Abstract
The integration of Autonomous Vehicles (AVs) into our modern society hinges on gaining widespread acceptance from potential road users. To indicate the preparedness of these road users and elucidate their perspectives regarding the use of AVs in future, it is imperative to conduct surveys gauging public acceptance and satisfaction with this emerging mode of transportation. This paper reports the results of a comprehensive questionnaire study involving 1,000 individuals in Gyor City. The survey's primary objective was to assess participants' attitudes and willingness to embrace autonomous vehicles within the city's road networks. The study delved into various socio-demographic factors, such as age, gender, and employment status, while also exploring participants' prior knowledge and opinions regarding the advantages and limitations of AVs. The findings reveal a generally favorable disposition among the public toward the inclusion of AVs in urban traffic, paving the way for the acceptance of mixed traffic patterns. Notably, respondents in younger age groups exhibit greater enthusiasm for incorporating AVs into their daily transportation, whereas individuals aged 65 and above express more reservations, displaying a conservative outlook. Furthermore, participants with prior knowledge and a deeper understanding of AVs exhibit a markedly more positive inclination toward this emerging technology compared to those lacking such familiarity.
1 Introduction
The term autonomous vehicle (AV) has been widely used by people in modern societies in recent years. It is the technology by which the vehicle can perform a driving task without the need for a human driver. Although this category of vehicles is still in the examining phase to alter a regular vehicle (RV), it is expected that there will be a crucial improvement in transport system, represented by enhancing safety and comfortability levels, increasing capacity, as well as reducing travel time and energy consumption [1–5]. AVs have the potential to significantly reduce the number of traffic accidents caused by human error, which is a major contributor to crashes. Advanced sensors and algorithms in AVs can enhance situational awareness and react faster than human drivers, minimizing the risk of collisions [6, 7]. To ensure readiness of using AVs, and to ease the fear of using this developed technology in near future, it is required to attain public acceptance and contentment on such a new offer to our daily transport. This could be achieved by conducting well designed surveys, that include a variety of integrated questions, to understand public attitudes and perceptions about AVs. However, it is very important to make the distinction between acceptance and adoption of a new technology. Especially, when looking for an empirical proof of bias in public acceptance of AVs. One should bear in mind that acceptance is a way of using technology, whereas adoption is a process that begins with awareness and ends with accepting it [8]. In this regard, it is important to realize that public perceptions on AVs, which refer to how individuals and society at large view and feel about self-driving vehicles with autonomous capabilities, varies according to several demographic factors related to respondents' age, gender, income and level of education [9, 10]. Furthermore, it is essential to regularly monitor respondents' opinions, on the benefits and limitations of AVs, to emphasize the main aspects that influence the acceptability of this new technology. This paper assesses the perception and understanding of 1,000 individuals about the concept of autonomous vehicle technology. In addition, the study also evaluates respondents' willingness to shift to AV mode of transport, by presenting and analyzing the findings obtained from a conducted large-scale survey. The research is carried out with the support of the project EFOP-3.6.2-16-2017-00016 – “Dynamics and control of autonomous vehicles in the synergy of the requirements of automated transport systems” (2017–2020) running at Széchenyi István University, Győr, Hungary.
2 Related works
Many studies have focused on public perception of AVs through conducting a variety of questionnaires, in order to ascertain the implementation of this technology on roads and highways in the next decades. Thomas et al. [9] have showed that public attitudes on driving an AV have been considered to be relatively low risk. It has been also proved that respondents with a high education level, are less concerned about the liability of accidents and AV system failure, than those without it. Regarding the demographic factors, numerous researchers have considered gender as a crucial factor, when analyzing public opinion on AV acceptance during their survey process [11–14]. Their studies demonstrated that men are more likely to welcome the experience of AVs than women, they are even more comfortable, ready to pay, and less concerned about the autonomous features provided in the vehicle. Age, on the other hand, created uneven AV perception by the respondents on different occasions. Younger individuals are more likely to have the tendency to accept AVs than older ones [12, 15, 16]. In contrast, Nordhoff et al. [17] found in their study, that an older age group of people has a positive attitude towards AVs, and has more understanding to new functions and technologies, than a younger age group. Nevertheless, they are still suspicious about the effectiveness of the vehicle, as compared to their recently used transport mode. Piao et al. [18] reported positive attitudes towards autonomous cars, the study proved that three quarters of participants are willing to own their AVs, and one quarter prefer a shared AVs like car-pooling, car-sharing and taxis. According to study literature about this topic, the majority of researchers have focused in their survey, on people's perception and realization as users of AVs. Some of them, like Kyriakidis et al. [19], have conducted large survey that included 5,000 respondents from 109 countries. Little attention has been paid to perceptions from an outside perspective, such as pedestrians and cyclists, who will share the same road, or even being in a vicinity of a zone containing autonomous vehicles. Furthermore, there has not been much effort to evaluate how autonomous vehicles are perceived versus other types of existing vehicles. Hudson et al. [20] and Jayaraman et al. [21] have studied the interaction impact of pedestrians behaviour and external features on the vehicle. The obtained results provided important insights into this particular interaction. Likewise, Parkin et al. [22] in their study demonstrated that ensured scenarios, which enable AVs to give way to pedestrians and cyclists in complex maneuvering, will result in high scores of participants' trust to AVs. Overall, there were various survey studies on people's acceptance of future AVs, regardless of being drivers, passengers, pedestrians, or cyclists [23–27]. This paper will act as a completion study to the previous works so as to discover the up-to-date opinions and willingness of expected AV users, and acquire more trust by the society individuals to shift to the new transport technology. Taking into consideration public attitudes can change over time due to various factors such as increased familiarity, media coverage, and real-world experiences.
