Clark, B., Parkhurst, G. and Ricci, M. (2016) Understanding the
socioeconomic adoption scenarios for autonomous vehicles: A literature
review. Project Report. University of the West of England,
Bristol, UK. Available from: http://eprints.uwe.ac.uk/29134
We recommend you cite the published version.
The publisher’s URL is:
http://www1.uwe.ac.uk/et/research/cts
Refereed: No
Venturer Project Deliverable D1
Disclaimer
UWE has obtained warranties from all depositors as to their title in the material
deposited and as to their right to deposit such material.
UWE makes no representation or warranties of commercial utility, title, or fitness
for a particular purpose or any other warranty, express or implied in respect
of any material deposited.
UWE makes no representation that the use of the materials will not infringe
any patent, copyright, trademark or other property or proprietary rights.
UWE accepts no liability for any infringement of intellectual property rights
in any material deposited but will remove such material from public view pending
investigation in the event of an allegation of any such infringement.
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR TEXT.
Introducing Driverless Cars to UK Roads
WORK PACKAGE 5.1
Deliverable D1
Understanding the Socioeconomic Adoption Scenarios for Autonomous Vehicles:
A Literature Review
Ben Clark
Graham Parkhurst
Miriam Ricci
June 2016
Preferred Citation: Clark, B., Parkhurst, G. and Ricci, M. (2016) Understanding the Socioeconomic
Adoption Scenarios for Autonomous Vehicles: A Literature Review. Project Report. University of the West
of England, Bristol. Available from: http://eprints.uwe.ac.uk/29134
Centre for Transport & Society
Department of Geography and Environmental Management
University of the West of England
Bristol
BS16 1QY
UK
Email enquiries to graham.parkhurst@uwe.ac.uk
VENTURER: Introducing driverless cars to UK roads
i
Contents
1 INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................................................2
2 A HISTORY OF AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES................................................................................................2
3 THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES ON THE ADOPTION OF AVS...............................................................4
3.1 THE MULTI-LEVEL PERSPECTIVE AND SOCIO-TECHNICAL TRANSITIONS............................................................ 4
3.2 THE TECHNOLOGY ACCEPTANCE MODEL ........................................................................................................ 8
3.3 SUMMARY.................................................................................................................................................... 8
4 GOVERNMENT PERSPECTIVES ON AVS....................................................................................................9
4.1 POLICY IN THE UNITED KINGDOM ................................................................................................................. 9
4.2 POLICY ACROSS EUROPE ..............................................................................................................................10
4.3 POLICY IN THE USA.....................................................................................................................................10
4.4 SUMMARY...................................................................................................................................................11
5 EXPERT PERSPECTIVES ON AVS ..............................................................................................................11
5.1 LIKELIHOOD OF AV ADOPTION.....................................................................................................................11
5.2 THE PROCESS OF AV ADOPTION....................................................................................................................12
5.3 POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF AV ADOPTION........................................................................................................13
5.4 AV MARKET SIMULATION STUDIES ...............................................................................................................14
5.5 IMPLICATIONS FOR THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY..............................................................................................14
5.6 SUMMARY...................................................................................................................................................15
6 PUBLIC PERSPECTIVES ON AVS................................................................................................................15
6.1 AWARENESS OF AND GENERAL ATTITUDES TOWARD AVS..............................................................................15
6.2 PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIFIC ASPECTS OF AV TECHNOLOGY AND OPERATION.....................................................16
6.3 SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC / PSYCHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS AND PERCEPTIONS OF AVS .................................16
6.4 PREFERRED MODES OF AV OPERATION .........................................................................................................17
6.5 PERCEIVED BENEFITS OF AVS AND USE OF IN-VEHICLE TIME..........................................................................17
6.6 WILLINGNESS TO PAY FOR FULL AUTOMATION ..............................................................................................18
6.7 STATED PREFERENCE EXPERIMENTS .............................................................................................................18
6.8 SUMMARY...................................................................................................................................................18
7 MARKET ANALYSIS AND ADOPTION SCENARIOS................................................................................19
7.1 AV MARKET ‘NICHE ACCUMULATION’..........................................................................................................19
7.2 AV ADOPTION SCENARIOS............................................................................................................................20
7.3 CONCLUDING SUMMARY ..............................................................................................................................20
Appendices
APPENDIX A - SUMMARY OF STUDIES OF PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS OF AVS……………………………………………………26
APPENDIX B - SUMMARY OF SIMULATION MODELS OF AV SYSTEMS………………………………………………………….35
VENTURER: Introducing driverless cars to UK roads
2
1 Introduction
There is great and growing interest in autonomous vehicles (AVs), both in relation to rapid technological
developments and the trialling of these developments, and the potential for their far reaching impacts on
transport systems and society. The present report examines scenarios and policy and practice challenges for
the adoption of AVs. Whilst it has broad relevance for societies, in the industrialised democracies at least,
there is a particular focus on the UK context.
The report begins with an overview of the historical development of AVs. This is followed by a summary of
two theoretical perspectives which frame the various processes through which new innovations can enter
the mainstream and be adopted by individuals: i. the multi-level perspective (which is illustrated through a
case study of the transition from horse drawn carriages to automobiles); and ii. the technology acceptance
model (which deals with individual intentions rather than societal diffusion). The frameworks highlight the
importance of government leadership, support from powerful professional bodies and positive public
perceptions as necessary (but not sufficient) conditions for new innovations to achieve significant market
share. Accordingly the report moves on to review the academic and grey literature on government, expert
and public perceptions of AVs in turn. The theoretical and empirical insights are then synthesised in a
discussion which considers two competing but plausible future operating scenarios for AVs. The first sees
AVs as supporting ‘business-as-usual’, with road transport remaining an essentially private ‘owner-user’ set
of practices, with more cars and traffic resulting from the removal of constraints on who can use vehicles and
when. The other presents AVs as a key element in achieving ‘collective efficiency’ in the use of transport
assets, with different and emerging ownership and use models.
2 A history of autonomous vehicles
Autonomous: ‘having self-government, independent of others’
Vehicle: ‘Any conveyance in or by which people or objects are transported’
Collins (1989)
The first human ridden horses, untamed and therefore uncontrolled, provided the earliest examples of
‘autonomous vehicles’ as far back as 10,000 years BC (autonomous cars 2013). A first man-made
‘programmable cart’ was designed and built by the Greek inventor Hero, in 60 years AD. The cart was
powered by a falling weight which unwound a string wrapped around its axles. By winding the string in
different directions, Hero was able to programme the cart to move forwards, backwards and to turn in a predefined
sequence limited in duration only by the
length of the string (New Scientist 2007).
