1. eSafety Conclusions April 2002 1 e-Safety Working Group Brussels 8 July 2002 Sub-group 4: Societal and Business Issues Co-chaired by Messrs. J. Mateu (RACC) and A. Barbas (EC),

2. eSafety Conclusions April 2002 2 Thank you for contributions made by: Mr. P. Sauret (RACC), Mr. M. Hollingsworth (ACEA), Mr. R. Schuessler (DaimlerChrysler), Mr. B. Simon (Renault), Mr. B. Lofving (Volvo Cars), Mr. J. Archer (Ford), Mr. W. Reinhardt (Opel), Mr. F. Sansone (ertico), Mr. M. Rowell (NavTech), Mr. P. St. Martin (NavTech), Mr. A. Bastiaansen (TeleAtlas), Mr. J. Malenstein (KLPD), Mr. H. Duchateau (STRATEC, representing IMPACTS), Mr. J. Pourbaix (POLIS), Mr. M. Tomassini (STA, representing POLIS),, Mr. M. Sena (consultant). User acceptance done in collaboration with ADAC, ANWB and AA.

3. eSafety Conclusions April 2002 3 e-Safety - WG Sub-group 4 Societal and Business Needs 1.- Aims 1.- Aims Identify and assess the societal and business barriers which need to be overcome for realising the potential of eSafety; Identify and assess the societal and business barriers which need to be overcome for realising the potential of eSafety; Agree on the actions which need to be taken for facilitating viable business cases and enabling market take-up. Agree on the actions which need to be taken for facilitating viable business cases and enabling market take-up. Prepare a position paper which will outline the problem areas and models of good practice available to date per domain, and which will conclude to a list of specific actions and recommendations for possible inclusion to the EC Communication. Prepare a position paper which will outline the problem areas and models of good practice available to date per domain, and which will conclude to a list of specific actions and recommendations for possible inclusion to the EC Communication.

4. eSafety Conclusions April 2002 4 e-Safety - WG Sub-group 4 Societal and Business Needs 2.- State-of-the-practice. 2.- State-of-the-practice.

5. eSafety Conclusions April 2002 5 e-Safety - WG Sub-group 4 Societal and Business Needs 3.- What worked out well and what not, and the reasons for such outcomes. 3.- What worked out well and what not, and the reasons for such outcomes. The applications that work with autonomous technology are well accepted in the market, but the applications that need a human intervention such as seat belts, are not always used. Applications for interactive technologies such as traffic information, seem to be still at a preliminary stage and the market is not mature enough for mass applications [?].

6. eSafety Conclusions April 2002 6 e-Safety - WG Sub-group 4 Input needed from Members 4.- Actions to be taken for current applications. 4.- Actions to be taken for current applications. 4.1. - From a business perspective: 4.1. - From a business perspective: Legal and liability issues are commonly viewed as perhaps the major bottleneck in the commercial deployment of advanced safety technologies and services. [Input from partners of the RESPONSE project is needed] Traffic management; It is possible to develop systems linked to intelligent speed adaptation and GPS positioning which would advertise the current speed limit, and have a centralised system changing this speed limit according to the actual situation of traffic (heavy congestion, accidents, special events, etc.). The link with traffic models could allow better short term forecast of traffic conditions.

7. eSafety Conclusions April 2002 7 e-Safety - WG Sub-group 4 Input needed from Members BARRIERS: Societal behaviour. Educational efforts must be done to encourage safety behaviour from drivers, for instance seat belt use. Additional vehicle cost. Price acceptance. Accuracy maps Full market introduction. Market maturity e-call Common standard. Pan European coverage. Driver distraction. Systems of prioritisation and management of information can be implemented. FCD: Critical mass of users. I-LOC services: Services providers and business model. Real time traffic information: Data quality, and traffic control centre architecture. Maps: real time up-date. GALILEO start-up.

8. eSafety Conclusions April 2002 8 e-Safety - WG Sub-group 4 Input needed from Members Cost/benefit analysis; business case: who will finance safety? Marketing/publicity; Benefits such as improved traffic conditions; better mobility and lower accident rates must be assessed in a convincing way. 4.2. - Actions needed from the Road User Perspective. 4.2. - Actions needed from the Road User Perspective. For most people, it is important that the Emergency Centre is operated by a reliable and trustworthy organisations which do not necessarily need to be part of a public service. When it comes to confirmation that the e-call has been received, most people prefer to have the operator/doctor staying on the line or receive a verbal assurance that help is on its way.

9. eSafety Conclusions April 2002 9 e-Safety - WG Sub-group 4 Input needed from Members 5.- Recommendations for the EC Communication. 5.- Recommendations for the EC Communication. eSafety technologies (autonomous in-vehicle technologies like collision warning as well as interactive technologies like e-Call) demonstrate the characteristics of public goods to a high degree. Public goods can and are supplied by private firms. Even when supplied by private firms, public goods status must justify some kind of public intervention. Common e-safety aims must be define for public sector, car manufacturers, map providers and user organisations. E-safety business case should follow current applications as AB and seat belt use.

10. eSafety Conclusions April 2002 10 e-Safety - WG Sub-group 4 Input needed from Members 5.- Recommendations for the EC Communication. 5.- Recommendations for the EC Communication. Priorities for promoting deployment could be: e-call Autonomous Interactive A unique European Road Safety Map Database containing e-safety attributes, data approved for use in hazard warning purposes, needs to be produced and maintained under the responsibility of the public sector and made available license-free and in a open format to all parties interested in implementing eSafety systems or services with appropriate reimbursement to these private mapping suppliers involved.

11. eSafety Conclusions April 2002 11 e-Safety - WG Sub-group 4 Input needed from Members Its needed an specific feedback from: Its needed an specific feedback from: car manufacturers car manufacturers map providers map providers terminal manufacturers terminal manufacturers service providers service providers public administrations public administrations about: about: What worked out well and what not, and the reasons for such outcomes. Add examples of best practice cases. What worked out well and what not, and the reasons for such outcomes. Add examples of best practice cases. Actions to be taken for current applications (from a business perspective or from road users perspective) Actions to be taken for current applications (from a business perspective or from road users perspective) Specific Recommendations for the EC Communication. Specific Recommendations for the EC Communication.

12. eSafety Conclusions April 2002 12 e-Safety - WG Sub-group 4 Input needed from Members Thank you very much for your efforts for improving safety on roads!