3 Methodology
The questionnaire has been conducted by asking the participants to give their opinion about the current revolution of autonomous vehicles or “AVs” in our societies. During the survey, different types of questions have been prepared, to help us make a comparison between the perception and interest of different age groups of respondents. For this reason, individuals from various backgrounds have been involved to contribute the richness and reliability of the survey results. Both survey instruction and participants are explained in the following subsections.
3.1 Survey instructions and questionnaire content
Survey instructions and questionnaire included 41 questions, to glean people perceptions from a variety of backgrounds about the usage of autonomous vehicles, in the near future. The first set of questions listed the participants' place of birth, age, gender, and employment status, to gather essential sociodemographic background of every participant. The next set of questions related to the entrance to current new technologies, when the participants have been asked about the availability of particular devices in their houses, that refer to the ever-increasing smart devices, like smart phones and laptops, and to describe their impact to save the time and make people life easier. Questions about car ownership and driving license come afterwards, whether the participant has a car, and if so, what are the driving aids provided in the car. For example: cruise control, lane keeping, auto parking, etc. Then, how much satisfaction could be obtained by using these autonomous features. Later, the participants respond to questions whether they have ever read about autonomous vehicles, what their general opinions and interest about these technologies are. Finally, the last set of questions explains the advantages and disadvantages of AVs in their perspective. The scoring system included several categories, ranging between dichotomous category, represented by “YES” and “NO”, and ordinal category, for the range from “Completely positive” to “Totally negative”, and “Supportive” to “Disagreed”. Furthermore, other measuring words have also been used to describe the exact value of a particular response percentage. See Table 1.
Scoring system used in the survey
Category | Scoring Levels | ||||
Category 1 | YES | NO | |||
Category 2 | YES | NO | N A | ||
Category 3 | Supportive | Doubtful | Disagreed | ||
Category 4 | Completely Positive | Mostly Positive | Neutral | Partially Negative | Totally Negative |
Category 5 | Totally Agree | Mostly Agree | Mostly Disagree | Totally Disagree | |
Category 6 | Completely Interested | Mostly Interested | Neutral | Not Too Much Interested | Totally Not Interested |
Category 7 | AV | Both AV and RV | RV |
All gathered findings from the survey have been then analyzed and presented in the form of well-illustrated bar graphs, that have been constructed using “R Project for Statistical Computing” [28]. We have selected various distinguishing colours, to give very clear charts for the readers, to simply understand and compare different relevant survey factors, and different participants groups.
3.2 Participants
The questionnaire does not target a specific denomination of people, except for being the age of 18 years or more. It is important to show the percentage of ages, genders and employment status of the participants, in order to give a complete background for the opinions that have been gathered during the study. Figure 1a displays the percentages of respondents' ages which have been divided into six groups. These are 8.8% for age group (18–24), 17.6% for age group (25–34), 19% for age group (35–44), 16.9% for age group (45–54), 17.7% for age group (55–64) and 20% for respondent's age over 65. It is obvious that all age groups have comparatively equal percentages, except for the youngest age group, which has a less percentage of responding. The reason behind that may generally be the incapability of having their own cars at this age, thus lacking the trend to the overall topic of autonomous vehicle. Later, these groups were further divided by gender to give a collective percentage of females 54.6%, and a percentage of males 45.4% as shown in the same figure. Furthermore, – to complete the idea about the respondents' way of living, the employment status distribution has been considered during the survey and shown in Fig. 1b.
Respondents' distribution (a) age and gender, (b) employment status. Own source
Citation: International Review of Applied Sciences and Engineering 15, 3; 10.1556/1848.2024.00769
Regarding car ownership, it is well known that gleaned opinions about autonomous vehicles, from persons who already have cars, will be more significant than from those, who do not. However, despite that fact, the survey has been conducted randomly, and a great proportion of people who do not own cars has been involved. This will lead to neutral results and will help them to express their ideas. Many people might be passing the driving license tests but for certain reasons could not own a vehicle, or they do not like to drive.
Figure 2a–c show the proportion of car ownership, proportion of having a driving license and car brand, respectively. A slight difference could be noticed between the two factors. These are the proportion of car ownership and the relative proportion of having a driving license. On the other hand, a lesser proportion of both factors could be realized for the young age group (18–24) years, and old age group (+65) years. This is quite understandable, as it refers to the financial capabilities, which impede the young age group from having their own cars at this age. While the deterioration of physical activities, as well as the visual and hearing characteristics of the old group, might prevent them from driving vehicles on their own.