Leonardo di Vinci later conceived of his
‘programmable cart’ in the 15th
century AD
(Figure 1). This design was powered by coiled
springs (tightened and hence energised by
pulling the cart backwards) and followed a preset
route that was programmed using an
arrangement of gears and springs (thelistcafe
date unknown).
The ‘driverless vehicles’ 1
that are under
development today are, of course, an
incremental evolution of the modern day motor
car, with its origins in the late 19th
century, and
brought to the masses by Henry Ford in the first decade of the 20th
century. By the end of this ‘century of the
car’, a global system of ‘automobility’ (Urry 2004) had emerged and the majority of households in developed
1
‘driverless cars’ are programmed rather than autonomous (i.e. acting independently)
Figure 1: Leonardo Di Vinci’s driverless cart
Source: Wikipedia (2014)
VENTURER: Introducing driverless cars to UK roads
3
economies had access to a privately owned car (Dennis and Urry 2009). The complex, inter-dependent
systems of automobility and the implications for transitioning to an alternative dominant form of mobility
are considered later, in the review of theoretical perspectives (in Section 3).
First, returning to the evolution of modern day driverless vehicle technology, Anderson et al (2013) in their
review of AVs (from a predominantly American perspective), identified three phases in their development to
date: i. foundational research conducted by universities in partnership with the major motor manufacturers
(e.g. General Motors (GM)) and state agencies, ii. the so-called ‘Grand Challenges’which were initiated in the
U.S. by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), and lastly, iii. commercial development, in
which major corporations like Google and the motor manufacturers have begun investing in their own
research and development programmes in seeking to position themselves as AV market leaders.
A chronology of the evolution of AV technology from the early 20th
Century is summarised in Table 1:
Table 1: Chronology of developments in AVs
1939: The World’s Fair: GM’s exhibit ‘Futurama’ predicts personal car ownership and highway
platooning (the interstate system was yet to be developed) (Wired 2007).
1940s: Military technology like RADAR and other electronics are developed during the war years.
These are later employed in civilian contexts, including in driver assistance technologies
such as adaptive cruise control (Wetmore 2003).
1958: GM develop a Chevrolet vehicle that steers automatically by detecting (through inductance
coils mounted on the vehicle) AC currents in wires embedded in the road (Vanderbilt
2012).
1960: Dr Vladimir Zworykin develops an intelligent highway system that senses vehicle speeds
and locations, processes this in a central computer, and sends back control instructions to
vehicles to avoid collisions (Wetmore 2003).
1970s: Development in automated highways in the USA is halted. Motor manufacturers are forced
by state legislation and technological limitations to focus innovation on safety
improvements and emissions controls (Wetmore 2003).
1977: Tsukuba Mechanical Engineering Lab equips a car with cameras and an analogue computer,
enabling the vehicle to automatically track white road markings at speeds of up to 30
km/hr. (Forsyth date unknown)
1980: Ernst Dickmanns, working with a team at Universität der Bundeswehr (Munich), fits various
sensors to a Mercedes Van. Throttle, brakes and steering are automatically controlled on
traffic-free streets. No road side infrastructure is required (Forsyth date unknown).
1986: The van is later developed into what became known as VaMorRs (“Versuchsfahrzeug für
autonome Mobilität und Rechnersehe” or “test vehicle for autonomous mobility and
computer”) which drove at up to 96km/h over a not-yet-opened 20km stretch of German
autobahn (Weber 2013).
1987-95: The EU fund the pan-European PROMETHEUS project (PROgraMme for a European Traffic
of Highest Efficiency and Unprecedented Safety). Dickmanns develops the VaMP
autonomous car as part of the project – a Mercedes 500 SEL with automatic control of
throttle, brakes and steering (Chiafulio date unknown).
1994/5: Enhancements to the image processing algorithms enable the VaMP car to be
demonstrated in simulated traffic in Paris as part of the PROMETHEUS project. In 1995 it is
piloted automatically in real traffic for the majority of a 1,600 km journey between Munich,
Germany and Odense, Denmark (Chiafulio date unknown). In the USA, researchers from
Carnegie Mellon University used the ‘Rapidly Adapting Lateral Position Handler’ algorithm
to automatically control the steering of a Pontiac Trans Sport on a journey between
Pittsburgh and San Diego. Throttle and brakes were controlled by the researchers (Carnegie
Mellon University data unknown).
VENTURER: Introducing driverless cars to UK roads
4
1996-
2001:
The University of Parma, Italy (also involved in PROMETHEUS) equip a Lancia Thema 2000
with low cost black and white cameras, under the ARGO research programme (University
of Parma data unknown). Image processing algorithms are successfully able to keep the
vehicle within white lines and to regulate speed. The vehicle is successfully demonstrated
in automatic mode on extra-urban rural roads in Italy over a tour of 2000km (Vanderbilt
2012).
2002: This year sees the launch of DARPA’s ‘Grand Challenge’ in the US. Teams are challenged to
develop an autonomous vehicles that can traverse a 150km off road and unmarked route in
the Mojave desert. The route is pre-planned and GPS waymarked. Funding is available to
take part in the challenge, with a further $1m in prize money on offer to the winning
teams. The objective of the programme is to stimulate innovation in autonomous vehicles
which can then be developed for use by the military (Vanderbilt 2012).
2004: The first ‘Grand Challenge’ race is held, but no teams completed the route and the race is
repeated in 2005. This is completed by five teams and won by Stanford University with a
modified Volkswagen Tourag (Vanderbilt 2012).
2007: The third ‘Grand Challenge’ requires teams to complete a 96km urban course which is set
up on the disused George Air Force Base. Vehicles were required to comply with traffic
laws and to negotiate other traffic and obstacles. The challenge was won by Carnegie
Mellon University with a modified Chevrolet Tahoe (Vanderbilt 2012).
2009-12: Google enter into the development of self-driving cars employing researchers that had
previously been involved in the DARPA Grand Challenges (including Stanford's Sebastian
Thrun). Self-driving technology was initially fitted to a Toyota Prius and later a Lexus which
by 2012 had completed over 300,000 test miles on inter-urban free-ways in California and
Texas. Testing then began in more complex urban environments (Vanderbilt 2012).
2014: Google unveil their first bespoke self-driving car with no steering wheel or pedals (Google
date unknown).
Hence, in terms of technological development the broad principles of automation have been demonstrated
in real-world scenarios. The outstanding technical challenges are in terms of the flexibility and resilience of
the systems, for example, to the unexpected, the full range of possible weather, and the management of
system failures. However, two major challenges remain beyond technical feasibility and reliance: first, to
decide what socio-legal-regulatory environment AVs should be designed for, or indeed whether that
environment needs to be modified to make AVs a realistic mass-adoption option, and second, whether there
is a commercially-viable market model for the production and adoption of AVs, and whether that model
would also be a socioeconomically desirable one. The report now turns to examine how theoretical
perspectives can inform these questions.
