4.5 Article

Impressions after an automated mobility experience: An acceptance study

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.trf.2021.05.005

Keywords

Automated vehicles; Users' acceptance; Interview; Experience; Mobility service; Intelligent transport systems

Funding

  1. ANRT FUI Tornado project

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study reveals that increasing vehicle speed can enhance passenger acceptance of automated vehicles, boosting confidence in the system compared to previous field studies.
This paper presents people's impressions after a demonstration of a fully robotized electric vehicle in Rambouillet, a peri-urban area connected with rural sections in France. 155 participants experienced a 6.5 km ride that included driving in a narrow two-way road, negotiating roundabouts, traversing a tunnel and interacting with other users of the road such as vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists. 298 impressions from 114 respondents were collected from a written questionnaire and open interviews. Users' comments were classified in categories as follows: system capabilities, purpose and benefits, travel destination and encouraging remarks. Major results show that participants felt safe, where only 1.01% of comments denoted apprehension despite the increase of speed (up to 50 km/h) with respect to other studies. Users' were satisfied with the automated vehicle (AV) performance, where only 3.5% criticized the system, denoting they expected a higher level of autonomy. 22% of users mentioned train stations as useful application (i.e. potential destination) for an automated on-demand mobility service. More than 200 comments were related to travel destinations, pointing towards various scenarios where an AV service could be useful for them. Conclusions show that realistic vehicle speed increases passenger acceptance of automated vehicles, increasing system confidence with respect to previous studies in the field.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available