IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i22p12054-d680968.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Drivers’ Intentions to Use Different Functionalities of Conditionally Automated Cars: A Survey Study of 18,631 Drivers from 17 Countries

Author

Listed:
  • Tyron Louw

    (Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds, University Road, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK)

  • Ruth Madigan

    (Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds, University Road, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK)

  • Yee Mun Lee

    (Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds, University Road, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK)

  • Sina Nordhoff

    (EICT GmbH, EUREF-Campus 13, 10829 Berlin, Germany)

  • Esko Lehtonen

    (VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland Ltd., P.O. Box 1000, FI-02044 Espoo, Finland)

  • Satu Innamaa

    (VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland Ltd., P.O. Box 1000, FI-02044 Espoo, Finland)

  • Fanny Malin

    (VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland Ltd., P.O. Box 1000, FI-02044 Espoo, Finland)

  • Afsane Bjorvatn

    (SNF—Centre for Applied Research, Helleveien 30, NO-5045 Bergen, Norway)

  • Natasha Merat

    (Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds, University Road, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK)

Abstract

A number of studies have investigated the acceptance of conditionally automated cars (CACs). However, in the future, CACs will comprise of several separate Automated Driving Functions (ADFs), which will allow the vehicle to operate in different Operational Design Domains (ODDs). Driving in different environments places differing demands on drivers. Yet, little research has focused on drivers’ intention to use different functions, and how this may vary by their age, gender, country of residence, and previous experience with Advanced Driving Assistance Systems (ADAS). Data from an online survey of 18,631 car drivers from 17 countries (8 European) was used in this study to investigate intention to use an ADF in one of four different ODDs: Motorways, Traffic Jams, Urban Roads, and Parking. Intention to use was high across all ADFs, but significantly higher for Parking than all others. Overall, intention to use was highest amongst respondents who were younger (<39), male, and had previous experience with ADAS. However, these trends varied widely across countries, and for the different ADFs. Respondents from countries with the lowest Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and highest road death rates had the highest intention to use all ADFs, while the opposite was found for countries with high GDP and low road death rates. These results suggest that development and deployment strategies for CACs may need to be tailored to different markets, to ensure uptake and safe use.