3 Theoretical perspectives on the adoption of AVs
To speculate on how the transportation system may evolve in the future, it is informative to examine the
nature of presentday transportation systems and how these emerged through pasttechnological innovations
and system transitions. Transportation systems may be interpreted through a number of theoretical
perspectives. Here, we consider the relevance of two such frameworks to the question of how AVs may come
to be widely adopted across society, namely: The multi-level perspective and the technology acceptance
model.
3.1 The multi-level perspective and socio-technical transitions
Geels (2005, 2012) and others have used the multi-level perspective (MLP) as a framework to explain historic
transitions from one (dominant) transportation system to another (e.g. the transition from horse drawn
carriages to automobiles). Transitions are examined through the MLP by considering the inter-relationship
between processes occurring in three nested levels: i. niches, which are nested below ii. socio-technical
regimes, which are nested below iii. landscapes.
VENTURER: Introducing driverless cars to UK roads
5
Socio-technical regimes: The dominant transportation system of a time may be conceived as a socio-technical
regime - the middle layer of the MLP. Dominant regimes (e.g. the current system of automobility (Urry 2004))
emerge when technologies (e.g. vehicles), infrastructure (e.g. roads for vehicles), regulations (e.g. the rules
and legal framework for operating vehicles on roads), user patterns (the adoption of vehicles for mobility)
and cultural discourses (e.g. the notion that roads are predominantly for automobiles rather than other
modes or uses) converge to reinforce one way of doing things over alternatives. The system is ‘reproduced,
maintained and changed’ by different social groups and actors. The term ‘regime’ is used rather than the
term ‘system’ to capture the idea that there are ‘deep structural rules that govern and guide’ how different
actors perceive how the system ought to be used and altered. The concept of a socio-technical regime also
incorporates processes of ‘lock-in’ or path dependency that stifle innovation and make it difficultto transition
from one (dominant) system to another.
Niches: New innovations are considered in the MLP to develop in ‘niches’, which are nested in the bottom
level of the framework beneath the socio-technical regime. In the initial phases of innovation, niches may be
thought of as ‘protected spaces’ such as research and development laboratories, demonstration projects or
the military. Innovation is considered to occur through three processes: first, learning about the new
technology or practice; second, articulating a vision of how the new technology or practice may be adopted;
and third, the building of social networks around the innovation. For innovations to gather momentum it is
necessary for these three processes to align such that a dominant technology emerges (and competition
between alternative forms of technology is removed), with a clear and shared vision of how the technology
ought to be adopted, which is supported by social groups and actors that have the power to instigate change.
Landscapes: Socio-technical regimes and niches are situated in the framework beneath a socio-technical
landscape (the highest level in the MLP). The landscape constitutes the wider contexts that are beyond the
control of individual actors, including for example spatial structures (e.g. urban form), political ideologies,
societal values, beliefs, concerns and economic systems and trends.
The MLP is illustrated in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Multiple levels in a nested hierarchy (Geels 2002)
Transitions: Transitions from one regime to another are considered in the MLP to occur through a four stage
process:
1. Innovations are first developed in small, protected spaces which are situated in the lower (niches) level
of the MLP.
2. Niche adoption: The innovations then emerge as applied, small market niches, again operating outside
of the dominant regime (in the lower ‘niches’ level).
3. Breakthrough: Wider adoption then occurs through ‘niche accumulation’ where an innovation is
employed in multiple,discrete market spaces. Taken together, these beginto establish a more significant
market share. As market share increases, the innovation is able to compete with the existing dominant
regime. The process may be catalysed by a combination of i. favourable changes occurring at the
VENTURER: Introducing driverless cars to UK roads
6
landscape level, ii. specific problems occurring within the existing regime and iii. promotion by powerful
actors or social groups.
4. Replacement: In this last stage, the innovation replaces the previous system and a new socio-technical
regime becomes established. This may be a gradual process.
To illustrate the framework’s applicability to transportation, Geels (2005) draws on the MLP to explain the
socio-technical transition from horse drawn carriages to automobiles in the USA (1860 – 1930). His account
is summarised in Box 1.
VENTURER: Introducing driverless cars to UK roads
7
Box 1: A case study of a socio-technical transition in transport
FROM HORSE DRAWN CARRIAGES TO AUTOMOBILES IN THE USA
Phase 1: Industrialisation and urbanisation (1860-1865)
Changing landscapes: Industrialisation (catalysed by the invention of steam power) triggers a process of
urbanisation as people move from rural areas to cities to find work.
The transportation regime: Journeys consequently became too long to undertake on foot and horse drawn
coaches are adopted as the dominant form of mass transit in cities.
Niche developments: However, as cities expand, large numbers of horses become increasingly expensive to
‘maintain’ for transportation. The horse tram companies begin to seek alternative power sources for their
coaches. The first electric trams are demonstrated at exhibitions.
Phase 2: Suburbanisation and the adoption of electric trams (1885-1903)
Changing landscapes: Large-scale immigration to the USA increases the pace of urbanisation. Cities become
and gain a reputation for being highly polluted. A preference for suburban living then emerges. Electricity
becomes more widely available, stimulating a ‘cultural fascination’ with electrical power.
Problems within the regime: Whilst the availability of horse drawn trams enabled the development of the
first suburbs, this in turn increased demand for mobility, leading to congestion and worsening pollution from
horse drawn transportation.
Niche breakthroughs: Thus electric trams, which were cheaper to run and less polluting, rapidly replaced
horse drawn carriages. Electric tram systems attracted investment from real estate companies as new
tramlines increase land values and the potential for development. The process of suburbanisation continues.
Changeswithin theregime: Streets were no longer viewed as spaces for social exchange, and were perceived
instead as arteries for movement.
Niche innovations: The first automobiles (electric, steam and gasoline powered) were developed. These
were used in particular market niches including as electric taxis, for promenading in parks, and for leisure
racing and touring (for which gasoline powered vehicles are preferred).
Phase 3: Destabilisation of the electric tram regime (1903-1914)
Problems within the regime: Electric trams remain the dominant mode of urban transportation, but
increasingly suffer from overcrowding. This contributes to their poor public image, which is reinforced by the
perception of tram companies having profited from speculation in land markets. Tram fares are heavily
regulated, reducing the ability of tram operators to generate income to invest in improvements, and public
investment is also gradually withdrawn.
