ISO/TR 17427-10:2015

TECHNICAL ISO/TR
REPORT 17427-10
First edition
2015-11-01
Intelligent transport systems —
Cooperative ITS —
Part 10:
Driver distraction and information
display
Systèmes intelligents de transport — Systèmes intelligents de
transport coopératifs —
Partie 10: Distraction du conducteur et affichage des informations
Reference number
©
ISO 2015
© ISO 2015, Published in Switzerland
All rights reserved. Unless otherwise specified, no part of this publication may be reproduced or utilized otherwise in any form
or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, or posting on the internet or an intranet, without prior
written permission. Permission can be requested from either ISO at the address below or ISO’s member body in the country of
the requester.
ISO copyright office
Ch. de Blandonnet 8 • CP 401
CH-1214 Vernier, Geneva, Switzerland
Tel. +41 22 749 01 11
Fax +41 22 749 09 47
copyright@iso.org
www.iso.org
ii © ISO 2015 – All rights reserved

Contents Page
Foreword .iv
Introduction .vi
1 Scope . 1
2 Terms and definitions . 1
3 Abbreviated terms . 2
4 How to use this Technical Report . 3
4.1 Acknowledgements . 3
4.2 Guidance . 3
4.3 ITS and ‘driver distraction and information display’ . 3
4.3.1 ESOP. 4
4.3.2 US NHTSA distraction guidelines . 5
4.4 C-ITS driver distraction and overload issues in context . 5
5 What are the key driver distraction and information display issues .6
5.1 General . 6
5.2 Information display . 8
5.3 In-vehicle technology and distraction . 8
5.4 International approaches .10
5.4.1 United States.10
5.4.2 Europe .11
5.4.3 Australia .12
5.4.4 Japan .12
5.4.5 Other countries .13
5.4.6 Vienna convention on road traffic.13
6 Policy questions and options .13
6.1 Option 1: Continue current approach .13
6.2 Option 2: Amend current road rules .13
6.3 Option 3: Create guidelines or principles for manufacturers .13
6.4 Option 4: Examine technology options as they develop .14
7 Summary of findings.14
Annex A (informative) Extracts from “Fighting driver distraction — worldwide approaches” .18
Bibliography .23
Foreword
ISO (the International Organization for Standardization) is a worldwide federation of national standards
bodies (ISO member bodies). The work of preparing International Standards is normally carried out
through ISO technical committees. Each member body interested in a subject for which a technical
committee has been established has the right to be represented on that committee. International
organizations, governmental and non-governmental, in liaison with ISO, also take part in the work.
ISO collaborates closely with the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) on all matters of
electrotechnical standardization.
The procedures used to develop this document and those intended for its further maintenance are
described in the ISO/IEC Directives, Part 1. In particular the different approval criteria needed for the
different types of ISO documents should be noted. This document was drafted in accordance with the
editorial rules of the ISO/IEC Directives, Part 2 (see www.iso.org/directives).
Attention is drawn to the possibility that some of the elements of this document may be the subject of
patent rights. ISO shall not be held responsible for identifying any or all such patent rights. Details of
any patent rights identified during the development of the document will be in the Introduction and/or
on the ISO list of patent declarations received (see www.iso.org/patents).
Any trade name used in this document is information given for the convenience of users and does not
constitute an endorsement.
For an explanation on the meaning of ISO specific terms and expressions related to conformity
assessment, as well as information about ISO’s adherence to the WTO principles in the Technical
Barriers to Trade (TBT) see the following URL: Foreword - Supplementary information
The committee responsible for this document is ISO/TC 204, Intelligent transport systems.
