Legal conditions for implementing EDRs in public fleets of vehicles

ITS 2016 - 11th ITS European Congress, Glasgow, ROYAUME-UNI, 06-/06/2016 - 09/06/2016This paper describes the needed legal conditions to implement Event Data Recorder in public fleets of vehicles. These conditions are specific because vehicles are owned by the government or local authorities and can be used by different kind of persons. The legal terms concern technical conditions and have to ensure the recommendations of the authority protecting privacy and personal data. Potential drivers have to be informed about the presence of an EDR in the vehicles and about the recorded data. Users are free to agree (or not) for recording data and their hierarchy can't access these data against their employees. The EDR has to not affect the vehicle safety and all vehicles have to be declared to the government. All these legal conditions have been applied for a French project but are valid for all European countries since they are based on the human right and the European laws.Cet article décrit la manière dont les conditions juridiques de la collecte et du traitement de données recueillies avec des enregistreurs embarqués dans des Îhicules (enregistreurs de données d'éÏnements de la route, EDR) doivent être prise en compte dans un contexte de recherche en sécurité routière à visée opérationnelle. En effet, ces données permettent généralement d'identifier les conducteurs des Îhicules, directement ou indirectement. Les conditions techniques et organisationnelles de la mise en oeuvre doivent donc respecter les législations européennes et françaises de protection des données à caractère personnel et de la vie priÎe ainsi que les recommandations des autorités de protection de ces données (la CNIL en France). Dans le contexte d'une expérimentation menée par des laboratoires de recherche français qui sert ici d'illustration, toutes les conditions juridiques relatives à la protection des droits des conducteurs ont été appliquées. Elles sont transposables dans les pays européens, car elles sont basées sur la réglementation communautaire et sur des principes issus de la convention européenne des droits de l'Homme

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK

Background: A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. Methods: This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. Findings: Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0–75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4–97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8–80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3–4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. Interpretation: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials. Funding: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Lemann Foundation, Rede D’Or, Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK.

BACKGROUND: A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. METHODS: This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0-75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4-97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8-80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3-4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. INTERPRETATION: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK

Background A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. Methods This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. Findings Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0–75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4–97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8–80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3–4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. Interpretation ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials

Real use of vehicle dynamic capacities: Motorcyclists versus motorists

TRA 2022, 9th Transport Research Arena, Lisbonne, PORTUGAL, 14-/11/2022 - 17/11/2022The risk of serious crashes is much higher for motorcyclists than for motorists, yet there is a lack of knowledge about their behavior and performance on the road. This paper aims to compare the actual use of PTWs' dynamic capacities to that of passenger cars, based on objective data collected during three naturalistic driving/riding studies conducted in France between 2012 and 2018. Motorcyclists accelerate and brake more often and with greater intensity. PTWs endure medium to high yaw rates slightly more often than cars, and sometimes reached very high levels never endured by cars. The comparison of speeds is more contrasted and does not confirm the common belief that motorcyclists often ride faster than motorists drive

Vehicle Dynamics Endured by Patients during Emergency Evacuation—Ambulance versus Helicopter

In the event of a road accident, a quick intervention is crucial. The mobile emergency services take care of patients whose condition requires an emergency repatriation to a hospital, by land in an ambulance or by air in a helicopter. The main criteria for choosing the means of transport are the time required for repatriation and the patient’s more or less critical state of health. Do the vehicle dynamic effects endured by the transported patient have an influence on their health condition? Vehicle dynamics data were recorded with a road data recorder for a period of 3 months, under real conditions of patient repatriation to a hospital; 39 trips were recorded by ambulance and 29 trips by helicopter. Significant differences in speed (average 42 versus 202 km/h) and distance travelled (average 23 versus 85 km) were observed. The sustained effects are similar in helicopters and ambulances. The ambulance causes more abrupt variations in longitudinal and transversal directions, whereas the helicopter has more variations in vertical direction. The vibration level in helicopters is higher than in ambulances. These results can be considered as a first reference baseline for establishing a characterization of transported patients’ exposure to vehicle dynamics