Respondents' (a) car ownership, (b) driving license, (c) car brands. Own source
Citation: International Review of Applied Sciences and Engineering 15, 3; 10.1556/1848.2024.00769
4 Results and discussion
The questionnaire results represented by the public responses to survey questions, have been broken down into four main categories: (1) Prior knowledge and opinion about AVs. (2) Driving assistance and onboard activities (3) Interest in AVs. (4) Benefit and Risk of AVs. The responses are thoroughly analyzed and discussed to achieve the public's final impression about vehicle automation.
4.1 Prior knowledge and opinion about autonomous vehicles
One of the key questions that has been included in this survey, is whether the participant has a prior knowledge and understanding, about the general concept of vehicle automation technology. Figure 3a and b, illustrate the percentages of prior knowledge of the respondents, as well as their means of getting the information about autonomous vehicles, respectively. In Fig. 3a, one can notice that the respondents of 35–44 age group, have a higher percentage of prior knowledge about AVs. Where 73.1% of the group answered “YES” for understanding the terms related to autonomous technologies, while
Respondents' (a) prior knowledge on AVs and, (b) source of information. Own source
Citation: International Review of Applied Sciences and Engineering 15, 3; 10.1556/1848.2024.00769
26.9% answered “NO”. The reason behind that may refer to the importance of time that is given by this age group to recent news about industrial development. In contrast, the lowest rate of having AVs knowledge could be noticed in 65+ age group by 44%, in which these participants may give more attention to other fields of life, related to social and health issues. In Fig. 3b, tv channels, internet and social media appear to be the main sources of providing information on AVs. However, more appreciation needs to be given to the other sources, to keep the people to be up to date with recent development of automation industry. In Fig. 3b, “NA” refers to the participants who do not have knowledge of AVs.
The questionnaire also included the respondents' general opinion on AVs and their thoughts about the safety of this technology. Participants have been asked whether they prefer to use an AV, or they prefer to keep their regular vehicles, “RVs”. All above opinions have been illustrated in Figs 4–7. Regarding their opinion on AVs, there is a common neutral trend by the participants of all age groups. However, logical positive opinions could be addressed by the three youngest age groups. Then, the opinions tend to gradually decrease for the other age groups of the participants. This is also the case for the AVs safety, in which 32.9% of 18–24 age group have supportive trend for AVs as a safe facility, while only 12.5% of 65+ age group feel it safe to use AVs. Along the same line, the survey included a comparison between the safety performance between AVs and RVs. Eventually, the participants gave their insights about either owning an AV, keeping a RV, or having both vehicles. The results again reveal that young age groups are looking forward to new features of AVs, and explore the delightful experience of riding such a vehicle, on the other hand, the old age groups have a conservative expression towards this technology. To better understand and analyze public trends towards receiving AVs, respondents' opinions have been compared according to their prior knowledge and car ownership.
General opinion on AVs. Own source
Citation: International Review of Applied Sciences and Engineering 15, 3; 10.1556/1848.2024.00769
Safety performance of AVs. Own source
Citation: International Review of Applied Sciences and Engineering 15, 3; 10.1556/1848.2024.00769
AVs safer than RVs. Own source
Citation: International Review of Applied Sciences and Engineering 15, 3; 10.1556/1848.2024.00769
Trade-off between AVs & RVs. Own source
Citation: International Review of Applied Sciences and Engineering 15, 3; 10.1556/1848.2024.00769
It is believed that increasing people's knowledge on autonomous technology will widen their insights about new features provided by AVs and impact their current opinions. Figure 8 records a remarkable increase in participants' opinion, where 2.8% of respondents with no prior knowledge answered by “Mostly Positive” opinion. While this percentage has increased, 18.3% of the “Mostly positive” responses were returned by the participants, who have prior knowledge on AVs. Figures 9–11 illustrate an achievement of similar results by the survey, where most positive responses graph bars show a notable raise for the option of prior knowledge on AVs. Eventually, overall impression about AVs' safety performance, both alone and as compared to RVs, has increased.
Prior knowledge vs opinion. Own source
Citation: International Review of Applied Sciences and Engineering 15, 3; 10.1556/1848.2024.00769
Prior knowledge vs safety. Own source
Citation: International Review of Applied Sciences and Engineering 15, 3; 10.1556/1848.2024.00769
Prior knowledge vs AVs safer than RVs. Own source
Citation: International Review of Applied Sciences and Engineering 15, 3; 10.1556/1848.2024.00769
Prior knowledge vs trade-off between AVs & RVs. Own source
Citation: International Review of Applied Sciences and Engineering 15, 3; 10.1556/1848.2024.00769
Furthermore, car ownership also has an effect on the public opinions, and participants having cars are more likely to consider traffic safety awareness, and recognize the means of mitigation of accidents rates. It is found that an increment of 9.5% in “Mostly Positive” opinion can been obtained, when comparing a non-car ownership group to a car ownership group as shown in Fig. 12. In addition, the “Supportive” bar increased from 7.7% for participants who do not have a car to 15.9% for car owners as shown in Fig. 13. Finally, slight increases and decreases can be observed for most of the bars in both Figs 14 and 15.