ISO 17427 consists of the following parts, under the general title Intelligent transport systems —
Cooperative ITS:
— Part 2: Framework Overview [Technical Report]
— Part 3: Concept of operations (ConOps) for ‘core’ systems [Technical Report]
— Part 4: Minimum system requirements and behaviour for core systems [Technical Report]
— Part 6: ‘Core system’ risk assessment methodology [Technical Report]
— Part 7: Privacy aspects [Technical Report]
— Part 8: Liability aspects [Technical Report]
— Part 9: Compliance and enforcement aspects [Technical Report]
— Part 10: Driver distraction and information display [Technical Report]
The following parts are under preparation:
— Part 1: Roles and responsibilities in the context of co-operative ITS architecture(s)
— Part 5: Common approaches to security [Technical Report]
— Part 11: Compliance and enforcement aspects [Technical Report]
— Part 12: Release processes [Technical Report]
— Part 13: Use case test cases [Technical Report]
— Part 14: Maintenance requirements and processes [Technical Report]
iv © ISO 2015 – All rights reserved

This Technical Report provides an informative ‘driver distraction and information display aspects’
for Cooperative Intelligent Transport Systems (C-ITS). It is intended to be used alongside ISO 17427-1,
ISO/TR 17465-1 and other parts of ISO 17465, and ISO 21217. Detailed specifications for the application
context will be provided by other ISO, CEN and SAE deliverables, and communications specifications
will be provided by ISO, IEEE and ETSI.
Introduction
Intelligent transport systems (ITS) are transport systems in which advanced information, communication,
sensor and control technologies, including the Internet, are applied to increase safety, sustainability,
efficiency, and comfort.
A distinguishing feature of ‘ITS’ is its communication with outside entities.
Some ITS systems operate autonomously, for example, ‘adaptive cruise control’ uses radar/lidar/ and/or
video to characterize the behaviour of the vehicle in front and adjust its vehicle speed accordingly. Some
ITS systems are informative, for example, ‘Variable Message Signs’ at the roadside, or transmitted into
the vehicle, provide information and advice to the driver. Some ITS systems are semi-autonomous in
that they are largely autonomous but rely on ‘static’ or ‘broadcast’ data, for example, GNSS (2.5) based
‘SatNav’ systems operate autonomously within a vehicle but are dependent on receiving data broadcast
from satellites in order to calculate the location of the vehicle.
Cooperative Intelligent Transport Systems (C-ITS) are a group of ITS technologies where service provision
is enabled by, or enhanced by, the use of ‘live’, present situation related, dynamic data/information from
other entities of similar functionality [for example, from one vehicle to other vehicle(s)], and/or between
different elements of the transport network, including vehicles and infrastructure [for example,
from the vehicle to an infrastructure managed system or from an infrastructure managed system to
vehicle(s)]. Effectively, these systems allow vehicles to ‘talk’ to each other and to the infrastructure.
These systems have significant potential to improve the transport network.
A distinguishing feature of ‘C-ITS’ is that data are used across application/service boundaries.
It will be immediately clear to the reader that such systems present the possibility of driver distraction
(2.4), both through visual overload (display presentation and visual or oral provision of information
and/or via instructions or advice). The purpose of this Technical Report is to identify potential critical
driver distraction and information display issues that C-ITS service provision may introduce, to consider
how to control, limit or mitigate such issues.
Existing rules (2.12) govern the use of technology inside vehicles to reduce driver distraction (2.4). This
Technical Report identifies and discusses how C-ITS applications may fit within these existing rules and
discusses whether they may raise additional risks.
This Technical Report is a ‘living document’ and as our experience with C-ITS develops, it is intended that
it will be updated from time to time, as and when we see opportunities to improve this Technical Report.
vi © ISO 2015 – All rights reserved

TECHNICAL REPORT ISO/TR 17427-10:2015(E)
Intelligent transport systems — Cooperative ITS —
Part 10:
Driver distraction and information display
1 Scope
The scope of this Technical Report is, as an informative document, to identify potential critical driver
distraction (2.4) and information display issues that C-ITS service provision may introduce, to consider
strategies for how to identify, control, limit or mitigate such issues. The objective of this Technical
Report is to raise awareness of and consideration of such issues and to give pointers, where appropriate,
to existing standards deliverables that provide specifications for all or some of these aspects. This
Technical Report does not provide specifications for solutions of these issues.
