When fully automated cars will be widespread is a question that has attracted considerable attention from futurists, car manufacturers, and academics. This paper aims to poll the public's expectations regarding the deployment of fully automated cars. In 15 crowdsourcing surveys conducted between June 2014 and January 2019, we obtained answers from 18,970 people in 128 countries regarding when they think that most cars will be able to drive fully automatically in their country of residence. The median reported year was 2030. The later the survey date, the smaller the percentage of respondents who reported that most cars would be able to drive fully automatically by 2020, with 15–22% of the respondents providing this estimate in the surveys conducted between 2014 and 2016 versus 3–5% in the 2018 surveys. Respondents who completed multiple surveys were more likely to revise their estimate upward (39.4%) than downward (35.3%). Correlational analyses showed that people from more affluent countries and people who have heard of the Google Driverless Car (Waymo) or the Tesla Autopilot reported a significantly earlier year. Finally, we made a comparison between the crowdsourced respondents and respondents from a technical university who answered the same question; the median year reported by the latter group was 2040. We conclude that over the course of 4.5 years the public has moderated its expectations regarding the penetration of fully automated cars but remains optimistic compared to what experts currently believe.

@en

Automated vehicle acceptance (AVA) is a necessary condition for the realisation of higher-level objectives such as improvements in road safety, reductions in traffic congestion and environmental pollution. On the basis of a systematic literature review of 124 empirical studies, the present study proposes MAVA, a multi-level model to predict AVA. It incorporates a process-oriented view on AVA, considering acceptance as the result of a four-stage decision-making process that ranges from the exposure of the individual to automated vehicles (AVs) in Stage 1, the formation of favourable or unfavourable attitudes towards AVs in Stage 2, making the decision to adopt or reject AVs in Stage 3, to the implementation of AVs into practice in Stage 4. MAVA incorporates 28 acceptance factors that represent seven main acceptance classes. The acceptance factors are located at two levels, i.e., micro and meso. Factors at the micro-level constitute individual difference factors (i.e., socio-demographics, personality and travel behaviour). The meso-level captures the exposure of individuals to AVs, instrumental domain-specific, symbolic-affective and moral-normative factors of AVA. The literature review revealed that 6% of the studies investigated the exposure of individuals to AVs (i.e., knowledge and experience). 22% of the studies investigated domain-specific factors (i.e., performance and effort ­expectancy, safety, facilitating conditions, and service and vehicle ­characteristics), 4% symbolic-affective factors (i.e., hedonic motivation and social influence), and 12% moral-normative factors (i.e., perceived benefits and risks). Factors related to a person’s socio-demographic profile, travel behaviour and personality were investigated by 28%, 15% and 14% of the studies, respectively. We recommend that future studies empirically verify MAVA using longitudinal or experimental studies.

@en

Shuttles that operate without an onboard driver are currently being developed and tested in various projects worldwide. However, there is a paucity of knowledge on the determinants of acceptance of driverless shuttles in large cross-national samples. In the present study, we surveyed 10,000 respondents on the acceptance of driverless vehicles and sociodemographic characteristics, using a 94-item online questionnaire. After data filtering, data of 7,755 respondents from 116 countries were retained. Respondents reported that they would enjoy taking a ride in a driverless vehicle (mean = 4.90 on a scale from 1 = disagree strongly to 6 = agree strongly). We further found that the scores on the questionnaire items were most appropriately explained through a general acceptance component, which had loadings of about 0.7 for items pertaining to the usefulness of driverless vehicles and loadings between 0.5 and 0.6 for items concerning the intention to use, ease of use, pleasure, and trust in driverless vehicles, as well as knowledge of mobility-related developments. Additional components were identified as thrill seeking, wanting to be in control manually, supporting a car-free environment, and being comfortable with technology. Correlations between sociodemographic characteristics and general acceptance scores were small (<0.20), yet interpretable (e.g., people who reported difficulty with finding a parking space were more accepting towards driverless vehicles). Finally, we found that the GDP per capita of the respondents' country was predictive of countries' mean general acceptance score (ρ=-0.48 across 43 countries with 25 or more respondents). In conclusion, self-reported acceptance of driverless vehicles is more strongly determined by domain-specific attitudes than by sociodemographic characteristics. We recommend further research, using objective measures, into the hypothesis that national characteristics are a predictor of the acceptance of driverless vehicles.