Niche accumulation: Automobiles remain firmly within the domain of the wealthy, but begin to be adopted
by new groups for utilitarian, business purposes (e.g. by doctors or wealthy farmers in rural areas). Gasoline
cars emergeas the dominant technology (relative to steam andelectric vehicles),partly as their higher speeds
and longer ranges are suited to popular leisure activities like racing and touring. Fuel is also readily available
in general stores (e.g. for lighting) and there are established competencies in the maintenance of gasoline
engines. Ford develop the Model T as an affordable basic car through innovative mass production processes.
Phase 4: Replacement of electric trams with automobiles (1914-1930s)
Establishing a new regime: As the drive towards suburbanisation continued, powerful social groups including
policy makers and highway engineers see automobiles as a means to facilitate this. The expansion of cities
necessitates greater mobility and cars (which were faster and more flexible than trams and now affordable
to the masses) were seen as offering the perfect mobility solution. Road infrastructure was developed to
accommodate cars (including the first highways), to the exclusion of pedestrians and children (who were
displaced to purpose built playgrounds). Regulations were produced to manage traffic flow and to encourage
the safe use of vehicles. Cars became a symbol of status and power and the present day car culture emerges
(centred around leisure activities like touring and drive-in movies). By the middle of the 20th
Century, the
system of automobility has become firmly established.
VENTURER: Introducing driverless cars to UK roads
8
3.2 The technology acceptance model
Now turning to individuallevel motivations for adopting innovations, Davis et al (1989) developed the original
technology acceptance model (TAM) to examine user acceptance of computer technology. The TAM is an
adaptation of the social-psychological ‘theory of reasoned action’ (proposed by Fishbein and Ajzen (1975))
and suggests a series of interrelated constructs to explain an individual’s usage and intention to use a (new)
technology. This is in contrast to the MLP, which considers societal rather than individual level transitions.
In the TAM, actual use of a technology is suggested to follow from an intention to use the technology. The
intention arises from a positive attitude towards the technology. In turn, attitude is suggested to be related
to the perceived usefulness of the technology and the perceived ease of use. In a development of the TAM
(TAM version three), the perceived usefulness of the technology is further hypothesised to be related to
subjective norms, image and experience. The model is depicted in Figure 3, with an adaptation added by the
current authors to emphasise the perceived affective qualities of driving, which will be much altered in the
AV experience.
Figure 3: Modified technology acceptance model (Elaboration on Le Gris et al., 2003)
3.3 Summary
Together these different theoretical perspectives provide insights into some general concepts that merit
attention in examiningthe prospects for the adoption of AVs. The MLP impliesa need to consider prospective
changes occurring at the landscape level. These might include ongoing migration to cities, the impact of
mobile ICTs on lifestyles or strengthening agendas around climate change and the implications of this for
energy-power systems and mobility. Second, it suggests attention be paid to the problems with the
established automobility regime which might lead to its destabilisation (e.g. its inefficiency and high external
costs, particularly in urban areas). It also provides an account about how AVs mightinitially emerge in applied
market niches (such as airport parking, or on other protected corridors) which then accumulate, and the
extent to which these niche markets and associated AV infrastructures might be promoted by powerful
institutions including governments, highway authorities and motor manufacturers. With this in mind, the
current perspectives of governments are reviewed next in Section 4, and the views of expert and professional
groups are reviewed in Section 5.
Additionally, at the level of the individual, the TAM implies that an individual’s attitude and intention to use
an AV would follow first from their perceptions of the usefulness and ease of use of AVs. This is of relevance
to understanding public perceptions of AVs, studies of which are reviewed later in Section 6.
Perceived
Affective
Qualities (Q)
VENTURER: Introducing driverless cars to UK roads
9
4 Government perspectives on AVs
The report now considers current government policies on the development of AV technology, starting first
with an examination of the UK government position. This is followed by a brief discussion of policies and
programmes in continental Europe and in the USA.
4.1 Policy in the United Kingdom
The UK government set out a strategy to support the development of AV technology in a Department of
Transport (DfT) document entitled “The Pathway to Driverless cars” (DfT 2015a). Their aim is “to ensure the
UK is at the forefront of the testing and development of the technologies that will ultimately realise the goal
of driverless vehicles”.
The DfT distinguish between three levels of vehicle automation:
1. Driver assistance: where the driver maintains full engagement with the driving task at all times, but
the vehicles is equipped with aids like adaptive cruise control, lane departure warning system, and
autonomous emergency breaking;
2. High automation: where “a driver is required to be present and may need to take manual control for
some parts of the journey”; and
3. Full automation where “a driver is not necessary”.
It is acknowledged that “most commentators do not expect vehicles capable of fully autonomous operation
on public roads in all circumstances to become available until at least the 2020s” (DfT 2015a, p.17). The
potential benefits of full automation are identified as time savings, improved road safety, reduced emissions,
reduced congestion, and increased access to personal transport for the mobility impaired. However, it is not
possible for all such benefits to be realised until a significant share of the vehicle fleet is automated, and from
a business perspective, KPMG (2015a) foresees only 20% market penetration of ‘conditional’ automation by
2020 and 40% penetration of ‘high AVs’ even by 2030. Hence, the UK Government discourse would appear
to be emphasising, indeed exaggerating, the proximity of AVs to the mass market.
The DfT (2015a) strategy is underpinned by a comprehensive review of regulations and law (DfT 2015b) to
identify whether changes to legislation are required to enable the operation of AVs on public roads. Under
international law, the Vienna Convention on Road Traffic (agreed in 1968 and which later came into force in
1977 (Economic commission for Europe 1968)) states that ‘every moving vehicle or combination of vehicles
shall have a driver’ and that ‘every driver shall at all times, be able to control his vehicle’. This has been
interpreted as a barrier to the trialling of AVs by some countries. However, while the UK are signatories to
the treaty, it was never ratified, meaning that it is not legally binding in a UK jurisdiction2
. It is concluded that
trials of driverless cars can be performed on UK roads today, provided a test driver is present and that the
vehicle is operated ‘safely’. Safe operation is to be judged against a non-regulatory Code of Practice
(published in July 2015 (DfT 2015c)), rather than against new legislation.
To stimulate the development of AV technology in the UK, the government launched several initiatives in
2015, including:
 funding £19m for the testing of driverless vehicles on public roads in Greenwich, Milton Keynes, Bristol
and Coventry (DfT 2015a);
 a further £20m funding stream (to be matched by industry) for research and development of AV
technology (DfT 2015d); and
 setting up the Centre for Connected and Autonomous Vehicles – A joint policy unit between the DfT and
the Department for Business Innovation and Skills.
2
In any case, given developments in AV technology, the wording of the Vienna Convention is being adapted
to “allow a car to drive itself so long as the system can be overridden or switched off by the driver”.