Existing rules (2.12) govern the use of technology inside vehicles to reduce driver distraction.
NOTE The issues of driver distraction (2.4) and information display affect the design of all aspects of C-ITS
service provision and are a critical factor in C-ITS system design and instantiation. However, while the general
issues that affect C-ITS system design and implementation and related issues of what and how data in a C-ITS
assisted application service provides and is realized and is therefore developed within ISO TC 204/CEN TC 278,
most of the detailed aspects of physical presentation and human factors within the vehicle are standardized
within ISO TC 22.
2 Terms and definitions
2.1
application
software application
2.2
application service
service provided by a service provider accessing data from the IVS (2.7) within the vehicle in the case
of C-ITS, via a wireless communications network, or provided on-board the vehicle as the result of
software (and potentially also hardware and firmware) installed by a service provider or to a service
provider’s instruction
2.3
cooperative ITS
C-ITS
group of ITS technologies where service provision is enabled, or enhanced by, the use of ‘live’, present
situation related, data/information from other entities of similar functionality [for example, from one
vehicle to other vehicle(s)], and/or between different elements of the transport network, including
vehicles and infrastructure (for example, from the vehicle to an infrastructure managed system or
from an infrastructure managed system to vehicle(s))
2.4
distraction
something that draws the attention of a driver away from the driving task and/or divides or confuses
the attention of the driver
2.5
global navigation satellite system
GNSS
several networks of satellites that transmit radio signals containing time and distance data that can be
picked up by a receiver, allowing the user to identify the location of its receiver anywhere around the globe
2.6
guideline
principle put forward to set standards or determine a course of action; usually, but not always, as a
recommendation or advice without the requirement of law but adherence to published guidelines may
in some circumstances become a requirement of a regulation
2.7
in-vehicle system
IVS
hardware, firmware and software on-board a vehicle that provides a platform to support C-ITS
service provision, including that of the ITS-station (2.9) (ISO 21217), the facilities layer, data pantry
and on-board ‘apps’
2.8
intelligent transport systems
ITS
transport systems in which advanced information, communication, sensor and control technologies,
including the Internet, are applied to increase safety, sustainability, efficiency, and comfort
2.9
ITS-station
ITS-s
entity in a communication network [comprised of application (2.1), facilities, networking and access
layer components] that is capable of executing ITS-S application processes, comprised of an ITS-S
facilities layer, ITS-S networking and transport layer, ITS-S access layer, ITS-S management entity and
ITS-S security entity, which adheres to a minimum set of security principles and procedures so as to
establish a level of trust between itself and other similar ITS stations with which it communicates
2.10
jurisdiction
government, road or traffic authority which makes and enforce regulations (2.11)
EXAMPLE Country, state, city council, road authority, government department (customs, treasury,
transport), etc.
2.11
regulation
order issued by a jurisdiction having the force of law
2.12
rule
authoritative regulation (2.11) or direction concerning method or procedure, as for a court of law,
legislative body, game, or other human institution or activity, especially any body which may exert
control (e.g. an employer, a jurisdiction, a school, etc.)
3 Abbreviated terms
C-ITS cooperative intelligent transport systems, cooperative ITS
ESOP European statement of principles
IHRA International Harmonized Research Activities
2 © ISO 2015 – All rights reserved

ITS intelligent transport systems (2.8)
IVS in-vehicle system (2.7)
NHTSA (US) National Highways Traffic Safety Administration
TR technical report
4 How to use this Technical Report
4.1 Acknowledgements
Much of the inspiration for this Technical Report and its considerations and content originate from the
reports “Cooperative ITS Regulatory Policy Issues” and “Cooperative Intelligent Transport Systems Policy
[1][17]
Paper” National Transport Commission, Australia. This source is acknowledged and thanked.
Contribution from the EC project AIDE is acknowledged.
Contribution from various documents made available by UN-ECE (Nations Economic Commission for
Europe) WP.29 is acknowledged and including contributions from US NHTSA.