@en

A common challenge with processing naturalistic driving data is that humans may need to categorize great volumes of recorded visual information. By means of the online platform CrowdFlower, we investigated the potential of crowdsourcing to categorize driving scene features (i.e., presence of other road users, straight road segments, etc.) at greater scale than a single person or a small team of researchers would be capable of. In total, 200 workers from 46 different countries participated in 1.5. days. Validity and reliability were examined, both with and without embedding researcher generated control questions via the CrowdFlower mechanism known as Gold Test Questions (GTQs).By employing GTQs, we found significantly more valid (accurate) and reliable (consistent) identification of driving scene items from external workers. Specifically, at a small scale CrowdFlower Job of 48 three-second video segments, an accuracy (i.e., relative to the ratings of a confederate researcher) of 91% on items was found with GTQs compared to 78% without. A difference in bias was found, where without GTQs, external workers returned more false positives than with GTQs. At a larger scale CrowdFlower Job making exclusive use of GTQs, 12,862 three-second video segments were released for annotation. Infeasible (and self-defeating) to check the accuracy of each at this scale, a random subset of 1012 categorizations was validated and returned similar levels of accuracy (95%).In the small scale Job, where full video segments were repeated in triplicate, the percentage of unanimous agreement on the items was found significantly more consistent when using GTQs (90%) than without them (65%). Additionally, in the larger scale Job (where a single second of a video segment was overlapped by ratings of three sequentially neighboring segments), a mean unanimity of 94% was obtained with validated-as-correct ratings and 91% with non-validated ratings. Because the video segments overlapped in full for the small scale Job, and in part for the larger scale Job, it should be noted that such reliability reported here may not be directly comparable. Nonetheless, such results are both indicative of high levels of obtained rating reliability.Overall, our results provide compelling evidence for CrowdFlower, via use of GTQs, being able to yield more accurate and consistent crowdsourced categorizations of naturalistic driving scene contents than when used without such a control mechanism. Such annotations in such short periods of time present a potentially powerful resource in driving research and driving automation development.

@en

Automated driving can fundamentally change road transportation and improve quality of life. However, at present, the role of humans in automated vehicles (AVs) is not clearly established. Interviews were conducted in April and May 2015 with 12 expert researchers in the field of human factors (HFs) of automated driving to identify commonalities and distinctive perspectives regarding HF challenges in the development of AVs. The experts indicated that an AV up to SAE Level 4 should inform its driver about the AV's capabilities and operational status, and ensure safety while changing between automated and manual modes. HF research should particularly address interactions between AVs, human drivers and vulnerable road users. Additionally, driver-training programmes may have to be modified to ensure that humans are capable of using AVs. Finally, a reflection on the interviews is provided, showing discordance between the interviewees’ statements – which appear to be in line with a long history of HFs research – and the rapid development of automation technology. We expect our perspective to be instrumental for stakeholders involved in AV development and instructive to other parties.

@en

The topic of transitions in automated driving is becoming important now that cars are automated to ever greater extents. This paper proposes a theoretical framework to support and align human factors research on transitions in automated driving. Driving states are defined based on the allocation of primary driving tasks (i.e., lateral control, longitudinal control, and monitoring) between the driver and the automation. A transition in automated driving is defined as the process during which the human-automation system changes from one driving state to another, with transitions of monitoring activity and transitions of control being among the possibilities. Based on ‘Is the transition required?’, ‘Who initiates the transition?’, and ‘Who is in control after the transition?’, we define six types of control transitions between the driver and automation: (1) Optional Driver-Initiated Driver-in-Control, (2) Mandatory Driver-Initiated Driver-in-Control, (3) Optional Driver-Initiated Automation-in-Control, (4) Mandatory Driver-Initiated Automation-in-Control, (5) Automation-Initiated Driver-in-Control, and (6) Automation-Initiated Automation-in-Control. Use cases per transition type are introduced. Finally, we interpret previous experimental studies on transitions using our framework and identify areas for future research. We conclude that our framework of driving states and transitions is an important complement to the levels of automation proposed by transportation agencies, because it describes what the driver and automation are doing, rather than should be doing, at a moment of time.@en