VENTURER: Introducing driverless cars to UK roads
10
4.2 Policy across Europe
Individual European nations are developing their own strategies for enabling innovations in AV technology.
Following on from the PROMETHEUS programme in the 1990s, the EU has continued to back innovation in
AVs by funding various research streams in recent years, including (DfT 2015b):
 Safe Road Trains for the Environment (SARTRE) (2009-2012). This research programme developed
technology to enable vehicle platooning on highways. The lead vehicle was manually operated, but
‘following’ vehicles were automated.
 Highly Automated Vehicles for Intelligent Transport (HAVE-it) (2008-2011). This project focussed on
enhancing technology relating to driver handover and integration with AVs, and technology to improve
reliability and safety. A number of demonstrator vehicles were developed. Volvo and VW were project
partners amongst other industry bodies (HAVE-it 2015).
 CityMobil 1 and 2 (2012 – 2016). This project is funding three large-scale usable demonstrators (in SaintSulpice
at a University campus, in La Rochelle, connecting the harbourside to the commercial area, and
in Milan at the World Expo 2015 exhibition) and four small scale demonstrators (of three months in
duration including demonstrations in Sardinia and Vantaa, Finland) (CityMobil2 2014).
 V-CHARGE (ended in 2015). This project investigated automated parking systems integrated with electric
vehicle charging points (V-CHARGE 2015).
 Automated Driving APplications and Technologies for Intelligent Vehicles (ADAPTIVE) (2014-2017). This
project (also involving VW) has an objective to “demonstrate automated driving in complex traffic
environments”, to improve sensor technologies, and to develop guidelines on how driver-automation
systems should be integrated (Adaptive 2015).
4.3 Policy in the USA
Legislation for the trialling of AVs is dealt with at state level in the US and four states to date have passed
laws to permit this: Nevada, Florida, California and Michigan. At Federal level, the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA) have published a ‘preliminary statement of policy concerning automated
vehicles’ (NHTSA 2013) following requests from individual states to clarify how to conduct safe trials of AVs
on public roads.
NHTSA note three related streams of technological developmenti. in-vehicle crash avoidance systems (either
warning the driver or involving limited automated technology to control the vehicle) ii. vehicle to vehicle
communications (developed for crash avoidance) and iii. self-driving vehicles. These are viewed on a
continuum of automation which NHTSA define in terms of a four level hierarchy:
• Level 0: The driver completely controls the vehicle at all times.
• Level 1: Individual vehicle controls are automated, such as electronic stability control or
automatic braking.
• Level 2: At least two controls can be automated in unison, such as adaptive cruise control in
combination with lane keeping.
• Level 3: The driver can fully cede control of all safety-critical functions in certain conditions. The
car senses when conditions require the driver to retake control and provides a “sufficiently
comfortable transition time” for the driver to do so.
• Level 4: The vehicle performs all safety-critical functions for the entire trip, with the driver not
expected to control the vehicle at any time. As this vehicle would control all functions from start
to stop, including all parking functions, it could include unoccupied cars.
The SAE International (2014) J3016 hierarchy is similar, but divides Level 4, so that in the latter the driver is
‘not ready to take over’ but available, whilst a Level 5 in which human control is not foreseen. These
hierarchies have been widely adopted in studies of expert and public perceptions reviewed in the next two
chapters.
VENTURER: Introducing driverless cars to UK roads
11
4.4 Summary
This brief review of European and American policy reveals that governments are already playing an active
role in supporting the technological development of AVs (at this stage in niche ‘protected spaces’). There are
expectations of a range of potential societal benefits, but these are yet to be proven or even demanded by
the market. A further important motivation in the UK context appears to be to ensure that the UK economy
claims a significant share of the AV technology market as it emerges. There is some evidence that
governments are boosting the benefits case for AVs, at least in terms of the speed with which they might be
delivered.
5 Expert perspectives on AVs
The MLP highlighted the importance of support from professional groups for new technologies in
underpinning the transition from one dominant transport regime to another. A growing body of grey
literature on the prospects for AVs is developing from a range of different ‘expert’ sources. These include
surveys of transport professionals, commissioned by transport system stakeholders (e.g. Begg (2014)) or by
the insurance or automotive industry, reports by (research) consultancies who may be seeking to position
themselves as experts on potential AV markets (e.g. KPMG (2012, 2015a&b); Atkins 2015), as well as opinion
pieces written by informed academics (e.g. Mindell (2015)).
5.1 Likelihood of AV adoption
Begg (2014) conducted a survey of over 3,500 London transport professionals to discover their expectations
on the use of AVs in London. Over 55% of survey respondents believe that Level two automation (at least
two controls can be automated in unison) will be commonplace in the next 10 years; this perhaps is not
surprising as many modern vehicles already have automated features. The expectations of when Level three
automation (the driver can fully cede control of all safety-critical functions in certain conditions) will become
commonplace shift further into the future with 54% of those surveyed choosing 2030 or 2040 as a likely date.
A significant 20% of respondents believe this will never be commonplace. And this figure increases by almost
10% when respondents are asked about the prospects for removing the driver element altogether (i.e. Level
four automation).
Litman’s (2015) expectation is that while fully autonomous vehicles will be available in the 2020s they will
have a large price premium and reliability issues. He expects significant market penetration to take place in
the 2040s (up to 40% market share) with saturation (defined as the point at which everyone that wants an
AV has one) occurring in the 2060s. Similarly, KPMG (2015a) foresees only 20% market penetration of
‘conditional’ automation by 2020 and 40% penetration of ‘high AVs’ even by 2030.
Lavasini et al (2016) develop a mathematical market penetration (Bass diffusion) model to predict likely
diffusion curves for AV technology. The model is calibrated using historic data on the adoption of Hybrid
Electric Vehicles and internet and cell-phone adoption in the USA. It is assumed that AVs will be available in
2025 and that market saturation will occur when 75 per cent of US households have purchased an AV. On
this basis, the model predicts that 1.3 millionAVs would be sold in the first five years, increasing to 36 million
by year 10. Market saturation is predicted in 2059 (with 87 million AVs in circulation). Adoption rates are
shown to be sensitive to the assumed market size – larger markets increase the adoption rate, but not to the
AV cost premium relative to conventional vehicles.
The auto component website partcatalog.com (date unknown) asked 13 auto journalists (including only one
woman) to express their opinions and predictions on the future of self-driving technology. Most expected
fully autonomous vehicles to be available for purchase by 2024-26.
