Passenger opinions of the perceived safety and interaction with automated shuttles: A test ride study with ‘hidden’ safety steward

Nordhoff, Sina; Stapel, Jork; Arem, Bart van; Happee, Riender

doi:10.1016/j.tra.2020.05.009

Cited by 42 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In our study, the prospect of a reduced speed was often mentioned as a benefit for choosing a particular operational location or infrastructure configuration, arguing that a lower speed might attract more users and increase the comfort and perceived safety of passengers. This finding is also in line with recent publications from [55] and [56] on the public perception of automated shuttles. In their studies, respondents agreed that after riding the shuttle for the first time, its low speed increased their perceived safety and enhanced their positive experience.…”

Section: Discussion Of Methodology and Resultssupporting

confidence: 92%

“…On one hand, the low speed is seen as a hindrance to the integration of driverless shuttles, perceived as being too slow compared to other vehicles and not enough to compete with other active modes like cycling. On the other hand, surveys among users have shown that passengers feel comfortable and safe inside an automated shuttle partly because of its slow speed and therefore might encourage more people to use the service [55], [56]. -Automation level 4: Driverless shuttles are equipped with L4 automation technology, an innovation not yet implemented in private vehicles.…”

Section: Background Of Respondents (N=24)mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Deployment Scenarios for First/Last-Mile Operations With Driverless Shuttles Based on Literature Review and Stakeholder Survey

Zubin¹,

Oort

Binsbergen

et al. 2021

IEEE Open J. Intell. Transp. Syst.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussion Of Methodology and Resultssupporting

confidence: 92%

Section: Background Of Respondents (N=24)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Deployment Scenarios for First/Last-Mile Operations With Driverless Shuttles Based on Literature Review and Stakeholder Survey

Zubin¹,

Oort

Binsbergen

et al. 2021

IEEE Open J. Intell. Transp. Syst.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Despite current barriers to older drivers accepting AS that include lack of trust in the systems (21,22) and hesitation to use the emerging technology (23,24), research indicates that their perceptions change, positively, after being exposed to an AS, operating at Level 4 of automation (15,25). Some researchers have assessed user perceptions (alone) via survey (26)(27)(28)(29), while others have reported on favorable passenger experiences in AS after riding it (30). For example, such riders were positive toward the low travel speeds, observing the shuttle's ability to detect objects (e.g., cyclist next to a shuttle), the control of the shuttle, and access to an emergency button in shuttle.…”

Section: Older Drivers and Autonomous Shuttlesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Predicting Autonomous Shuttle Acceptance in Older Drivers Based on Technology Readiness/Use/Barriers, Life Space, Driving Habits, and Cognition

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Shared autonomous vehicle services (i. e., automated shuttles, AS) are being deployed globally and may improve older adults (>65 years old) mobility, independence, and participation in the community. However, AS must be user friendly and provide safety benefits if older drivers are to accept and adopt this technology. Current potential barriers to their acceptance of AS include a lack of trust in the systems and hesitation to adopt emerging technology. Technology readiness, perceived ease of use, perceived barriers, and intention to use the technology, are particularly important constructs to consider in older adults' acceptance and adoption practices of AS. Likewise, person factors, i.e., age, life space mobility, driving habits, and cognition predict driving safety among older drivers. However, we are not sure if and how these factors may also predict older adults' intention to use the AS. In the current study, we examined responses from 104 older drivers (Mage = 74.3, SDage = 5.9) who completed the Automated Vehicle User Perception Survey (AVUPS) before and after riding in an on-road automated shuttle (EasyMile EZ10). The study participants also provided information through the Technology Readiness Index, Technology Acceptance Measure, Life Space Questionnaire, Driving Habits Questionnaire, Trail-making Test Part A and Part B (TMT A and TMT B). Older drivers' age, cognitive scores (i.e., TMT B), driving habits (i.e., crashes and/or citations, exposure, and difficulty of driving) and life space (i.e., how far older adults venture from their primary dwelling) were entered into four models to predict their acceptance of AVs—operationalized according to the subscales (i.e., intention to use, perceived barriers, and well-being) and the total acceptance score of the AVUPS. Next, a partial least squares structural equation model (PLS-SEM) elucidated the relationships between, technology readiness, perceived ease of use, barriers to AV acceptance, life space, crashes and/or citations, driving exposure, driving difficulty, cognition, and intention to use AS. The regression models indicated that neither age nor cognition (TMT B) significantly predicted older drivers' perceptions of AVs; but their self-reported driving difficulty (p = 0.019) predicted their intention to use AVs: R2 = 6.18%, F (2,101) = 4.554, p = 0.040. Therefore, intention to use was the dependent variable in the subsequent PLS-SEM. Findings from the PLS-SEM (R2 = 0.467) indicated the only statistically significant predictors of intention to use were technology readiness (β = 0.247, CI = 0.087-0.411) and barriers to AV acceptance (β = −0.504, CI = 0.285-0.692). These novel findings provide evidence suggesting that technology readiness and barriers must be better understood if older drivers are to accept and adopt AS.