This study investigated user acceptance, concerns, and willingness to buy partially, highly, and fully automated vehicles. By means of a 63-question Internet-based survey, we collected 5000 responses from 109 countries (40 countries with at least 25 respondents). We determined cross-national differences, and assessed correlations with personal variables, such as age, gender, and personality traits as measured with a short version of the Big Five Inventory. Results showed that respondents, on average, found manual driving the most enjoyable mode of driving. Responses were diverse: 22% of the respondents did not want to pay more than $0 for a fully automated driving system, whereas 5% indicated they would be willing to pay more than $30,000, and 33% indicated that fully automated driving would be highly enjoyable. 69% of respondents estimated that fully automated driving will reach a 50% market share between now and 2050. Respondents were found to be most concerned about software hacking/misuse, and were also concerned about legal issues and safety. Respondents scoring higher on neuroticism were slightly less comfortable about data transmitting, whereas respondents scoring higher on agreeableness were slightly more comfortable with this. Respondents from more developed countries (in terms of lower accident statistics, higher education, and higher income) were less comfortable with their vehicle transmitting data, with cross-national correlations between ρ = −0.80 and ρ = −0.90. The present results indicate the major areas of promise and concern among the international public, and could be useful for vehicle developers and other stakeholders.@en

Advanced driver assistance systems (ADASs) are expected to significantly enhance driving safety, comfort and efficiency. This paper analyses the deployment of the ADASs in EU 28, in relation to the countries GDPs and fatalities. In addition, we explored the relation of ADASs sold with vehicle price and mass. For the analysis two sets of data were used. The first was obtained from the iMobility 2013 iCar implementation status survey, on the EU 28 ADASs deployment rates for vehicles sold in 2012. The second was derived from of a Dutch leasing company and contains information on the number and type of ADASs ordered for the Dutch and German market in 2013-2014. Results show that the deployment rate averaged over EU 28 is 2.7-12.6% for five safety related ADASs and 23% for eco driving support. At country level, results indicate that in richer countries the ADAS deployment rates are significantly higher (ρ = .758, p < .001, N = 27), compared to poorer countries. In addition, results reveal that in countries with lower number of road fatalities the ADAS deployment rates are again significantly higher (ρ = .-598, p < .01, N = 25), compared to countries with higher number of road fatalities. The leasing company data showed significant correlations between the price of vehicles and type of ADASs on board. Premium vehicles are significantly more equipped with Adaptive Cruise Control and Emergency Braking, compared to the mass market vehicles, with correlations ρ = .585 (p < .001) and ρ = .558 (p < .001) respectively. However, only 13% of premium vehicles were purchased with a complete set of ADAS. @en

Fully automated driving can potentially provide enormous benefits to society. However, it has been unclear whether people will appreciate such far-reaching technology. This study investigated anonymous textual comments regarding fully automated driving, based on data extracted from three online surveys with 8,862 respondents from 112 countries. Initial filtering of comments with fewer than 15 characters resulted in 1,952 comments. The sample consisted primarily of males (74%) and had a mean age of 32.6 years. Next, we launched a crowdsourcing job and asked 69 workers to assign each of the 1,952 comments to at least one of 12 predefined categories, which included positive and negative attitude to automated driving, enjoyment in manual driving, concerns about trust, reliability of software, and readiness of road infrastructure. 46% of the comments were classified into the category ‘no meaningful information about automated driving’, leaving 792 comments for further analysis. 39% of the comments were classified as ‘positive attitude towards automated driving’ and 23% were classified as ‘negative attitude towards automated driving’. In conclusion, the public opinion appears to be split, with a substantial number of respondents being positive and a significant number of respondents being negative towards fully automated driving.@en