See Bibliography for further details.
4.2 Guidance
This Technical Report is designed to provide guidance and a direction for those considering the issues
concerning driver distraction and information display associated with the deployment of C-ITS service
provision. It does not purport to be a list of all potential driver distraction (2.4) and information display
factors which will vary according to the application (2.1) service being provided, the regime of the
jurisdiction (2.10), the location of the instantiation, and to the form of the instantiation, nor does it
provide definitive specification. Rather, this Technical Report discusses and raises awareness of the
major driver distraction and information display issues to be considered and provides guidance and
direction for considering and managing driver distraction and information display in the context of
future and instantiation specific deployments of C-ITS.
4.3 ITS and ‘driver distraction and information display’
Driver distraction (2.4) has become an increasing concern amongst road safety experts, with the
increasing range of technologies within vehicles creating the potential for drivers to have their
attention taken away from the driving task. C-ITS has the potential to create further distractions if not
implemented appropriately.
Distraction (2.4) is when drivers divert their attention away from the driving task to focus on another
[14][1]
activity instead. Distraction can come in several ways:
— visual – eyes off the road (or focusing on the wrong part);
— manual – hands off the wheel;
— cognitive – mind off the road;
— biomechanical – requiring action on the part of the driver.
C-ITS have the potential to increase safety and, for example, collision warning systems will be designed
to only notify a driver by exception (i.e. an alarm would be generated only when a crash was likely and
the driver needed to take evasive action). These alarms should therefore not affect the general driving
task the majority of time. However, designers will need to be careful to ensure that such warning
alarms are sufficiently intuitive that drivers immediately know what to do; poorly designed alarms
could decrease safety if they divert attention from the immediate risk or create confusion.
‘Infotainment’ applications may create more of an on-going distraction (2.4) risk; this is however already
an existing risk with infotainment systems today. C-ITS channels may create new ways for this content
to be shared with a vehicle but it is not expected that this will substantially change the risks involved
associated with ‘infotainment’.
Driver distraction (2.4) and information display is the subject of International Regulation and National
Regulations and recommendations.
The reader’s attention is again drawn particularly to the standards deliverables of ISO TC 22 especially,
International Standards Organization ISO/TC 22/SC 13.
— Distraction metrics (measurement of distracting tasks) and design guidelines (2.6) (e.g. prioritization)
and the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Safety and Human Factors Committee.
NOTE The following list is illustrative and does not claim to be a complete list.
Primarily:
— ESOP - Commission of the European Communities (2007) Commission Recommendation on Safe and
Efficient In-Vehicle Information and Communication Systems; Update of the European Statement of
Principles on Human Machine Interface;
— JAMA - Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association Guidelines for In-Vehicle Display Systems,
Version 3.0, 2004;
— Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (AAM) Statement of Principles, Criteria and Verification
Procedures on Driver Interactions with Advanced In-Vehicle Information and Communication
Systems, June 26, 2006;
— International Telecommunications Union ITU-T FG Distraction Recommendations:
— P.UIA—ITU-T Recommendation on automotive user interface requirements;
— G.SAM—ITU-T Mechanisms for managing the situational awareness of drivers;
— G.V2A—ITU-T Recommendation on an automotive interface for applications external to the
vehicle gateway;
— Car Connectivity Consortium:
1)
— Driver Workload Guidelines for MirrorLink™ Mobile Applications;
1)
— “drive-ready” certification to MirrorLink™ apps. that are deemed not to adversely affect driving;
— Guidelines for developers are based on existing distraction (2.4) guidelines (2.6) (i.e. ESOP, JAMA
and Alliance).
See also Annex A for a comparison of ESOP, JAMA and AAM considerations.
4.3.1 ESOP
4.3.1.1 ESOP scope
The principles apply primarily to in-vehicle information and communication systems intended for use
by the driver while the vehicle is in motion.
Apply to systems and functionalities in OEM-, aftermarket-, and nomadic (portable) systems.