KPMG (2012), working with the Center for Automotive Research, conducted a market analysis of industry
trends and interviewed over 25 leading technologists, automotive industry representatives, academics,
regulators and government officials. The resulting report argues that technological change towards full
automation is “inevitable” (p.5) given market dynamics and social, economic and environmental forces. It is
considered that the marketplace (i.e. consumers) will be the “engine pulling the industry forward” (p.6). The
transition to AVs is framed as a radical revolution (in the way we interact with vehicles and the future design
VENTURER: Introducing driverless cars to UK roads
12
of roads and cities, p.4) that will need several technological, regulatory and societal factors to successfully
align to be achieved. From a technological point of view, the transition will need the convergence of sensorbased
technologies and connected-vehicle communication solutions.
5.2 The process of AV adoption
By contrast, David Mindell, MIT professor and author of “Our Robots, Ourselves” (Mindell 2015), criticises
the fundamental idea that progress in developmentof personal mobility means the fullautomation of private
cars. Mindell thinks that “it’s reasonable to hope” that technology will help cars “reduce the workload” of
drivers in incremental ways in the future. But total automation, he thinks, is not the logical endpoint of
vehicle development:
“The book is about a differentidea of progress,”Mindell says. “There’s an idea that progressin robotics
leads to full autonomy. That may be a valuable idea to guide research … but when automated and
autonomous systems get into the real world, that’s not the direction they head. We need to rethink the
notion of progress,not as progress toward full autonomy, but as progress toward trusted, transparent,
reliable,safe autonomy that is fully interactive:The car does what I want it to do, and only when I want
it to do it.” (Dizikes 2015).
Begg’s (2014) analysis of the London context, suggests that rail-based automation, used for both
underground and overground services, will have the biggest impact on London over the next 30 years. The
expectation is that, given the current operation of fully autonomous vehicles on segregated railways/paths
(such as DLR, tube lines and UltraPRT), “the gradual transition to automated train operation is a virtual
inevitability”.
The report also states that if and when Level 4 (full) automation is achieved, lightly populated buses could be
replaced by driverless taxis and cars, perhaps to be used as feeder services to heavily used corridors. Level 4
may indeed be sufficient for effective operation of clearly-defined route-based services such as buses.
However, full Level 5 operation is necessary for taxi operation and it is not technically clear if and when ‘go
anywhere’ might be achieved in complex urban areas. In relation to this, a report by the Boston Consulting
Group (produced in collaboration with the World Economic Forum, based on intensive consultation with
senior executives of automotive, technologies and insurance companies (Lang et al. 2015) claimed that
acceptance by the public, policy makers and affected third parties, such as taxi drivers, is crucial for AV
adoption and diffusion.
In their analysis, KPMG (2012) develop three possible scenarios for the way in which ‘driverless cars’ might
diffuse into the system:
i. Conservative: where initial uptake of ‘driverless cars’ is gradual and ‘driverless cars’ never reach a
‘critical mass’ due in part to a lack of vehicle to external environment communication technology.
ii. Baseline: where the early applications of ‘driverless cars’ are viewed positively, increasing market
demand for self-driving vehicles. AVs continue to be adopted by the general public at a linear rate
but do not necessarily reach 100 percent market penetration.
iii. Aggressive: where initial uptake is rapid which catalyses technological development (including
vehicle to external environment technology). This creates a virtuous circle whereby a critical mass is
quickly reached.
The study by KPMG (2012) also identifies four possible new business models underpinning a transformed
automotive industry which is dominated by self-driving cars:
i. the branded-integrated lifestyle model, where consumer-oriented tech companies come to
dominate the new automotive ecosystem; Revenue is generated through the sale of ‘integrated
lifestyle experiences’.
ii. the open system model, where the operating system in the AV becomes the key component and
revenue is generated primarily through data aggregation;
iii. the mobility on demand model, where shared vehicles dominate the scene; and finally
VENTURER: Introducing driverless cars to UK roads
13
iv. the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) model, where existing automakers still retain a key role
in the new marketplace.
KPMG (2012) further argue that four major requirements are needed for AVs to become widely adopted (i.e.
beyond market niches such as rail). These are:
i. consumer acceptance, e.g. building trust, appealing to the right demographics, selling the value
proposition and facilitating a learning curve among consumers;
ii. enabling the network effect, e.g. achieving critical mass, enabling the aftermarket (the market for
spare parts and maintenance), targeting localised adoption, reducing the costs of ownership / use;
iii. developing a functioning legal and regulatory framework. This includes developing a legal framework
to clarify liability issues, ensuring there is a uniform and cohesive approach across multiple
geographical authorities, and offering incentives to automakers; and
iv. attracting the necessary investment, e.g. with clear political leadership to incentivise the
development of AVs.
The journalists interviewed by Partcatalog.com (date unknown) felt that the biggest barrier to the adoption
of AVs would be legislation. However, technology development, a proven AV safety record, business
pushback and infrastructure availability would also play a key role.
In response to a survey by KPMG (2015b), a sample of senior insurance executives thought that young adults
will be the earliest adopters of AVs, with no differences expected between genders. This expectation runs
counter to the socio-demographic relationships indicated by public perception surveys reviewed in Section 6
- where males have been consistently shown to report more positive perceptions of AVs compared to
females.
5.3 Potential benefits of AV adoption
Lawrence Burns (2013), former vice president of research and development at GM and professor of
Engineering Practice at University of Michigan, sets out a utopian vision of a transport future, built around
AVs. He suggests the present system of automobility (privately owned, gasoline powered vehicles) is
outdated. Converging technological developments are now offering potential for a transition to a more
efficient system oriented around connected, coordinated, shared, driverless, electric and tailored vehicles.
His analysis estimates that such a system, in a city like Ann Arbor (Michigan) could be 70% cheaper, and
reduce the city vehicle fleet to 20% of its current size. He argues that successful trials are essential to
demonstrate proof of concept and to convince ‘the market’ of a need to transition towards an alternative,
more efficient system.
Thomopoulos and Givoni (2015) develop a more nuanced argument. On the one hand, they see potential for
AVs to contribute to a transition towards low carbon mobility, particularly if the car system is ‘de-privatised’
in favour of car sharing systems. On the other hand, they see AVs as a threat to the ‘Peak Car’ trend, by
increasing the utility of car travel (enabling productive use of travel time and release of network capacity
through vehicle-to-vehicle / vehicle-to-infrastructure communication) and hence encouraging increased car
use to the detriment of other, more space and resource efficient modes.
Fagnant and Kockelman (2015) summarise estimates of a range of potential benefits of AV systems to the
US, through a synthesis of academic and policy literature. Citing Hayes (2011), they note that fatality rates
on the road system could be expected to reduce to as little as one per cent of current rates in the USA
(standing at 32,000 fatalities per annum), given that the majority of crashes are attributable to human error.
Based on a study by Atiyeh (2012), it is estimated that fuel economy could increase by 23% to 39%, and the
speed of congested traffic could increase by 8% to 13%, given improvements in traffic flow efficiency.