Utilisation réelle des capacités dynamiques des 2RM : nouvelles données

COSMOS 2022, Connaissances Scientifiques pour les Motocycles, Marne-la-Vallée, FRANCE, 11-/10/2022 - 12/10/2022Dans le cadre du projet DYMOA, des données d'observation en conduite naturelle ont été recueillies à l'aide d'enregistreurs embarqués sur 26 motos privées pendant une période de 18 mois dans trois régions de France. Une première étude intitulée « Utilisation des capacités dynamiques et usages des infrastructures : Comparaison des deux-roues motorisés et des quatre roues motorisés » basée sur les données recueillies sur 12 mois avaient été publiée et présentée au colloque COSMOS en 2019 (Naude et al., 2021). Cet article fait suite à ces premiers travaux et vise à mettre à jour les données d'utilisation des capacités dynamiques d'un motocycle grâce à l'apport de nouvelles données sur 18 mois de recueil. L'utilisation réelle des capacités dynamiques d'un deux-roues motorisés est étudiée au travers de plusieurs paramètres tels que les accélérations, les vitesses angulaires ou les vitesses pratiquées. Cette étude s'est focalisée plus particulièrement sur des données agrégées fournies pour l'ensemble des trajets, appelées « synthèses de parcours » et croisant les données accélérométriques et gyrométriques ainsi que les niveaux de vitesses. Sur 7500 trajets collectés sur une période de 18 mois, environ 6500 trajets ont pu être exploités pleinement, en correspondance avec les traces GPS qui permettent notamment de calculer les distances parcourues. La distance globale parcourue lors de ces trajets est d'environ 88000 km. Les analyses ont porté sur les éléments suivants : Les distributions globales, en temps passé, des accélérations longitudinale, latérale et verticale, et des vitesses de rotation tangage, roulis et lacet et de la vitesse, Les valeurs extrêmes atteintes au moins une fois par les motocyclistes pour ces mêmes paramètres, Une illustration de la variabilité des comportements : conduite souple versus conduite sportive.D'un point de vue global, les motocyclistes atteignent des niveaux de sollicitations dynamiques en accélération et décélération dépassant +-4 m/s² que 0,5% du temps (voir figures). En ce qui concerne les virages, leur vitesse de roulis ne dépasse 20°/s que 0,8% du temps et leur vitesse de lacet 2,1% du temps. Si l'on exclut le temps passé à l'arrêt ou à très faible vitesse (moins de 5 km/h), les motocyclistes passent 80 % de leur temps en dessous de 90 km/h et 3,2 % du temps au-dessus de 130 km/h, avec seulement 0,3 % du temps au-dessus de 150 km/h. Les représentations graphiques et les calculs d'indices permettent également d'identifier les motocyclistes qui freinent fort, ceux qui accélèrent fortement et ceux qui freinent et accélèrent fort. Il est alors possible de différencier les styles de conduite. Ces sollicitations sont liées à la manière de conduire du motocycliste, mais sont également influencées par le type de routes empruntées. On ne sollicite pas son véhicule de la même manière en milieu urbain, en péri-urbain, sur autoroute et sur route de montagne. Pour s'affranchir de l'influence de l'infrastructure sur le style de conduite, un itinéraire d'environ 10 km a été étudié car il a été emprunté 4 fois par un motocycliste 3 fois par un autre. La différence de style de conduite des deux motocyclistes observée sur ce même itinéraire apparaît alors conforme à leur profil de conduite observé globalement pour chacun d'eux sur plus de 3500 km parcourus pendant l'expérimentation. Les données observées en conduite naturelle permettent de caractériser l'usage du motocycle par son conducteur à l'échelle d'une personne ou à l'échelle d'une flotte. Les comportements observés sont très variables d'un motocycliste à l'autre, même sur des itinéraires identiques. Ces données permettent de caractériser la dynamique des motos et de discriminer les différents styles de conduite des motocyclistes

