views Presentation given by Tyron Louw at the 5th International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics 2014 www.ahfe2014.org http://www.its.leeds.ac.uk/people/t.louw

1. Institute for Transport Studies
FACULTY OF ENVIRONMENT
Road users’ comprehension of
automated driverless vehicles
Tyron Louw, Natasha Merat, Anna Schieben and Marc Dziennus
University of Leeds
German Aerospace Centre (DLR)

2. Introduction
• EU cities face four main mobility problems:
• Congestion, Land use, Safety, Environment
• Cause? Car-ownership rate
• Inner cities vs periphery/small cities
• Automated Road Transport System (ARTS)
• New technology, need to investigate:
• Comprehension
• Acceptance

3. 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

4. Method
• Semi-structured interviews at 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

5. 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

6. Interviews: Section 2
• Presented scenarios in shared or dedicated lane
• Questioned as pedestrians, cyclists and drivers

7. Interviews: Section 3
• Preferences of cybercars and their
environments
• Perception of how trust and social influence
might influence their usage

8. Interview summary 1: General impression
• Naive about the concept (Only 20% knew)
• Curious but not dismissive
• 60% did not 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, no car/licence

9. Interview summary 2: Scenarios
• 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
• 80%+ expect ARTS to obey rules of the road

10. Interview summary 3: Information from cars
Difficult! No previous experience
• Design
• Has to be like a ‘normal’ car/bus
• Sturdy-looking design
• Mixed social influence (50%)
• Only 36% thought public engagement is necessary.

11. Interview summary 3: Information from cars
• Information
• 50% said they don’t need information
• Must confirm detection
• Display information regarding movement:
• Stopping/slowing
• Future intentions
• Speedometer on the outside
• Auditory warnings (80%+)

12. Other comments
Positive Negative
Trust & Use ü (88%) 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

13. Next steps?
• Large scale questionnaire: On-road demonstrations
• Current: Oristano, Sardinia
• Future:
• La Rochelle, France
• Showcases:
• Leon, Spain
• CERN, Switzerland
• 2015 ITS World Congress, Bordeaux

15. Thank you
Contact details:
Tyron Louw
Institute for Transport Studies
t.l.louw@leeds.ac.uk