Shaldover (2012) is noted to have estimated lane capacity increases of up to 80% arising from co-operative
adaptive cruise control, assuming a 90% AV market penetration.
However, the net benefits of AVs are expected to be eroded overall by anticipated increases in Vehicle Miles
Travelled (VMT) resulting from increased access to car-oriented travel (for the young, elderly or mobility
impaired for example). This, they suggest, has the potential to lead to automobile oriented development, but
VENTURER: Introducing driverless cars to UK roads
14
with a requirement for fewer vehicles and less parking. Given reductions in crashes, congestion benefits,
parking savings and after accounting for increases in VMT, Fagnant and Kockelman (2015) estimate annual
benefits to the US economy of the magnitude of $196bn (assuming a 90% AV market share). Barriers to the
uptake of AVs are identified as vehicle costs, the fragmented (non-federal level) approach to licencing AVs,
and concerns surrounding litigation, security (system hacking) and privacy.
5.4 AV market simulation studies
A number of academic groups have been developing simulation models to identify the potential impact of
different forms of AV systems on travel demand, vehicle ownership and use. At this stage in their
development, the simulation models have relied in the main on assumptions about travel choices, which are
not necessarily grounded in evidence from stated preference experiments. Hence, the result must be treated
with some caution. Two examples are reported here.
Brownell and Kornhauser (2014) identify five criteria that a public transport system must satisfy in order to
compete with private vehicle ownership. These are: a) congestion reduction and competitive commuting
times, b) safety improvements over private car use, c) better environmental credentials, d) economic viability
and e) equivalent levels of comfort and convenience. It is argued that these conditions are potentially met
by an autonomous taxi network. A modelling exercise is then performed to estimate and compare the
efficiency (in terms of travel times, fleet size and costs) of personal rapid transit (PRT, where passengers are
picked up and dropped off at taxi ranks) and smart para transit (SPT, a demand responsive system)
autonomous taxi systems. The model assumes that these systems are able to serve the total travel demand
simulated for the state of New Jersey. SPT is shown to be more efficient than PRT in terms of fleet size and
cost, but will have higher vehicle occupancies (more ride sharing). It is suggested that SPT could be
competitive with private car ownership against the first four test criteria, given that the fleet size is reduced
and is able to use road space more efficiently (hence reducing congestion) than current systems. However,
it is acknowledged that the analysis does not consider whether an SPT system could compete with private
vehicle ownership in terms of comfort and convenience - especially given the observation that SPT requires
ride sharing which may not be desirable. This is noted as a major potential barrier to the uptake of
autonomous transport systems.
Fagnant et al. (2015) develop a simulation model of potential uptake of automated taxis in Austin, Texas. It
is assumed that all travellers living within a 12mi by 24mi area of Austin choose to travel by automated taxi.
This somewhat limits the validity of claims made on the basis of the simulation. Nevertheless, it is estimated
that every automated taxi could be expected to replace the private ownership of around nine conventional
vehicles. Hence, land that is currently used for the storage of private vehicles could be turned over to
amenity. On the other hand, automated taxis were shown to generate an additional eight per cent of ‘emptyvehicle’
travel that would not exist under a private ownership model.
5.5 Implications for the insurance industry
A further report by KPMG (2015b) specifically explored the new insurance landscape engendered by the
transition to AVs. They found that over the long term, with the car stock replaced by more and more AVs,
the risk profile of vehicles on the road would substantially decrease, leading to much lower total losses for
carriers. Collision frequency per vehicle could drop by 80% by 2040 (equivalent to about 0.009 incidents per
vehicle). However, the reduction in incidents per vehicle could be offset by the increased severity incurred in
each incident as AVs, and their component technologies, will be more expensive. KPMG estimates that
current accident expense could increase from $14k to $35k by 2040. This conservative view perhaps
overestimates the expense as a substantial share of AVs could be in the form of transportation pods, which
may not be so expensive.
The KPMG (2015b) report also presents the results of a survey of senior insurance executives, whose
companies account for over $85 billion in private and commercial auto premium. The survey found a mixed
level of knowledge of AVs among respondents, with 29% reporting to be very knowledgeable and 23%
claiming to have little or no knowledge at all. Respondents were also sceptical about the potential
transformation. Few providers have taken action, especially in the near future (next 12-18 months). Not due
to doubts about possible ramifications but because they believe that the change will happen far into the
VENTURER: Introducing driverless cars to UK roads
15
future, if at all. Many insurers had held discussions about impacts of AVs on their operations but 74% of
companies felt unprepared for the change.
When the transformation starts to take hold, most survey respondents agreed there will be major changes
across all the core functions, from underwriting to claims. Respondents anticipated a shift in the insurance
landscape, including new insurance products to become available to cover AVs but also more competition
due to new entrants in the insurance market. Auto manufacturers and tech companies were expected to play
significantly bigger roles in the future in the insurance industry.
5.6 Summary
Overall, although identifying technical barriers and some objections to AV adoption, most of the publishing
activity emphasises and promotes the desirability of overcoming these barriers. Whilst most of the expert
opinions are realistic with respect to the likely timeline of adoption, they are not particularly consensual in
the specifics, and the technologists do not question, in print at least, whether Level 5 AVs will eventually be
achieved and mass-adopted. There is an expectation that automation will first be widely applied to (closed)
urban rail systems rather than to personal transport. The insurance industry, whilst taking part in studies of
AVs, remains sceptical of the prospects of a significant transition to AVs and is not yet actively preparing for
this eventuality.
6 Public perspectives on AVs
The report now considers the perspectives of different groupings within the ‘general public’. A number of
international studies on public perceptions of AVs were identified through a literature search (summarised
in Appendix A). They include:
 Surveys of members of motoring organisations (conducted by, for example, insurance companies,
roadside recovery companies);
 Population representative opinion polls, conducted by recognised polling companies, and reported
online or in the general media; and
 In-depth academic studies of specific dimensions of perceptions of AVs (conducted on small samples,
which are not necessarily representative of well-defined population groups).
The surveys cover a broad range of issues relating to ‘public opinion’ including: level of awareness of AV
technology, general attitudes3
towards AV technology (whether it is viewed as a positive or negative
development), perceptions of specific aspects of AV technology (e.g. safety, law and liability) and whether
these are causes for concern, preferred modes of AV operation, anticipated use of in-vehicle time,
willingnessto pay for AV technology, and stated preference mode choice experiments. Correlations between
different aspects of AV perceptions and socio-demographic / psychological characteristics have also been
examined. All of the surveys employ a quantitativedesign, in which perceptions have been investigated using
responses to closed questions either through simple yes/no answers, Likert scales or ranking exercises (i.e.
testing pre-conceived hypotheses). The implications of this are discussed in the section summary.
