IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/transa/v122y2019icp173-183.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

It takes two to Tango: Automated vehicles and human beings do the dance of driving – Four social considerations for policy

Author

Listed:
  • Straub, Edward R.
  • Schaefer, Kristin E.

Abstract

Automated vehicle (AV) policy development and assessment is a difficult and complicated process. Today’s road and vehicle policies are the product of a hundred years of lessons learned. They generally address five areas: safety, efficiency, mobility, convenience, and impact on the environment. Now the prospect-turned-reality of automated vehicles entering public roadways has opened up a number of new policy-related questions. Is it enough to simply modify current road and vehicle policies or will new policies need to be developed addressing much broader aspects of the transportation system? How can these policies be developed to accommodate technologies that either do not yet exist or are only now being tested on the road in constrained environments? Perhaps most importantly, how can policy influence technological design to safely operate with other road users and can we look ahead to have a better view of potential unintended consequences?

Suggested Citation

  • Straub, Edward R. & Schaefer, Kristin E., 2019. "It takes two to Tango: Automated vehicles and human beings do the dance of driving – Four social considerations for policy," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 173-183.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:transa:v:122:y:2019:i:c:p:173-183
    DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2018.03.005
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965856417301659
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.tra.2018.03.005?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. Herbert Gintis, 2000. "Strong Reciprocity and Human Sociality," UMASS Amherst Economics Working Papers 2000-02, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Department of Economics.
    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. Weixi Ren & Bo Yu & Yuren Chen & Kun Gao, 2022. "Divergent Effects of Factors on Crash Severity under Autonomous and Conventional Driving Modes Using a Hierarchical Bayesian Approach," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(18), pages 1-22, September.
    2. Tamakloe, Reuben & Park, Dongjoo, 2023. "Discovering latent topics and trends in autonomous vehicle-related research: A structural topic modelling approach," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 1-20.
    3. Demeulenaere, Xavier, 2020. "How challenges of human reliability will hinder the deployment of semi-autonomous vehicles," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    4. Hansson, Lisa, 2020. "Regulatory governance in emerging technologies: The case of autonomous vehicles in Sweden and Norway," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    5. Feess, Eberhard & Muehlheusser, Gerd, 2024. "Autonomous Vehicles: Moral dilemmas and adoption incentives," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    6. Park, Taeyoung & Ki, Jeehoon & Ho, Jae-Yun, 2024. "Sectoral innovation policy adopting socio-technical systems (STS) perspectives: The case of autonomous vehicles (AVs) in five leading countries," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 209(C).
    7. Singha Chaveesuk & Wornchanok Chaiyasoonthorn & Nayika Kamales & Zdzislawa Dacko-Pikiewicz & Wiesław Liszewski & Bilal Khalid, 2023. "Evaluating the Determinants of Consumer Adoption of Autonomous Vehicles in Thailand—An Extended UTAUT Model," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(2), pages 1-22, January.
    8. Olatunji Abdul Shobande & Mobolaji Daniel Akinbomi, 2020. "Competition dynamics in Nigerian aviation industry: a game theoretic approach," Future Business Journal, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 1-8, December.
    9. Lee, Dasom & Hess, David J., 2020. "Regulations for on-road testing of connected and automated vehicles: Assessing the potential for global safety harmonization," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 85-98.

    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. Christine Clavien & Colby J Tanner & Fabrice Clément & Michel Chapuisat, 2012. "Choosy Moral Punishers," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(6), pages 1-6, June.
    2. Basov, S., 2001. "An Evolutionary Model of Reciprocity," Department of Economics - Working Papers Series 812, The University of Melbourne.
    3. David Masclet & Marie-Claire Villeval, 2006. "Punishment, Inequality and Emotions," Working Papers 0604, Groupe d'Analyse et de Théorie Economique Lyon St-Étienne (GATE Lyon St-Étienne), Université de Lyon.
    4. Ernst Fehr & Klaus M. Schmidt, "undated". "Theories of Fairness and Reciprocity - Evidence and Economic Applications," IEW - Working Papers 075, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    5. Bartoš, Vojtěch, 2021. "Seasonal scarcity and sharing norms," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 185(C), pages 303-316.
    6. Alexander Field, 2008. "Why multilevel selection matters," Journal of Bioeconomics, Springer, vol. 10(3), pages 203-238, December.
    7. Nicole M. Baran & Paola Sapienza & Luigi Zingales, 2010. "Can we infer social preferences from the lab? Evidence from the trust game," NBER Working Papers 15654, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Bazart, C. & Bonein, A., 2014. "Reciprocal relationships in tax compliance decisions," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 83-102.
    9. Tünde Paál & Tamás Bereczkei, 2015. "Punishment as a Means of Competition: Implications for Strong Reciprocity Theory," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(3), pages 1-14, March.
    10. András Németh & Károly Takács, 2007. "The Evolution of Altruism in Spatially Structured Populations," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 10(3), pages 1-4.
    11. Paul J Zak & Angela A Stanton & Sheila Ahmadi, 2007. "Oxytocin Increases Generosity in Humans," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 2(11), pages 1-5, November.
    12. Annamaria Nese & Patrizia Sbriglia, 2009. "Individuals' Voting Choice and Cooperation in Repeated Social Dilemma Games," Labsi Experimental Economics Laboratory University of Siena 025, University of Siena.
    13. Brooks, Jeremy S., 2010. "The Buddha mushroom: Conservation behavior and the development of institutions in Bhutan," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(4), pages 779-795, February.
    14. Gürerk, Özgür & Irlenbusch, Bernd & Rockenbach, Bettina, 2014. "On cooperation in open communities," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 220-230.
    15. Brosnan, Sarah F., 2011. "An evolutionary perspective on morality," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 77(1), pages 23-30, January.
    16. Gary Bornstein & Ori Weisel, 2010. "Punishment, Cooperation, and Cheater Detection in “Noisy” Social Exchange," Games, MDPI, vol. 1(1), pages 1-16, March.
    17. Rebekka Kesberg & Stefan Pfattheicher, 2019. "Democracy matters: a psychological perspective on the beneficial impact of democratic punishment systems in social dilemmas," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-13, December.
    18. Sheen S. Levine & Robert Kurzban, 2006. "Explaining clustering in social networks: towards an evolutionary theory of cascading benefits," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(2-3), pages 173-187.
    19. Fong, Christina & Luttmer, Erzo F.P., 2009. "Do Race and Fairness Matter in Generosity? Evidence from a Nationally Representative Charity Experiment," Scholarly Articles 4481608, Harvard Kennedy School of Government.
    20. López-Pérez, Raúl, 2006. "Emotions Enforce Fairness Norms (a Simple Model of Strong Reciprocity)," Working Papers in Economic Theory 2006/11, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid (Spain), Department of Economic Analysis (Economic Theory and Economic History).

    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:transa:v:122:y:2019:i:c:p:173-183. 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: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/547/description#description .

    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.