Car ownership vs opinion. Own source
Citation: International Review of Applied Sciences and Engineering 15, 3; 10.1556/1848.2024.00769
Car ownership vs safety. Own source
Citation: International Review of Applied Sciences and Engineering 15, 3; 10.1556/1848.2024.00769
Car ownership vs AVs safer than RVs. Own source
Citation: International Review of Applied Sciences and Engineering 15, 3; 10.1556/1848.2024.00769
Car ownership vs trade-off between AVs & RVs. Own source
Citation: International Review of Applied Sciences and Engineering 15, 3; 10.1556/1848.2024.00769
4.2 Driving assistance and onboard activities
The use of advanced driver assistance devices helps drivers to perform their driving tasks. These technologies are being created with the intention of improving driver comfort and safety. Many researchers claim that driver assistance system, through the autonomous features provided inside vehicles, lead to several advantages, for example: improve the efficiency of traffic flow, reduce fuel consumption and air pollution and enhance the safety performance [29]. To support this point of view, the participants have been asked about the information they already got on the driving assistance systems. Furthermore, a related question to car owners has been asked whether their cars include such autonomous features. Figure 16 describes relatively adequate information attained by respondents about the driving aids, where the most common autonomous features known by the respondents are: auto park (66.7%), cruise control (64.4%) and lane keeping (60.5%).
Information about driving aids. Own source
Citation: International Review of Applied Sciences and Engineering 15, 3; 10.1556/1848.2024.00769
In Fig. 17, car owners have addressed the existing driving assistance systems in their own cars. It is quite clear that these systems are ready to be used by drivers at any time while performing the driving task. But there is still a small percentage of those drivers, who either do not like or forget to activate these driving assistances. In fact, the presence of these assistance features would help in going through the experiment of driving autonomously, and thus, the drivers would be able to express their opinions about the whole process impartially. The stated Figure shows the most common features available in the respondents' cars: cruise control, on-board computer, reverse camera and sensors. “NA” stands for the respondents who do not have cars.
Available driving aids in respondents' cars. Own source
Citation: International Review of Applied Sciences and Engineering 15, 3; 10.1556/1848.2024.00769
Respondents have also been asked about the main onboard activities, that they would like to perform during fully automated driving. The question was very important for the survey. It reveals the feasibility of owning an AV from the respondent as a passenger point of view. Furthermore, it gives a chance to have more plausible insights about spending the journey time, ranging between conducting some personal substantial duties. Or spending the time with leisure and entertainment. Figure 18 shows the main suggested on-board activities by respondents, if they have a journey riding a fully autonomous vehicle.
Onboard activates inside AVs. Own source
Citation: International Review of Applied Sciences and Engineering 15, 3; 10.1556/1848.2024.00769
It is worth mentioning that during the presentation of this question regarding on-board activities that passengers may engage in. The question featured predetermined options, requiring respondents to select from a set list of activities, rather than generating open-ended responses. This structured format aimed to streamline data collection about this activity. Thus, the analysis was facilitated by offering predefined choices for participants to select from.
4.3 Interest in AVs
The results of the survey found that respondents in age group (18–24) and (25–34) have more interest in AVs 43.2% and 50% respectively, including the neutral responses. Interest trend gradually decreased until it reached 15% for respondents over 65+ (see Fig. 19). This is in line with the earlier findings in Fig. 3a where respondents in young age groups had an excellent comprehension of AV. In Fig. 20, respondents who are full time employed have the most percentage interest 40%, among the other employment statuses. This is quite understandable, as this branch of respondents has a more stable financial income, which enables them to choose a new technological form of transport, and look for new ways of luxury and entertainment inside vehicles.
Interest vs age group. Own source
Citation: International Review of Applied Sciences and Engineering 15, 3; 10.1556/1848.2024.00769
Interest vs employment. Own source
Citation: International Review of Applied Sciences and Engineering 15, 3; 10.1556/1848.2024.00769
Figures 21 and 22 confirm that people who have prior knowledge on AVs and car owners will have more bright visions about the future of autonomous technology [9]. Thus, they have more interest in AVs than other people without enough knowledge, or those who still did not get a car for themselves. The survey found that respondents' interest percentage on AVs increased from 19% to 41%, because the latter got more information about the term “automated vehicle”. Furthermore, the stated percentage raised from 25% to 45% because car ownership status has been filled with “YES” instead of “NO” by the respondents. Safety performance on the one hand affects the people interest on AVs. 64% of Supportive respondents about AVs safety, are more likely to express their interest on such type of vehicles (see Fig. 23). Along the same line, a plausible percentage of 54% of the participants who have cars provided with autonomous features are interested, as they are already able to proceed the experience of driving an autonomous vehicle (see Fig. 24).
