IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/reensy/v185y2019icp341-347.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The effect of population age on the acceptable safety of self-driving vehicles

Author

Listed:
  • Liu, Peng
  • Zhang, Yawen
  • He, Zhen

Abstract

Keeping hands off the steering wheel poses a great safety challenge for self-driving vehicles (SDVs). Determining how safe SDVs should be before being allowed on public roads is a pressing question for all stakeholders, including the public exposed to the risk of SDVs in the future. The elderly may be major beneficiaries in the future age of SDVs. This research aims to understand age differences regarding the acceptable safety of SDVs and in affective, cognitive, and behavioral responses to SDVs. This study showed that the older participants implicitly required SDVs to be safer; their level for acceptable safety of SDVs was about twice as high as that for the younger participants in terms of fatality risk. Other age differences were identified, including that the older participants held a less positive attitude toward and acceptance of SDVs than the younger participants. We discuss the implications of the results for theory and practice.

Suggested Citation

  • Liu, Peng & Zhang, Yawen & He, Zhen, 2019. "The effect of population age on the acceptable safety of self-driving vehicles," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 185(C), pages 341-347.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:reensy:v:185:y:2019:i:c:p:341-347
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ress.2019.01.003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0951832018308305
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ress.2019.01.003?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Terje Aven, 2018. "An Emerging New Risk Analysis Science: Foundations and Implications," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(5), pages 876-888, May.
    2. Michael Siegrist & Bernadette Sütterlin, 2014. "Human and Nature‐Caused Hazards: The Affect Heuristic Causes Biased Decisions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(8), pages 1482-1494, August.
    3. Hohenberger, Christoph & Spörrle, Matthias & Welpe, Isabell M., 2016. "How and why do men and women differ in their willingness to use automated cars? The influence of emotions across different age groups," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 374-385.
    4. Fagnant, Daniel J. & Kockelman, Kara, 2015. "Preparing a nation for autonomous vehicles: opportunities, barriers and policy recommendations," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 167-181.
    5. Anika K. Josef & David Richter & Gregory R. Samanez-Larkin & Gert G. Wagner & Ralph Hertwig & Rui Mata, 2016. "Stability and Change in Risk-Taking Propensity across the Adult Lifespan," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 816, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).
    6. Reece A. Clothier & Dominique A. Greer & Duncan G. Greer & Amisha M. Mehta, 2015. "Risk Perception and the Public Acceptance of Drones," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(6), pages 1167-1183, June.
    7. Hohenberger, Christoph & Spörrle, Matthias & Welpe, Isabell M., 2017. "Not fearless, but self-enhanced: The effects of anxiety on the willingness to use autonomous cars depend on individual levels of self-enhancement," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 40-52.
    8. Kalra, Nidhi & Paddock, Susan M., 2016. "Driving to safety: How many miles of driving would it take to demonstrate autonomous vehicle reliability?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 182-193.
    9. Aven, Terje & Ylönen, Marja, 2018. "A risk interpretation of sociotechnical safety perspectives," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 175(C), pages 13-18.
    10. Araz Taeihagh & Hazel Si Min Lim, 2019. "Governing autonomous vehicles: emerging responses for safety, liability, privacy, cybersecurity, and industry risks," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(1), pages 103-128, January.
    11. Teun Terpstra, 2011. "Emotions, Trust, and Perceived Risk: Affective and Cognitive Routes to Flood Preparedness Behavior," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(10), pages 1658-1675, October.
    12. Felix Becker & Kay W. Axhausen, 2017. "Literature review on surveys investigating the acceptance of automated vehicles," Transportation, Springer, vol. 44(6), pages 1293-1306, November.
    13. Ali Siddiq Alhakami & Paul Slovic, 1994. "A Psychological Study of the Inverse Relationship Between Perceived Risk and Perceived Benefit," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(6), pages 1085-1096, December.
    14. Abrahamsen, Eirik Bjorheim & Aven, Terje, 2012. "Why risk acceptance criteria need to be defined by the authorities and not the industry?," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 47-50.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Xing, Yingying & Zhou, Huiyu & Han, Xiao & Zhang, Meng & Lu, Jian, 2022. "What influences vulnerable road users’ perceptions of autonomous vehicles? A comparative analysis of the 2017 and 2019 Pittsburgh surveys," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    2. Sharma, Ishant & Mishra, Sabyasachee, 2022. "Quantifying the consumer’s dependence on different information sources on acceptance of autonomous vehicles," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 179-203.
    3. Liu, Peng & Ma, Yanjiao & Zuo, Yaqing, 2019. "Self-driving vehicles: Are people willing to trade risks for environmental benefits?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 139-149.
    4. Yueqi Mao & Qiang Mei & Peng Jing & Ye Zha & Ying Xue & Jiahui Huang & Danning Shao & Pan Luo, 2022. "Factors Affecting the Parental Intention of Using AVs to Escort Children: An Integrated SEM–Hybrid Choice Model Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-21, September.
    5. Dahlen Silva & Dávid Földes & Csaba Csiszár, 2021. "Autonomous Vehicle Use and Urban Space Transformation: A Scenario Building and Analysing Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-22, March.
