Enhance driver behaviour and Public Acceptance of Connected and Autonomous vehicLes

This policy papare written by EBU for the PAsCAL Project explains which safety and accessibility issues do Connected and Autonomous Vehicles (CAVs) pose for the inclusion and personal mobility of visually impaired people.

Connected and autonomous vehicles (CAVs) are within reach of widespread deployment on public roads, but public perceptions are ambivalent. The objective of the present research was to assess expectations about the consequences of CAV introduction. These expectations should explain CAV acceptance, but their relative importance is poorly understood. We conducted a survey with a representatively drawn panel sample (N = 529) from France, Germany, Italy, and the UK. The survey consisted of a large item pool of expected consequences from CAV introduction, as well as general and affective evaluation of CAVs, ease of use, and behavioral intention to use CAVs. Exploratory factor analysis revealed four facets of expected consequences: road safety, privacy, efficiency and ecological sustainability. On average, expectations were mostly positive for ecological sustainability and safety, but negative for privacy. At the same time, substantial variance existed between respondents and between countries. For safety and efficiency, improvement was expected by a third of respondents, while another third expected worsening. Respondents from Italy expected more positive consequences for safety, while respondents from both France and Germany expected more negative consequences for privacy. To different degrees, all four facets predicted the intention to use CAVs in a structural equation model, primarily via affective evaluations. For policy makers, manufacturers, and service providers, understanding the trade-offs inherent to different CAV solutions will be central to ensure citizens’ needs are respected.

Some of the first ‘automated’ vehicles to be deployed on our roads will require a system of shared driving with a human driver. While this creates technical and operational challenges, the law must also facilitate such a transfer. One method may be to obtain the driver’s consent to share operational responsibility and to delineate legal responsibility between vehicle and driver in the event of an accident. Consent is a voluntary agreement where an individual is aware of the potential consequences of their consent, including the risks. The driver of a partially automated vehicle must be informed of potential risks before giving consent to share operational responsibility. This paper will refer to the inherent dangers associated with shared operational responsibility, in particular where there has been a request for the driver to take back control from the automated vehicle during the journey. Drivers are likely to experience delay in regaining situational awareness, making such operational transfers hazardous. It is argued that where an interactive digital interface is used to convey information, such as driver responsibility, risk and legal terms, drivers may fail to sufficiently process such communications due to fundamental weaknesses in human–machine interaction. The use of an interactive digital interface alone may be inadequate to effectively communicate information to drivers. If the problems identified are not addressed, it is argued that driver consent may be inconsequential, and fail to facilitate a predicable demarcation of legal responsibility between automated vehicles and drivers. Ongoing research into automated vehicle driver training is considered as part of the preparation required to design driver education to a level whereby drivers may be able to sufficiently understand the responsibilities involved in operating a partially automated vehicle, which has implications for future driver training, licensing and certification.