Suggested Citation

  • Tyron Louw & Ruth Madigan & Yee Mun Lee & Sina Nordhoff & Esko Lehtonen & Satu Innamaa & Fanny Malin & Afsane Bjorvatn & Natasha Merat, 2021. "Drivers’ Intentions to Use Different Functionalities of Conditionally Automated Cars: A Survey Study of 18,631 Drivers from 17 Countries," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(22), pages 1-19, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:22:p:12054-:d:680968
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/22/12054/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/22/12054/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Maria Luisa Lima & Julie Barnett & Jorge Vala, 2005. "Risk Perception and Technological Development at a Societal Level," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(5), pages 1229-1239, October.
    2. Molin, Eric & Mokhtarian, Patricia & Kroesen, Maarten, 2016. "Multimodal travel groups and attitudes: A latent class cluster analysis of Dutch travelers," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 14-29.
    3. Venkatesh, Viswanath & Morris, Michael G. & Ackerman, Phillip L., 2000. "A Longitudinal Field Investigation of Gender Differences in Individual Technology Adoption Decision-Making Processes," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 83(1), pages 33-60, September.
    4. Wei-Shiuen Ng & Ashley Acker, 2018. "Understanding Urban Travel Behaviour by Gender for Efficient and Equitable Transport Policies," International Transport Forum Discussion Papers 2018/01, OECD Publishing.
    5. Marlon G. Boarnet & Sharon Sarmiento, 1998. "Can Land-use Policy Really Affect Travel Behaviour? A Study of the Link between Non-work Travel and Land-use Characteristics," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 35(7), pages 1155-1169, June.
    6. Graham Dixon & P. Sol Hart & Christopher Clarke & Nicole H. O’Donnell & Jay Hmielowski, 2020. "What drives support for self-driving car technology in the United States?," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(3), pages 275-287, March.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Aggelos Soteropoulos & Martin Berger & Francesco Ciari, 2019. "Impacts of automated vehicles on travel behaviour and land use: an international review of modelling studies," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(1), pages 29-49, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. 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.
    2. Li, Dun & Huang, Youlin & Qian, Lixian, 2022. "Potential adoption of robotaxi service: The roles of perceived benefits to multiple stakeholders and environmental awareness," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 120-135.
    3. Kim, Sung Hoo & Circella, Giovanni & Mokhtarian, Patricia L., 2019. "Identifying latent mode-use propensity segments in an all-AV era," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 192-207.
    4. dos Santos, Fabio Luis Marques & Duboz, Amandine & Grosso, Monica & Raposo, María Alonso & Krause, Jette & Mourtzouchou, Andromachi & Balahur, Alexandra & Ciuffo, Biagio, 2022. "An acceptance divergence? Media, citizens and policy perspectives on autonomous cars in the European Union," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 224-238.
    5. Kassens-Noor, Eva & Kotval-Karamchandani, Zeenat & Cai, Meng, 2020. "Willingness to ride and perceptions of autonomous public transit," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 92-104.
    6. Jiang, Like & Chen, Haibo & Paschalidis, Evangelos, 2023. "Diffusion of connected and autonomous vehicles concerning mode choice, policy interventions and sustainability impacts: A system dynamics modelling study," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 274-290.
    7. 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.
    8. Tao, Tao & Cao, Jason, 2022. "Examining motivations for owning autonomous vehicles: Implications for land use and transportation," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    9. Hemesath, Sebastian & Tepe, Markus, 2023. "Framing the approval to test self-driving cars on public roads. The effect of safety and competitiveness on citizens' agreement," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    10. 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.
    11. Hassan, Hany M. & Ferguson, Mark R. & Vrkljan, Brenda & Newbold, Bruce & Razavi, Saiedeh, 2021. "Older adults and their willingness to use semi and fully autonomous vehicles: A structural equation analysis11Revised manuscript prepared for publication at the special issue in Journal of Transport G," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    12. Wang, Jinghui & Yang, Hao, 2023. "Low carbon future of vehicle sharing, automation, and electrification: A review of modeling mobility behavior and demand," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    13. Fatemeh Nazari & Mohamadhossein Noruzoliaee & Abolfazl Mohammadian, 2023. "Behavioral acceptance of automated vehicles: The roles of perceived safety concern and current travel behavior," Papers 2302.12225, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2024.
    14. Namgung, Hyewon & Chikaraishi, Makoto & Fujiwara, Akimasa, 2023. "Influence of real and video-based experiences on stated acceptance of connected public transportation and autonomous vehicles in a transit mall: A hybrid choice modeling approach," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    15. Benoît Lécureux & Adrien Bonnet & Ouassim Manout & Jaâfar Berrada & Louafi Bouzouina, 2022. "Acceptance of Shared Autonomous Vehicles: A Literature Review of stated choice experiments," Working Papers hal-03814947, HAL.
    16. Bridgelall, Raj & Stubbing, Edward, 2021. "Forecasting the effects of autonomous vehicles on land use," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    17. Qihao Liu & Yuzheng Liu & Chia-Lin Chen & Enrica Papa & Yantao Ling & Mengqiu Cao, 2023. "Is It Possible to Compete With Car Use? How Buses Can Facilitate Sustainable Transport," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(3), pages 69-83.
    18. Kyunam Kim, 2024. "An Input–Output Analysis for the Economic Potential of a New Convergence Industry: A Focus on the Autonomous Vehicle Sector in South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(20), pages 1-21, October.
    19. Kamruzzaman, Md. & Baker, Douglas & Washington, Simon & Turrell, Gavin, 2013. "Residential dissonance and mode choice," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 12-28.
    20. Bridgelall, Raj & Patterson, Douglas A. & Tolliver, Denver D., 2020. "Policy implications of truck platooning and electrification," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).

    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:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:22:p:12054-:d:680968. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.