

[email protected] Lybeck

AKE – Finnish Vehicle [email protected]

France [email protected]

Germany Foerst Gmbh [email protected] foerst

IZVW, WIVW – Center for Traffic Sciences at the University of Wuerzburg, Wuerzburg Institute for Traffic Sciences















[email protected] BASt – Bundesanstalt für Straßenwesen (Federal Highway

Research Institute)[email protected]@[email protected]

Greece CERTH – Centre for Research and Technology [email protected] Margaritis

Hungary KHEM – Ministry of Transport, Telecommunication and [email protected]ékely Andrá[email protected]ábián Anita

NKH – Nemzeti Közlekedési Hatóság (National Transport Authority)[email protected]űcs Mária Ildikó[email protected] Képzési és Vizsgáztatási Főosztály

Ireland [email protected] Jones

Italy [email protected] Dalla Chiara

CRF – Centro Ricerche [email protected] Giovanni

Latvia CSDD – Ceļu Satiksmes Drošības [email protected] [email protected] Bērziņa

Road Traffic [email protected]ļu satiksmes izpete

Luxembourg CLC – Confédération Luxembourgeoise du [email protected] Nothum

Netherlands [email protected] Jan Engelfriet [email protected] Jorrit Kuipers






















ST [email protected] van Winsum

TNO Defense, Security and [email protected] Kappe

Norway [email protected] [email protected] Jenssen

Slovenia Ministry of [email protected] [email protected] Svetina

Sweden VTI – Swedish National Road and Transport Research [email protected]örn [email protected]

GB DSA – Driving Standards [email protected] Hannigan











Date post:	10-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times