Interest vs prior knowledge on AVs. Own source
Citation: International Review of Applied Sciences and Engineering 15, 3; 10.1556/1848.2024.00769
Interest vs car ownership. Own source
Citation: International Review of Applied Sciences and Engineering 15, 3; 10.1556/1848.2024.00769
Interest vs safety performance of AVs. Own source
Citation: International Review of Applied Sciences and Engineering 15, 3; 10.1556/1848.2024.00769
Interest vs driving aids. Own source
Citation: International Review of Applied Sciences and Engineering 15, 3; 10.1556/1848.2024.00769
4.4 Benefits and risks of AVs
During the survey, several questions have been prepared to capture the benefits and risks of AVs, from the participants point of view. Regarding the benefits, the responses to ten different questions are addressed as shown in Fig. 25. About 51% of the respondents agreed with the statement that says AVs will be able to make longer trips. In addition, the same result has been achieved for the statement that tells AVs will help the elderly and disabled passengers, to get to their destinations without the need of human drivers. 45% agreed with healthy environment, 42% of the respondents agreed with both reducing parking cost and longer services, 40% agreed with both reducing fuel consumption and save driving learn cost, 35% with reducing travel time, 31% with decreasing insurance cost and finally 30% agreed that AVs will result in decrease in general cost.
Participants' responses about benefit of AVs. Own source
Citation: International Review of Applied Sciences and Engineering 15, 3; 10.1556/1848.2024.00769
Risks of AVs are also captured using nine questions to sort respondents' opinions, about negative aspects of AVs, as shown in Fig. 26. The riskiest disadvantages of AVs are represented by increasing cost and fears of missing data by AVs, both individually reach the percentage of 67.5%. 66%, for both lack of safety in bad weather, and little information about AVs. In addition, 64% feel unsafe inside an AV, 62.5% for increasing traffic volume, 58% like to control driving and will not rely on the autonomous features, 56% find that there will be worthless driving, and finally 53% think that their children will be at risk when alone inside the vehicle.
Participants' responses about risks of AVs. Own source
Citation: International Review of Applied Sciences and Engineering 15, 3; 10.1556/1848.2024.00769
The data has been statistically analyzed as shown in Table 2, in which three levels of significance have been used: P ≤ 0.05, P ≤ 0.01, P ≤ 0.001 to better interpret the results obtained. Participants' Ages was considered as the main factor that impacts the individual responses, and thus affects the public perception regarding receiving autonomous vehicles in the existing roads networks. As the P-value is smaller than the chosen significance levels, the null hypothesis (no difference between groups) is rejected, and that will lead to the conclusion that there is a statistically significant difference.
One-way ANOVA shows the effect of age group to individuals' responses
Survey parameters | df | Sum Sq | Mean Sq | F value | P value |
Gender | 1 | 1,799 | 1,799 | 6.50 | * |
Employment | 5 | 157,502 | 31,500 | 260 | *** |
Car Ownership | 1 | 13,498 | 13,498 | 50.95 | *** |
Driving License | 1 | 8,113 | 8,113 | 30.01 | *** |
Prior Knowledge on AVs | 1 | 6,158 | 6,158 | 22.62 | *** |
Opinion about AVs | 4 | 25,783 | 6,446 | 25.44 | *** |
Safety concern on AVs | 2 | 20,329 | 10,164 | 39.35 | *** |
AV safer than RV | 3 | 16,438 | 5,479 | 20.87 | *** |
Trad-off between AV and RV | 2 | 14,762 | 7,381 | 27.97 | *** |
Driving Aid – Voice control | 2 | 12,518 | 6,259 | 23.51 | *** |
Driving Aid – Reverse camera/Sensors | 2 | 14,242 | 7,121 | 26.93 | *** |
Driving Aid – Parking assistant | 2 | 13,084 | 6,542 | 24.63 | *** |
Driving Aid – Onboard computer | 2 | 13,239 | 6,620 | 24.94 | *** |
Driving Aid – Lane keeping | 2 | 12,301 | 6,150 | 23.09 | *** |
Driving Aid – Cruise control | 2 | 15,094 | 7,547 | 28.63 | *** |
At least one driving assistance in the car | 2 | 16,165 | 8,082 | 30.79 | *** |
Activity inside AV– Work | 1 | 7,986 | 7,986 | 29.53 | *** |
Activity inside AV– Watching Landscape | 1 | 3,591 | 3,591 | 13.06 | *** |
Activity inside AV– Watching TV | 1 | 821 | 821 | 2.957 | 0.085 |
Activity inside AV– Talking | 1 | 14,331 | 14,331 | 5,427 | *** |
Activity inside AV– Sleeping | 1 | 542 | 542 | 1.95 | 0.163 |
Activity inside AV– Reading | 1 | 1,136 | 1,136 | 4.09 | * |
Activity inside AV– Play music | 1 | 4,922 | 4,922 | 18 | *** |
Activity inside AV– Observing roadway | 1 | 2,130 | 2,130 | 7.70 | ** |
Activity inside AV– Having a meal | 1 | 1,799 | 1,799 | 6.50 | * |
Activity inside AV– Gaming | 1 | 4,063 | 4,063 | 1,481 | *** |
Activity inside AV– Communication | 1 | 7,677 | 7,677 | 28.36 | *** |
Interest in AVs | 4 | 29,317 | 7,329 | 29.34 | *** |
Benefit – Save license cost | 3 | 11,252 | 3,751 | 14.01 | *** |
Benefit – Reduce travel time | 3 | 14,446 | 4,815 | 18.21 | *** |
Benefit – Reduce parking cost | 3 | 15,952 | 5,317 | 20.22 | *** |
Benefit – Longer trips | 3 | 14,772 | 4,924 | 18.64 | *** |
Benefit – Longer services | 3 | 13,650 | 4,550 | 17.15 | *** |
Benefit – Less fuel consumption | 3 | 15,731 | 5,244 | 19.92 | *** |
