## 3 Results
### Example Application of the Methodology
#### 3.1.3 Evaluation Assessment  
The assessment results are divided according to the evaluation areas into user acceptance, safety impact, and functional evaluation. User acceptance results were provided using different types of graphs. The answers to most questions from the driver's profile questionnaires are shown in pie or bar graphs. The diversity of drivers in terms of age, mileage covered, or the size of the city in which the driver lives can be seen in Figures 3-5. Figure 3: Representation of drivers in terms of age. Figure 2: The test vehicle on the tram crossing under evaluation ride (point 3 on the map above). In addition, the driver was also asked as to what traffic information he would like to receive while driving. The results are shown in Figure 6 where the driver wants to be mainly informed about traffic jams, but also about specific situations. This is very positive in terms of the C-ITS. C-ITS is focused on this type of information. On the other hand, drivers are not very interested in lane information. Figure 4: Representation of drivers in terms of mileage per year. Figure 5: Representation of drivers in terms of the size of the driver’s city. In the other types of questionnaires, the answers to the questions asked were in the range:  
1. strongly disagree,
2. disagree,
3. neutral attitude,
4. agree,
5. strongly agree. In Table 1 we see the answers to the questions obtained before the ride. Drivers had an overall neutral attitude towards HMI, however, this value had a relatively large variance. This result is because drivers are diverse and that not every driver could imagine what a ride with an HMI would look like. The drivers also agreed (normally or strongly) to be informed about the crossing in advance when a tram is approaching. They also think that the safety and the overview of the situation near the crossing will increase. The post-ride results regarding the information registration differ, see Figure 7. Here we can also see the different perceptions of drivers in terms of message registration. This again stems from the diversity of drivers. For some, the message was displayed too late and for some too early. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Pre-Ride Questions Related to** & **Mean Value** & **Median Value** & **Mode** & **Variance** & **Standard Deviation** \\ \hline HMI distraction & 3.31 & 3 & 2 & 1.23 & 1.11 \\ Information about trams & 4.69 & 5 & 5 & 0.23 & 0.48 \\ approaching the crossing & 4.62 & 5 & 5 & 0.26 & 0.51 \\ Safety increase & 4.62 & 5 & 5 & 0.26 & 0.51 \\ Overview of the situation & 4.31 & 4 & 4 & 0.40 & 0.63 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: The results from pre-ride questionnaires including specific questions on general and the use-case Public Transport Vehicle Crossing. Figure 6: Types of information that drivers would welcome while driving. The post-ride answers are listed in Table 2. Unfortunately, the HMI distraction worsened compared to the pre-ride results in the static parameters. The most common value is no longer 4-disagree, but 2-agree. It clearly follows that HMI design must be focused on parameters like type, position, size, etc. The positive fact is the usefulness of the PTVC use-case is high (more than 50% strongly agree). Drivers also agree (with slightly lesser extent) that the information about approaching the crossing will increase safety. Impact Assessment  
For the public transport vehicle crossing, two main key performance indicators (KPI) were chosen to assess the difference in the driver's behavior with and without C-ITS warning. Two KPIs were selected according to the capabilities of the recording equipment and the data obtained during the evaluation of the PTVC. The first is the speed of the vehicle and the second is its acceleration. The data captured by the C-ITS evaluation logger was separated from the entire captured log according to whether it belonged to a significant zone for evaluating driver behavior.