for the management of opposite direction drivers alerts. This article describes the perception of Ubidreams on the overall approach at the end of the POC which took place from june to december 2018. It comments the results and prospects on the deployment strategy that could
be in place at the end of the exploratory work without disclosing the measures employed and retained by the client of UBIDREAMS. It therefore respects Ubidreams confidentiality commitment.
To avoid the user having to download the application that triggers these alerts, prior to the use of the motorway, Ubidreams hasn’t realized a mobile application dedicated to the alert function but a SDK (Software Kit Development ) that is able to interface with some existing applications such as the motorway operator app and others heavily apps used by motorway customers such as Coyote or Waze, instruct the motorway operator to negotiate with these application manufacturers to insert this SDK once developed in their applications.
In the realization of developments and tests, Ubidreams has demonstrated several concrete things :
- First, there is a very good detection by all smartphones on the market and even at high speed of the signals emitted by the beacons of the qualified by Ubidreams at the end of phase 1 of the POC and during the discussions of phase 2 .
- Secondly, we always manage to identify and declare in the Ubidreams system in real time the “beacons” concerned by alert zones thanks to the silent notifications managed in the SDK manufactured by Ubidreams.
- Thirdly, the sound and visual alert generation algorithm works perfectly in all cases and for all smartphones wether if the application is embedded on the smartphone of the user is in active mode or in background.
- Fourth, the alert generation is random when the application on the smartphone of the user is in off mode. In this mode “application off”, the parameters that seem to influence the results are many and different in nature
The perception of Ubidreams at the end of this exploratory phase of development and testing is that the idea of BEACON as infrastructure is a good idea that deserves to be excavated and developed for two main reasons.
On the other hand, Ubidreams asserts that the “beacon” infrastructure allows a much finer mesh of the motorway network that would allow a system of “geofencing” on which could be based management of false alerts. Indeed, the system of “geofencing” which as its name suggests is based on the geolocation of smartphones and the ability to send messages according to the area in which they are, is limited to twenty zones by the smartphone manufacturers. Thus, if one can predict that the system would work better in application mode extinguished what remains to be proven, the system would not be accurate and the alerts that would be generated would be distributed much too widely losing their relevance. The idea of BEACON seems good but the idea of the Smartphone as a receiver of the warning signal seems weak in this architecture. Indeed, the idea of the Beacon is good because it is much cheaper than Wifi TAGS, it consumes much less energy and it renders the service that is expected of him since it is detected at high speed and that it identifies very clearly an area with a very fine mesh.
Ubidreams has a connected object department on the company and can provide answers for the creation of such a receiver by working with car manufacturers or suppliers.