Benefit – Helps elderlies | 3 | 13,952 | 4,651 | 17.55 | *** |
Benefit – Decrease insurance cost | 3 | 11,892 | 3,964 | 14.84 | *** |
Benefit – Decrease general cost | 3 | 11,622 | 3,874 | 14.49 | *** |
Benefit – Better environment | 3 | 13,995 | 4,665 | 17.61 | *** |
Risk – Useless driving | 3 | 2,733 | 911 | 3.29 | * |
Risk – Unsafe feel inside | 3 | 9,218 | 3,072 | 11.38 | *** |
Risk – Missing driving data | 3 | 6,686 | 2,228 | 8.18 | *** |
Risk – Like to control driving | 3 | 8,649 | 2,883 | 10.66 | *** |
Risk – Increase traffic volume | 3 | 6,413 | 2,137 | 7.84 | *** |
Risk – Increase cost | 3 | 4,862 | 1,621 | 5.91 | *** |
Risk – Few AVs info | 3 | 8,505 | 2,835 | 10.48 | *** |
Risk – Children inside risk | 3 | 4,620 | 1,540 | 5.61 | *** |
Risk – Adverse weather risk | 3 | 7,300 | 2,433 | 8.95 | *** |
N = 1,000, * = P ≤ 0.05, ** = P ≤ 0.01, *** = P ≤ 0.001.
According to the results listed in Table 2, most of the variables showed P-values less than 0.05. This lead to Reject the null hypothesis, as there are statistically significant differences in the responses based on participants' ages. However, two of the variables related to the activities inside an AV presented P-values greater than 0.05. These variables are watching TV and sleeping. This resulted in failing to reject the null hypothesis as they do not show statistically significant differences in terms of the respondents' preferences or attitudes. The preference for watching TV and sleeping inside an autonomous vehicle is similar across the surveyed population. The differences observed could be due to random chance rather than a true effect.
Finally, in comparison to other relevant studies, our study yielded intriguing results, offering both alignment with existing literature and disparities from other relevant studies in the field. The study indicated that 63.8% of people are familiar with AVs. This is might be at a same range with the results in studies [30] and [31], where 66.4% and 75% of the respondents have prior knowledge on AVs. By increasing the knowledge, our study almost doubled public interest in using this new technology. However, increasing knowledge does not always correlate with an increase of interest. This has been demonstrated in [27], which demonstrated that1% increase in knowledge was associated with 0.65% reduction in interest, and 0.68% decrease in trust. Additionally, in comparison to prior research, our findings echoed some prevalent themes, such as the significance of perceived safety and convenience in shaping acceptance levels. The study demonstrated that 24% of people have supportive opinions towards AVs' safety. While the results presented by Schoettle and Sivak [13], show safer feelings by the participants, when an average of 45.8% held the belief that the occurrence of crashes would decrease, if autonomous vehicles were to replace conventional ones. Similarly, Penmesta et al. [32], found that 62% of survey participants believed the implementation of AVs would lead to a decrease in the frequency of accidents and injuries. However, it should be noted that excessive relying on AVs raises concerns about the potential lack of wisdom in such a dependency. The intricacies of AV decision-making processes, and their capacity to navigate complex scenarios remain unclear, introducing an element of uncertainty. Therefore, placing absolute trust in these technologies without comprehensive understanding or oversight may lead to unforeseen challenges. Thus, a balanced approach that combines the benefits of AVs, with human oversight and a thorough understanding of their capabilities becomes crucial.
5 Conclusion
This paper has gathered the public opinions regarding the revolutionary nature of autonomous technology, through a wide questionnaire conducted in Gyor City in Hungary. The survey aimed to first inspect the individuals understanding in terms of safety, reliability, general benefits and risks of autonomous vehicles. Second, to reveal individuals desire to either get themselves this new form of transport, or to continue with the recent status and keep on driving their regular vehicles.
In general, there is a positive attitude by public opinion to accept AVs in the road networks, which subsequently leads to the acceptance of the idea of mixed traffic patterns. However, participants' opinions have been directly affected by some considering factors in the survey, like age group. In this regard, respondents within young age groups are more likely to welcome the principle of using of AVs for their transport purposes. This is in contrast to the 65+ age group, who are more concerned and even fear riding AVs, as their responses to the survey questions showed a very conservative attitude towards this idea. However, Prior knowledge and car ownership, on the other hand, were also substantial factors that impacted the survey results. The study demonstrated that participants with prior knowledge and enough understanding of AVs, have remarkable positive attitudes to the new automated technology. Similarly, participants who have their own cars, especially those cars provided with several daily used autonomous features, have showed more welcoming impressions to AVs technology, as compared to those who do not own vehicles.