    6. Hiroko Kamide, 2021. "The Effect of Social Cohesion on Interest, Usefulness, and Ease of Use of a Driving Assistance System in Older Adults," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(21), pages 1-11, October.
    7. Mishra, Sabyasachee & Sharma, Ishant & Pani, Agnivesh, 2023. "Analyzing autonomous delivery acceptance in food deserts based on shopping travel patterns," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    8. Li, Xiaomeng & Pooyan Afghari, Amir & Oviedo-Trespalacios, Oscar & Kaye, Sherrie-Anne & Haworth, Narelle, 2023. "Cyclists perception and self-reported behaviour towards interacting with fully automated vehicles," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    9. Ishant Sharma & Sabyasachee Mishra, 2023. "Ranking preferences towards adopting autonomous vehicles based on peer inputs and advertisements," Transportation, Springer, vol. 50(6), pages 2139-2192, December.
    10. Peng Jing & Gang Xu & Yuexia Chen & Yuji Shi & Fengping Zhan, 2020. "The Determinants behind the Acceptance of Autonomous Vehicles: A Systematic Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-26, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Liu, Peng & Xu, Zhigang & Zhao, Xiangmo, 2019. "Road tests of self-driving vehicles: Affective and cognitive pathways in acceptance formation," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 354-369.
    2. Nastjuk, Ilja & Herrenkind, Bernd & Marrone, Mauricio & Brendel, Alfred Benedikt & Kolbe, Lutz M., 2020. "What drives the acceptance of autonomous driving? An investigation of acceptance factors from an end-user's perspective," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    3. Liu, Peng & Ma, Yanjiao & Zuo, Yaqing, 2019. "Self-driving vehicles: Are people willing to trade risks for environmental benefits?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 139-149.
    4. Weina Qu & Hongli Sun & Yan Ge, 2021. "The effects of trait anxiety and the big five personality traits on self-driving car acceptance," Transportation, Springer, vol. 48(5), pages 2663-2679, October.
    5. Saeed, Tariq Usman & Burris, Mark W. & Labi, Samuel & Sinha, Kumares C., 2020. "An empirical discourse on forecasting the use of autonomous vehicles using consumers’ preferences," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    6. Peng Liu & Run Yang & Zhigang Xu, 2019. "How Safe Is Safe Enough for Self‐Driving Vehicles?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(2), pages 315-325, February.
    7. Wang, Fei & Zhang, Zhentai & Lin, Shoufu, 2023. "Purchase intention of Autonomous vehicles and industrial Policies: Evidence from a national survey in China," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    8. Roberto Battistini & Luca Mantecchini & Maria Nadia Postorino, 2020. "Users’ Acceptance of Connected and Automated Shuttles for Tourism Purposes: A Survey Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-17, December.
    9. Schweitzer, Nicola & Hofmann, Rupert & Meinheit, Andreas, 2019. "Strategic customer foresight: From research to strategic decision-making using the example of highly automated vehicles," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 49-65.
    10. Talebian, Ahmadreza & Mishra, Sabyasachee, 2022. "Unfolding the state of the adoption of connected autonomous trucks by the commercial fleet owner industry," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    11. Du, Manqing & Zhang, Tingru & Liu, Jinting & Xu, Zhigang & Liu, Peng, 2022. "Rumors in the air? Exploring public misconceptions about automated vehicles," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 237-252.
    12. Wu, Jingwen & Liao, Hua & Wang, Jin-Wei, 2020. "Analysis of consumer attitudes towards autonomous, connected, and electric vehicles: A survey in China," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    13. Teresa Brell & Ralf Philipsen & Martina Ziefle, 2019. "sCARy! Risk Perceptions in Autonomous Driving: The Influence of Experience on Perceived Benefits and Barriers," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(2), pages 342-357, February.
    14. Al Haddad, Christelle & Chaniotakis, Emmanouil & Straubinger, Anna & Plötner, Kay & Antoniou, Constantinos, 2020. "Factors affecting the adoption and use of urban air mobility," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 696-712.
    15. Liu, Peng, 2020. "Positive, negative, ambivalent, or indifferent? Exploring the structure of public attitudes toward self-driving vehicles on public roads," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 27-38.
    16. Joanna Sokolowska & Patrycja Sleboda, 2015. "The Inverse Relation Between Risks and Benefits: The Role of Affect and Expertise," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(7), pages 1252-1267, July.
    17. Kum Fai Yuen & Do Thi Khanh Huyen & Xueqin Wang & Guanqiu Qi, 2020. "Factors Influencing the Adoption of Shared Autonomous Vehicles," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(13), pages 1-17, July.
    18. Jinshu Cui & Heather Rosoff & Richard S. John, 2018. "Public Response to a Near‐Miss Nuclear Accident Scenario Varying in Causal Attributions and Outcome Uncertainty," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(5), pages 947-961, May.
    19. Foroughi, Behzad & Nhan, Pham Viet & Iranmanesh, Mohammad & Ghobakhloo, Morteza & Nilashi, Mehrbakhsh & Yadegaridehkordi, Elaheh, 2023. "Determinants of intention to use autonomous vehicles: Findings from PLS-SEM and ANFIS," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    20. Peng Liu & Run Yang & Zhigang Xu, 2019. "Public Acceptance of Fully Automated Driving: Effects of Social Trust and Risk/Benefit Perceptions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(2), pages 326-341, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:reensy:v:185:y:2019:i:c:p:341-347. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/reliability-engineering-and-system-safety .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.