show abstract

“…Many of the qualitative studies on trust in automated mobility conceptualise the vehicles as privately owned passenger cars (Bazilinskyy, Kyriakidis, & de Winter, 2015;Buckley, Kaye, & Pradhan, 2018;Li, Blythe, Guo, & Namdeo, 2019). The few studies reporting results on ABs use trust as one outcome among many (Nordhoff, de Winter, Payre, van Arem, & Happee, 2019;Nordhoff, Stapel, van Arem, & Happee, 2020;Zoellick et al, 2019a). In their interview study after a ride in an AB, Nordhoff et al (2019) coded 6% of the material with the main category "trust" without sub-categories.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In their interview study after a ride in an AB, Nordhoff et al (2019) coded 6% of the material with the main category "trust" without sub-categories. Similarly, in the coding scheme of Nordhoff et al (2020), trust is operationalised as a sub-category of perceived safety and discussed accordingly. Both of these studies collected their data on trust in ABs after the ride, not a-priori trust before the ride.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

I’m curious, I’m open to it, I test it, I trust it! A focus groups study to understand a-priori trust in automated buses

Zoellick

Kluy²,

Rössle

et al. 2021

Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviou

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Trust is regarded as one of the main predictors for adopting automated buses (ABs).However, theories about trust (development) in technology generally vary and an indepths study about trust in ABs specifically is still outstanding. The present study fills this gap by presenting results from focus group interviews to trust (development) in shared automated buses prior to exposure. The objectives of this study are to contrast participants' naïve concepts of trust with theory and to identify underlying factors influencing a-priori trust in ABs. Results show that the N = 21 focus group participants use different strategies to familiarise themselves with the new technology of ABs, e.g., comparisons with familiar technologies, fundamental tendencies to approach or avoid, additional information seeking, or anthropomorphisation. These strategies largely support existing theories on trust (development) in technology. Differences between naïve interpretations of trust and its theoretical assumptions were found in focus group debates where more control over technology limited uncertainty and led to more trust.While theories suggest control and trust to be incompatible opposites, participants see control as a way to enhance trust. We provide starting points for further theory development and expansion and stress the importance of explanations in emerging technologies for trust and acceptance building.

show abstract

Passenger opinions of the perceived safety and interaction with automated shuttles: A test ride study with ‘hidden’ safety steward

Cited by 42 publications

References 42 publications

Deployment Scenarios for First/Last-Mile Operations With Driverless Shuttles Based on Literature Review and Stakeholder Survey

Deployment Scenarios for First/Last-Mile Operations With Driverless Shuttles Based on Literature Review and Stakeholder Survey

Predicting Autonomous Shuttle Acceptance in Older Drivers Based on Technology Readiness/Use/Barriers, Life Space, Driving Habits, and Cognition

I’m curious, I’m open to it, I test it, I trust it! A focus groups study to understand a-priori trust in automated buses

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About