1) MirrorLink™ is an example of a suitable product available commercially. This information is given for the
convenience of users of this document and does not constitute an endorsement by ISO of this product.
4 © ISO 2015 – All rights reserved

4.3.1.2 ESOP principles
a) Installation
b) Information presentation
c) Interface with displays and controls
d) System behaviour
e) Information about the system
4.3.1.3 ESOP design objectives
— The system supports the driver and does not give rise to potentially hazardous behaviour by the
driver or other road users.
— The allocation of driver attention while interacting with system displays and controls remains
compatible with the attentional demand of the driving situation.
— The system does not distract or visually entertain the driver.
— The system does not present information to the driver which results in potentially hazardous
behaviour by the driver or other road users.
— Interfaces and interface with systems intended to be used in combination by the driver while the
vehicle is in motion are consistent and compatible.
4.3.2 US NHTSA distraction guidelines
Minimize driver distraction (2.4) from electronic devices by encouraging better driver-device interfaces.
Conformance is voluntary.
Guidelines (2.6) implementation in three phases:
— Phase 1 – Visual-manual interfaces for devices installed by vehicle manufacturers (2013);
— Phase 2 – Portable and aftermarket devices (future work);
— Phase 3 – Voice-based auditory interfaces (future work).
4.4 C-ITS driver distraction and overload issues in context
It is important that potential driver distraction (2.4) and display issues created by C-ITS service
provision are not viewed in isolation. C-ITS service provision is simply yet another potential source of
driver distraction of visual or audible overload. Indeed, designed wisely, C-ITS service provision may
often be used to reduce such overloads.
The prime driver distraction (2.4) and visual display issues remain those described and addressed in
4.3. The principle context for C-IS is to ensure that
a) C-ITS service provision does not add to driver distraction/overload, and
b) C-ITS service provision, where possible, uses opportunity to reduce driver distraction/overload
5 What are the key driver distraction and information display issues
5.1 General
Existing rules (2.12) and guidelines (see 4.3) govern the use of technology inside vehicles to reduce
driver distraction (2.4). An assessment is required of how C-ITS applications fit within these existing
rules and whether they raise additional risks. Key findings indicate the following:
— Initial C-ITS applications are likely to require human recognition of the signals and timely and
proportionate responses. This reliance on human factors (see 4.3) could increase risks in certain
circumstances;
— C-ITS, including driver distraction and information display considerations, are not yet explicitly
regulated in most countries;
— Relevant terms such as ‘visual display unit’ and ‘driver’s aid’ are not precisely defined in the ‘Highway
Code/Driving Rules’ of most countries. However, devices providing C-ITS applications would likely
fall under the definition of a ‘driver’s aid’ or similar and be allowable under the road rules;
— In addition to ensuring that C-ITS meets safety objectives, legislation may be required to ensure that
legitimate C-ITS functions are legalized and that drivers using the technology are not caught by laws
prohibiting the use of mobile phones while driving. Any required changes to the law will need to be
addressed by jurisdictions on a national or state basis;
— Guidelines relating to the safety and ergonomic functionality of in-vehicle electronic devices have
been developed to address this issue (see 4.3 and Bibliography).
C-ITS will provide more information to drivers to empower them to make better driving decisions, at
least in its early development when C-ITS is expected to be, at least initially, largely based on advisory
systems that require human recognition of the signals. The challenge for designers is to achieve this
without overloading the driver’s cognitive load. Messages shall be prioritized in order to ensure that the
driver receives critical information at the critical time. Drivers should be able to distinguish a critical
message from a host of other in-vehicle systems (2.7) competing for his or her attention.
Safety is a primary objective of C-ITS but there is a risk that its introduction will inadvertently
compromise safety in certain scenarios. The challenge for manufacturers and C-ITS service providers is
to provide more in-vehicle information or enable more selective prioritized presentation of information
through new systems without unnecessarily distracting, overwhelming or confusing drivers.
