road users’ comprehension of automated driverless vehicles
TRANSCRIPT
TITLE A CTS FOR THE NEW ROME EXHIBITION
Gabriele Giustiniani, ITR
Road users’ comprehension of automated driverless vehicles
22 July 2014
Tyron Louw1, Natasha Merat1, Anna Schieben2 and Marc Dziennus2
1University of Leeds2German Aerospace Centre (DLR)
Introduction
Source: CityMobil2.eu
• EU cities main mobility problems
• Congestion, Land use, Safety, Environment
• Cause? Car-ownership rate
• Big cities vs small cities
• Automated Road Transport System (ARTS)
• New technology, need to investigate:
• Comprehension
• Acceptance
Aims:
To gauge participants’ understanding of and attitude to driverless cars
To understand what information users need from driverless cars when in an impending conflict situation
Semi-structured interviews @ Leeds & DLR
Videos, pictures and hypothetical scenarios demonstrating the capabilities of such vehicles
Psychological models of trust, acceptability and acceptance of new technologies
e.g. UTAUT (Vankatesh et al., 2003) TAM (Davis, 1989)
26 participants
13 male, 13 female
14 < 30 yrs and 12 > 40 yrs
Method
naïve
Interviews: Section 1
Attitudes towards ARTS
How they might be integrated into society
Where and for whom they might be most useful
Started with two videos on ‘driverless cars’
BMW and Induct
Interviews: Section 2
Presented scenarios in shared or dedicated lane
Questioned pedestrians or cyclists
Interviews: Section 3
Preferences of cybercars and their environments
Perception of how trust and social influence might influence their usage
Interview summary 1: General impression
Naive about the concept
Curious but not dismissive
Did not really see benefit of an ARTS above and beyond existing public transport
What did they think about:Environment: park and ride, hospitals, link between airport and train station
Situations: night services, shuttle, door to door, after drinking
Groups of people: mobility problems, older drivers, young people
Interview summary 2: Preferred setting
People generally trusting but also concerned for their safety
Preferred dedicated to shared
Preferred interactions at clear demarcations, e.g. zebra crossing or clearly marked lanes
Interview summary 3: Information from cars
Difficult! No previous experience
Must confirm detection
Has to be like a normal car
Sturdy-looking design
Display information regarding movement intention:
stopping/slowing/direction
speedometer on the outside
Engine sound
Other comments
Positive Negative
Trust (22/24) before and after Slow
“Impressive technology” Expensive
“Green approach to transport” No point to point capability/not flexible
Limited capacity
Fear of technology (break/unreliable)
Safety and security
Trust: no driver