The study also investigated the respondents' perception and interest regarding AVs' level of safety and comfortability, as well as the general benefits and risks of AVs. Accordingly, almost two thirds of participants who have supportive insights about AVs' safety performance are really interested in obtaining these facilities. In addition, it is believed that travel demand will grow, because automation makes vehicle travel accessible to new user groups, who do not drive now (disabled and elderly persons) or drive less than they might like. This will in turn emphasize the benefits of AVs to a great extent. However, certain percentages of pessimistic responses by the participants, which highlight the risks of AVs performance, should not be ignored. These are, for example, the vulnerable loss of data when driving AVs during adverse weather conditions.
Overall, it is very important to regularly study the public perception and acceptance of AVs technology, as it represents a high developed industry in recent years. Assessing the findings of these surveys will clarify vagueness about this technology. Additionally, it will ascertain people's readiness for operating such forms of transport in our modern cities' road networks in future. Furthermore, transitioning from RVs to AVs involves not only technological advancements, but also addressing various societal concerns and gaining public acceptance. For instance, launching comprehensive educational programs to inform the public about the benefits and features of AVs. Allowing people to experience autonomous rides in controlled environments to build trust and familiarity [33]. Addressing common misconceptions and providing clear, accessible information about how AVs work, and their potential impact on road safety. This might be obtained through different information sources. However, learning about AVs through media can influence opinions differently than personal experiences. The nature of information presented in media, whether positive or negative, plays a crucial role in shaping perceptions. Media can shape public opinion by emphasizing certain aspects or biases, whereas personal experiences provide a more direct and firsthand understanding of AVs, influencing opinions based on real-life encounters.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank the project EFOP-3.6.2-16-2017-00016 – “Dynamics and control of autonomous vehicles in the synergy of the requirements of automated transport systems” (2017–2020) that has been carried out at Széchenyi István University (Győr, Hungary) to support the research by providing the analyzed dataset.
References
- [1]↑
W. G. Najm, J. Koopmann, J. D. Smith, and J. Brewer, “Frequency of target crashes for intellidrive safety systems,” United States. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2010.
- [2]
A. Kesting, M. Treiber, M. Schönhof, F. Kranke, and D. Helbing, “Jam-avoiding adaptive cruise control (ACC) and its impact on traffic dynamics,” in Traffic and Granular Flow’05, Springer, 2007, pp. 633–643.
- [3]
S. E. Shladover, “Connected and automated vehicle systems: introduction and overview,” J. Intell. Transp. Syst., vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 190–200, 2018.
- [4]
S. Tsugawa, “An overview on an automated truck platoon within the energy ITS project,” IFAC Proc., vol. 46, no. 21, pp. 41–46, 2013.
- [5]
Z. Wadud, D. MacKenzie, and P. Leiby, “Help or hindrance? The travel, energy and carbon impacts of highly automated vehicles,” Transp. Res. Part A. Policy Pract., vol. 86, pp. 1–18, 2016.
- [6]↑
R. Abou-Jaoude, “ACC radar sensor technology, test requirements, and test solutions,” IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst., vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 115–122, 2003. https://doi.org/10.1109/TITS.2003.821286.
- [7]↑
C. Boehlau, B. Lichte, and T. Ottenhues, “New concept of a compact LIDAR scanner for ACC and safety applications,” SAE Tech. Paper, 2009.
- [8]↑
K. Renaud and J. Van Biljon, “Predicting technology acceptance and adoption by the elderly: a qualitative study,” in Proceedings of the 2008 Annual Research Conference of the South African Institute of Computer Scientists and Information Technologists on IT Research in Developing Countries: Riding the Wave of Technology, 2008, pp. 210–219.
- [9]↑
E. Thomas, C. McCrudden, Z. Wharton, and A. Behera, “Perception of autonomous vehicles by the modern society: a survey,” IET Intell. Transp. Syst., vol. 14, no. 10, pp. 1228–1239, 2020.
- [10]↑
Y. Chen, N. Shiwakoti, P. Stasinopoulos, S. K. Khan, and K. Aghabayk, “Exploring the association between socio-demographic factors and public acceptance towards fully automated vehicles: insights from a survey in Australia,” IET Intell. Transp. Syst., 2023.
- [11]↑
H. Abraham, C. Lee, S. Brady, C. Fitzgerald, B. Mehler, B. Reimer, and J. F. Coughlin, “Autonomous vehicles, trust, and driving alternatives: a survey of consumer preferences,” Mass. Inst. Technol. AgeLab, Cambridge, vol. 1, no. 16, pp. 2012–2018, 2016.
- [12]↑
L. M. Hulse, H. Xie, and E. R. Galea, “Perceptions of autonomous vehicles: relationships with road users, risk, gender and age,” Saf. Sci., vol. 102, pp. 1–13, 2018.
- [13]↑
B. Schoettle and M. Sivak, “A survey of public opinion about autonomous and self-driving vehicles in the US, the UK, and Australia,” University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Transportation Research Institute, 2014.