The American Automobile Association Foundation for Traffic Safety defines driver distraction (2.4)
as occurring:
“when a driver is delayed in the recognition of information needed to safely accomplish the driving
task because some event, activity, object or person within or outside the vehicle compelled or tended to
induce the driver’s shifting attention away from the driving task.”
It has alternatively been defined as “the diversion of attention away from activities critical for safe
[4]
driving toward a competing activity.”
As stated above, distraction (2.4) can be visual, auditory, biomechanical, physical or cognitive.
Driver distraction (2.4) can be caused by the actions of the driver, for example, adjusting the radio,
answering a phone or texting, or it might be caused by unexpected visual, auditory or haptic experiences
that are outside the driver’s control, such as a distracting billboard image or sudden in-vehicle high
pitched tone or vibration.
It might also be caused by an active screen demanding attention, a visual or audible warning, or by an
inappropriate warning. For example, if a forward collision warning system indicated a medium risk
of collision that demanded the driver’s attention looking ahead but there was an unannounced higher
critical level situation of a side impact collision which was unnoticed because of the driver’s attention
being focused on the less imminent threat.
6 © ISO 2015 – All rights reserved

In-vehicle driver distraction outside the driver’s control is particularly relevant to C-ITS and is the focus
of this Technical Report.
At the same time, it should be borne in mind that C-ITS safety applications can also help protect against
the results of distraction (2.4) by providing warnings of imminent collisions (such as rear-end collisions)
that might be caused by distraction. Future technology could assist with managing distraction, for
example, by varying the options and functions presented to a driver based on the driver’s experience,
vehicle speed, weather and current traffic conditions, in order to ‘lock down’ the technology in riskier
[5]
situations.
At issue is the loss of concentration that these acts might cause, and while driver distraction (2.4) data
are difficult to measure and not as consistently collected as speed or alcohol data, driver distraction is
acknowledged as a common source of crashes. Given the newness of C-ITS, there is even less empirical
research about its impact on drivers than other forms of distraction. The scenario of most concern is
nonetheless clear: where an in-vehicle C-ITS warning startles the driver and contributes to a collision.
C-ITS does not function in isolation but requires human recognition of the signals and timely and
proportionate responsiveness. This reliance on human factors could create risks. C-ITS applications
providing traveller information to drivers could also prove a source of distraction.
As in-vehicle technologies increase, C-ITS will emerge in the marketplace to compete with a host of
other information-providing systems and technologies. In-vehicle technology may include systems
built into the vehicle, personal navigation devices or smartphones (or a combination of these devices).
This could result in drivers ignoring the warnings produced by C-ITS or becoming distracted by the
warnings. Alternatively, the package of C-ITS technologies could result in a range of warnings and
signals competing for the driver’s attention and could result in overwhelming the driver. Warnings
need to be carefully timed and prioritized.
In addition to ensuring that C-ITS is designed to meet safety objectives, legislation will need to confirm
that C-ITS devices are legal and not caught in the net of laws prohibiting the use of mobile phones while
driving. It also remains an ongoing challenge to keep the laws, standards and guidelines up-to-date
with changing technology: “it is important that standards addressing driver distraction be valid and
[6]
applicable independent of type of device, manufacturer and level of experience of driver/user.”
Potential risks include the following:
— An increasing cognitive load on drivers: C-ITS will provide more information to drivers which
should empower them to make better driving decisions. The risk is that they will be overloaded
with information and decision-making will worsen in critical situations as a result;
— Prioritizing signals: with a greater volume of information and a range of signals competing for the
driver’s attention, messages shall be prioritized in order to ensure that the driver receives the critical
information at the critical time and be able to distinguish that message from the host of others.