Road riding hazardous situations for motorcycles

TRA 2018, 7th Transport Research Arena, Vienne, AUTRICHE, 16-/04/2018 - 19/04/2018; The decrease of road accidents these recent years has induced the interest to work on road driving hazardous situations called incidents. Otherwise, in France, users of Power Two-Wheeler (PTW) are less than 2% of traffic but, in the accidents represent 43% of serious injuries and 23% of killed persons. This paper provides a descriptive analysis of the incident database acquired during one year with a fleet of 30 motorcycles and a few cars equipped with an Event Data Recorder. The objective is to acquire knowledge on their accident mechanisms and improve their safety. For the 395 motorbikes' and 32 cars' incidents collected, the analysis of the triggering criteria, the dynamics parameters and the road configurations illustrates the great variety of situations and shows how the behaviours of riders are different from those of car drivers. The investigations on the causes of the incidents indicate that the more frequent cause is the driver (94%), but the road environment and the other road users could have been involved in 40% of the cases each.; La baisse du nombre d'accidents de la route de ces dernières années a amené les chercheurs à s'intéresser aux situations de conduite critiques que l'on appelle des incidents. Par ailleurs, en France, les usagers de deux roues motorisés représentent moins de 2% du trafic, et pourtant 43% des blessés graves et 23% des décès sur la route. Ce papier propose une analyse descriptive de la base de données des incidents recueillis pendant un an sur une flotte de 30 motos et quelques voitures équipées d'enregistreur de données de la route. L'objectif était d'acquérir des connaissances sur leurs mécanismes d'accident et d'améliorer leur sécurité. Pour les 395 incidents de 2-roues et les 32 incidents de voitures, l'analyse des critères de déclenchement, des paramètres de la dynamique du véhicule et des configurations de la route illustre la grande variété des situations et montre les différences de comportement des motards par rapport aux automobilistes. Les investigations sur les causes des incidents indiquent que la cause la plus fréquente est liée au conducteur, mais l'environnement et les autres usagers pourraient être impliqués dans 40% des cas

The influence of achievement goals on objective driving behavior

International audienceInvestigating psychological characteristics through self-reported measures (e.g., anger, sensation seeking) and dynamic behaviors through objective measures (e.g., speed, 2D acceleration, GPS position etc.) may allow us to better understand the behavior of at-risk drivers. To assess drivers' motivation, the theoretical framework of achievement goals has been studied recently. These achievement goals can influence the decision-making and behaviors of individuals engaged in driving. The four achievement goals in driving are: seeking to improve or to drive as well as possible (mastery-approach), to outperform other drivers (performance-approach), to avoid driving badly (mastery-avoidance), and to avoid being the worst driver (performance-avoidance). Naturalistic Driving Studies (NDS) provide access to the objective measurements of data not accessible through self-reported measurements (i.e., speed, accelerations, GPS position). Three dynamic criteria have been developed to characterize the behavior of motorists objectively: driving events, time spent above acceleration thresholds (longitudinal and transversal), and the extent of dynamic demands. All these criteria have been measured in different road contexts (e.g., plain). The aim of this study was to examine the predictive role of the four achievement goals on these objective driving behaviors. 266 drivers (96 women, 117 men) took part in the study, and 4 242 482 km was recorded during 8 months. Simultaneously, they completed the Achievement Goals in Driving Questionnaire. The main results highlighted that mastery-approach goals negatively predicted hard braking and the extent of dynamic demands on plain and hilly roads. Mastery-approach goals seem to be the most protective goals in driving. Future research on the promotion of mastery-approach goals in driving may be able to modify the behavior of at-risk drivers

Predictive role of achievement goals on objective driving behavior

Transport Research Arena (TRA) Conference, Lisbonne, PORTUGAL, 14-/11/2022 - 17/11/2022Investigating psychological characteristics and dynamic behaviors can provide insight in the behavior of at-risk drivers. Achievement goals in driving have recently been studied to assess driver motivation. The four achievement goals in driving are mastery-approach, performance-approach, mastery-avoidance, and performance-avoidance. Naturalistic Driving Studies provide access to objective measurements of driving (i.e., speed, acceleration). Three dynamic criteria have been developed to objectively characterize driver behavior. The aim of this study was to examine the predictive role of achievement goals on objective driving behaviors. During 8 months, 4,626,379 km of 299 drivers was recorded, and simultaneously, the Achievement Goals in Driving Questionnaire was completed. Mastery-approach goals seem to be the most protective goals in driving, as opposed to performance-approach goals