- [14]
Q. Hussain, W. K. M. Alhajyaseen, M. Adnan, M. Almallah, A. Almukdad, and M. Alqaradawi, “Autonomous vehicles between anticipation and apprehension: investigations through safety and security perceptions,” Transp. Policy, vol. 110, pp. 440–451, 2021.
- [15]↑
P. Bansal, K. M. Kockelman, and A. Singh, “Assessing public opinions of and interest in new vehicle technologies: An Austin perspective,” Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol., vol. 67, pp. 1–14, 2016.
- [16]↑
N. Charness, J. S. Yoon, D. Souders, C. Stothart, and C. Yehnert, “Predictors of attitudes toward autonomous vehicles: the roles of age, gender, prior knowledge, and personality,” Front. Psychol., vol. 9, p. 2589, 2018.
- [17]↑
S. Nordhoff, J. de Winter, R. Madigan, N. Merat, B. van Arem, and R. Happee, “User acceptance of automated shuttles in Berlin-Schöneberg: a questionnaire study,” Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav., vol. 58, pp. 843–854, 2018.
- [18]↑
J. Piao, M. McDonald, N. Hounsell, M. Graindorge, T. Graindorge, and N. Malhene, “Public views towards implementation of automated vehicles in urban areas,” Transp. Res. Proced., vol. 14, no. 0, pp. 2168–2177, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2016.05.232.
- [19]↑
M. Kyriakidis, R. Happee, and J. C. F. de Winter, “Public opinion on automated driving: results of an international questionnaire among 5000 respondents,” Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav., vol. 32, pp. 127–140, 2015.
- [20]↑
C. R. Hudson, S. Deb, D. W. Carruth, J. McGinley, and D. Frey, “Pedestrian perception of autonomous vehicles with external interacting features,” in International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics, 2018, pp. 33–39.
- [21]↑
S. K. Jayaraman, C. Creech, D. M. Tilbury, X. J. Yang, A. K. Pradhan, K. M. Tsui, and L. P. Robert Jr., “Pedestrian trust in automated vehicles: role of traffic signal and AV driving behavior,” Front. Robot. AI, vol. 6, p. 117, 2019.
- [22]↑
J. Parkin, F. Crawford, J. Flower, C. Alford, P. Morgan, and G. Parkhurst, “Cyclist and pedestrian trust in automated vehicles: an on-road and simulator trial,” Int. J. Sustain. Transp., pp. 1–13, Jul. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2022.2093147.
- [23]↑
R. Swain, V. Truelove, A. Rakotonirainy, and S.-A. Kaye, “A comparison of the views of experts and the public on automated vehicles technologies and societal implications,” Technol. Soc., vol. 74, p. 102288, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2023.102288.
- [24]
A. Rezaei, M. Cao, Q. Liu, and J. De Vos, “Synthesising the existing literature on the market acceptance of autonomous vehicles and the external underlying factors,” J. Adv. Transp., vol. 2023, p. 6065060, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/6065060.
- [25]
X. Li, S.-A. Kaye, A. P. Afghari, and O. Oviedo-Trespalacios, “Sharing roads with automated vehicles: a questionnaire investigation from drivers’, cyclists’ and pedestrians’ perspectives,” Accid. Anal. Prev., vol. 188, p. 107093, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2023.107093.
- [26]
Q. Zhang, T. Zhang, and L. Ma, “Human acceptance of autonomous vehicles: research status and prospects,” Int. J. Ind. Ergon., vol. 95, p. 103458, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2023.103458.
- [27]↑
K. Othman, “Investigating how the public acceptance of autonomous vehicles evolve with the changes in the level of knowledge: a demographic analysis,” Cogent Eng. ., vol. 10, no. 1, p. 2220502, 2023.
- [29]↑
B. Van Arem, C. J. G. Van Driel, and R. Visser, “The impact of cooperative adaptive cruise control on traffic-flow characteristics,” IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst., vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 429–436, 2006.
- [30]↑
W. Ackaah and K. K. Osei, “Perception of autonomous vehicles–A Ghanaian perspective,” Transp. Res. Interdiscip. Perspect., vol. 11, p. 100437, 2021.
- [31]↑
C. Sitinjak, Z. Tahir, M. E. Toriman, N. Lyndon, V. Simic, C. Musselwhite, W. F. Simanullang, and F. M. Hamzah, “Assessing public acceptance of autonomous vehicles for smart and sustainable public transportation in urban areas: a case study of Jakarta, Indonesia,” Sustainability, vol. 15, no. 9, p. 7445, 2023.
- [32]↑
P. Penmetsa, E. K. Adanu, D. Wood, T. Wang, and S. L. Jones, “Perceptions and expectations of autonomous vehicles–a snapshot of vulnerable road user opinion,” Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change, vol. 143, pp. 9–13, 2019.
- [33]↑
J. L. Tapia, D. Sánchez-Borda, C. Iniesta, F. Badea, and J. A. Duñabeitia, “Shifting perceptions and emotional responses to autonomous vehicles using simulated experiences,” Behav. Sci., vol. 14, no. 1. 2024. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14010029.