(ISO/TC 22/SC 13 and the SAE Safety and Human Factors Committee have produced standards for
message prioritization, notably: SAE J2395 and ISO/TS 16951);
— Prioritizing systems: a critical C-ITS warning to a driver, perhaps involving both an audio and a visual
message, could be undermined if competing with other in-vehicle systems (2.7) or example, the audio
message may not be clear when the navigation system is providing turn-by-turn directions and
the mobile phone is notifying the driver of new text messages and music is playing. Compatibility
between systems that enable prioritization is possible when C-ITS is built into the vehicle but
prioritizing systems is a much greater risk when C-ITS is based on after-market devices. The risk
could also be higher in commercial vehicles that have additional in-vehicle systems. Significant
work in this area has been undertaken in the aviation industry; however, that is a much more closely
controlled environment;
— It is important to recognize that warnings are designed to get a person’s attention, communicate the
nature of the hazard, its severity, urgency and an appropriate response. Warnings are distracting
by nature. Collision warning needs to be attention getting. However, prompts for location-based
services may have some urgency but they are not safety critical.
Distraction reduces situation awareness and impairs driving performance. Risk increases with
exposure to a hazard. With distraction, risk can vary with the following:
— type of distraction - visual, manual and cognitive;
— timing;
— duration;
— frequency;
— intensity.
5.2 Information display
Good design rules (2.12) and guidance (see 4.3 and Clause 7) can help detail the location and format of
dashboard information display, including the placement of speedometers and odometers. But generally,
existing design rules do not prescribe the location and format of additional information, such as changes
to the speed limit, real-time traffic and roadwork advice or the location of approaching vehicles, nor
prioritization between visual and audible warning. As early ITS applications have been introduced,
screen displays and warnings current vary widely between auto-manufacturers.
As C-ITS generated information becomes available to drivers, the current information display
regulations may require updating, more so if C-ITS information display becomes mandatory. The work
of ESOP and AAM to achieve these objectives is discussed at length elsewhere in this Technical Report.
Also the work of ISO/TC 22/SC 13 has put much effort in advice for integration of warnings (especially
ISO/TR 12204) and should be taken into account. Current work at NHTSA is designed to provide a set
of human factors design principles for driver-vehicle interfaces (DVIs), as well as basic human factors
concepts in respect of safety messages in visual, auditory or haptic formats for light and heavy vehicles,
and so NHTSA may provide additional resource for those considering these issues (www.nhtsa.gov).
5.3 In-vehicle technology and distraction
Most driving regulations (2.11) proscribe the use of in-vehicle televisions or visual display units (VDU)
that are visible to the driver or could distract other drivers, unless the unit is part of a driver’s aid and
is either an integrated part of the vehicle design or is secured in a mounting affixed to the vehicle while
being used. Relevant examples of driver’s aids include the following:
— VDUs for closed-circuit security camera;
— VDUs for closed-circuit television reversing and blind spot cameras;
— dispatch systems;
— navigational or intelligent highway and vehicle system equipment;
— vehicle monitoring devices.
8 © ISO 2015 – All rights reserved

Figure 1 — Examples of various ADAS and IVIS interacting with the driver in a future vehicle1
(Source: EC Project AIDE)
[12]
Project AIDE concluded “It is clear from Figure 1 that the various systems interacting with the
driver cannot be implemented independently. The most obvious reason for this is that such a large
number of separate HMI devices would simply not fit into the vehicle cockpit. Moreover, conflicting
information from different systems could distract, overload, confuse and annoy the driver, thus causing
problems that did not exist for the systems in isolation. Moreover, behavioural changes in response to a
combination of systems may be very different from responses to the systems in isolation. Thus, there is
a strong need for a unified human machine that integrates the different systems into functioning whole
resolving conflicts between different functions and taking into account their aggregate effects. Some
key features of such an integrated HMI would include the following:
— multimodal HMI devices shared by different systems (e.g. head-up displays, speech input/output,
seats vibrators, haptic input devices, directional sound output);
— centralized intelligence for resolving conflicts between systems (e.g. by means of information
prioritization and scheduling);
— seamless integration of nomad devices into the on-board driver-vehicle interface;
— adaptivity of the integrated HMI to the current driver state/driving context.
Most existing regulations (2.11) do not prescribe appropriate use of visual display units or driver’s aids
and do not regulate design interface or provide maximum time periods that a driver’s attention should
be taken from the road, although voluntary guidelines (2.6) such as the NHTSA-2010-0053 Visual-Manual
[16]
NHTSA Driver Distraction Guidelines: For In-Vehicle Electronic Devices and ESOP guidelines addresses
these issues. However, most highway regulations prohibit the manual use of mobile phones while driving.
Generally, a driver shall not make or receive a phone call while driving, unless the mobile phone is secured
in a mounting affixed to the vehicle or is not being held by the driver, and does not require the driver, at
any time while using it, to press or manipulate anything on the body of the phone, i.e in most countries,
‘hands-free’ operation is allowed, although there is a growing body of evidence that simply talking on the
phone creates an unacceptable level of driver distraction that has empirical evidence collated that is a
contributory cause of vehicle accidents. Hands-free operation is generally allowed.
The position of whether a driver can receive a text or video or similar communication if the
communication is received automatically by the phone and the message is not automatically visible on
the screen of the phone (except for an indication that the communication has been received) is less clear
in many countries. CB radio communications or other two-way radio devices (such as taxicab control
systems) are generally allowed in most countries.
It may generally be said, in most countries, that the mobile phone usage regulations have not kept pace
with developing mobile phone functions which could potentially be both a visual display unit and a
driver’s aid (especially, e.g. as a sat/nav device) The prognosis is worse for the future. Because much
ITS/C-ITS service provision could well be carried into the vehicle via a USIM/cellular communications
link, which is technically a mobile phone even if the IVS (2.7) does not look like one, and might need
screen led responses by the driver. How the law will deal with this is unclear in most countries and
revision (clarification) is urgently needed.
Current regulations (2.11) for driver distraction (2.4) were developed in now outmoded scenarios.
There is not so much a need to use regulatory tools to set uniform standards, as to bring the existing
regulations up to date. Standardization should, wherever possible, be a consensual process involving as
many stakeholders as practicable. Wherever possible, regulatory tools should reference consensually
developed standards.
5.4 International approaches
5.4.1 United States
Driver distraction rules (2.12) in the United States are largely set by state jurisdictions, resulting in a
wide range of different regulations (2.11). However, driver distraction is also a particular concern of the
US Department of Transportation and the National Highways Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).
Working with industry, the NHTSA recently proposed performance-based distraction (2.4) guidelines
(2.6) for in-vehicle electronic device manufacturers, with the aim to
— reduce complexity and task length required by the device,
— limit device operation to one hand only (leaving the other hand to remain on the steering wheel to
control the vehicle),
— limit individual off-road glances required for device operation to no more than two seconds in duration,
— limit unnecessary visual information in the driver’s field of view, and
— limit the amount of manual inputs required for device operation.
The guidelines (2.6) distinguish between safety critical and other features of in-vehicle electronic
devices and recommend disabling the operational capability of the following devices while driving:
— visual-manual text messaging;
— visual-manual Internet and social media browsing;
— visual-manual navigation system destination entry by address;
— visual-manual 10-digit phone dialling;
[7]
— displaying to the driver more than 30 characters of text unrelated to the driving task.
There is an exception for devices intended for use by passengers so long as it cannot reasonably be
accessed or seen by the driver or unless the vehicle is stopped and the transmission shift lever is in park.
10 © ISO 2015 – All rights reserved

While there has been some criticism of these guidelines (2.6), for example, they do not consider auditory
distraction, they are perhaps a sensible starting place when thinking about what revised guidelines or a
code may look like. The Phase 3 guidelines are expected to address auditory interfaces.
There has also been significant criticism from the automotive industry, who is concerned that the
guideline is overly restrictive. Their concern is that too many functions are blocked while driving and a
well-integrated OEM device might become unattractive for the driver. As a consequence, the driver will
use nomadic devices which have no restrictions and the overall effect on safety will be negative.
It should be noted, however, that it is likely to be easier to incorporate into in-vehicle devices than into
after-
...