6.1 Awareness of and general attitudes toward AVs
Schoettle and Sivak (2014) surveyed perceptions of self-driving vehicles across a sample of 1,533 adults living
in the UK, USA and Australia (the sample frame is not reported). Awareness of AVs was shown to be high,
with 71% of US respondents, 66% of UK respondents and 61% of Australian respondents reporting that they
had previously heard of AVs. Overall, a prevailing negative perception of AVs amongst respondents was
observed across most (though not all) of the surveys reviewed. This was evidenced through, for example, an
AA (2013) survey of 23,450 members (all motorists) in which 65% of respondents reported enjoying driving
too much to ever want a driverless car. Likewise, 61% of a sample of 1,099 UK adults (weighted to be
population representative) said they would probably or definitely notconsider buying a driverlesscar (Adams
3
where attitude is defined by Payre et al. (2014) as “a psychological tendency that is expressed by evaluating a
particular entity with some degree of favor or disfavour”.
VENTURER: Introducing driverless cars to UK roads
16
2015). (A similar result was reported by Insurance.com (2014) in a survey of 2,000 American drivers). In
another population-representative survey of UK and US residents, Accenture Research (2011) found that just
over half (51%) of respondents would not be comfortable using a driverless vehicle. This was also supported
by TE connectivity’s (2013) survey of 1,000 US adults in which nearly 70% of respondents reported that they
would not be comfortable in an AV.
A smaller number of surveys revealed more positive attitudes, however. Schoettle and Sivak (2014) found
that over half of their sample held positive generalopinionsof AVs, and had positive expectations about their
potential benefits e.g. expecting fewer crashes, reduced crash severity, and lower emissions. Cisco (2013)
surveyed 1514 adults across 10 countries. They found that 57% of respondents would ride a driverless car,
with higher proportions being reported in emerging markets (e.g. 95% in Brazil, and 86% in India compared
to 45% in the UK). Payre et al.’s (2014) survey of 421 French drivers revealed that the majority of respondents
(68%) rated Fully Automated Driving (FAD) as being more useful than manual driving. By contrast, Kyriakidis
et al. (2015) found manual driving to be rated as the most enjoyable mode of driving and FAD as the least
enjoyablemode of driving (amongst a sample of 4,886 international respondents to an online questionnaire).
This somewhat mixed picture of overall public perceptions of AVs might, to some extent, be explained by
differences in question framing and sample composition. For example, Payre et al. (2014) asked whether FAD
is expected to be useful, while Kyriakidis et al. (2015) ask whether FAD is expected to be enjoyable, a quite
different proposition. With respect to sample composition, Payre et al. (2014) draw on a smaller sample of
drivers only, which is likely to introduce certain response biases, compared to the larger, general sample
interrogated by Kyriakidis et al. (2015).
6.2 Perceptions of specific aspects of AV technology and operation
While evidence on general perceptions of AVs appears inconclusive to date (albeit with an indicative
orientation towards negative views), all of the studies reviewed confirmed concerns about specific aspects
of AV technology and operation. Respondents to the Schoettle and Sivak (2014) survey (who were positive
overall about potential benefits) expressed high levels of concern regarding loss of access to driver controls
(also confirmed by Accenture Research (2011)), AV operation being less safe than manual driving, security
issues (pertaining to software and data hacking), and self-driven vehicles moving while unoccupied. Kyriakidis
et al. (2015) found that respondents were most concerned about hacking of the automated systems, issues
relating to the legal framework for AV operation and liability, followed by safety. Respondents to Casley’s
(2013) survey ranked safety as their most important concern (of three closed options specified) followed by
well-developed laws to enable AV operation and lastly cost.
A study by Howard and Dai (2014) revealed that respondents could simultaneously acknowledge potential
benefits of AVs, whilst alsoexpressingconcern about these same characteristics. Their survey of 107 potential
early adopters (Science Museum visitors in Berkeley California) showed that increased safety and ability to
multi-task were rated as ‘attractive features’ of driverless cars, but respondents were at the same time
concerned about their anticipated loss of control over AVs.
6.3 Socio-demographic / psychological characteristics and perceptions of AVs
Several studies examine whether socio-demographic characteristics are associated with positive or negative
perceptions of AVs. Males have been consistently shown to report more positive perceptions of AVs
compared to females (Casley 2013, Power 2012, Kyriakidis et al. 2015, Payre et al. 2014, Schoettle and Sivak
2014), but were also more likelyto express concern about liabilityissues than females (Howardand Dai 2014).
Missel (2014) found that younger people, those living in urban areas (corroborated by Power 2012) and those
that are ‘just not interested in cars’ were more likely to view AVs positively compared to other groups, as
were respondents from emerging economies (Cisco 2013) as noted previously. Casley (2013) found that
higher education levels were correlated with higher levels of concern about safety. Kyriakidis et al. (2013)
reported that those with higher income, driving more and prior experience of adaptive cruise control were
willing to pay more for AV technology than other groups.
In terms of psychological characteristics, Kyriakidis et al. (2013) sought to identify whether the ‘big five’
personality traits (openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness and neuroticism) explained
VENTURER: Introducing driverless cars to UK roads
17
perceptions of user acceptance of, concerns about, and willingness to buy AV technology. The personality
traits were not found to be strongly correlated with perceptions of AVs, apart from an observed consistent
relationship between neuroticism and expressing concerns about data security.
Payre et al. (2014) investigated the relationship between attitudes towards AVs and intention to use FAD.
They found that viewing FAD as pleasant, safe and useful (used as a measure of attitude) predicted intention
to use FAD. They also confirmed that intention to use FAD was predicted by ‘high sensation seeking’. High
sensation seeking is defined in this context as “a trait describing the tendency to seek novel, varied, complex
and intense sensations and experiences and the willingnessto take risks for the sake of such experience” and
this has previously been shown to be correlated with ‘risk taking behaviour’. This indirectly indicates that
FAD is currently perceived to be a high-risk activity relative to manual driving. Whether a person feels that
they are able to control events that affect him/her (i.e. their ‘locus of control’) was not found to predict
intention to use FAD.
6.4 Preferred modes of AV operation
Seventy percent of UK respondents (from a representative sample) reported opposition to the notion of
banning manually driven cars to make room for driverless cars (Adams 2015). Howard and Dai (2014) also
confirmed a preference for the integration of AVs with general traffic over the provision of dedicated,
segregated lanes.
Payre et al. (2014) found that FAD was viewed most positively when related to the context of driving in
monotonous (highways) (corroborated in Power (2012)) or stressful conditions (in congestion). At the same
time however, there was lower intention to use FAD in built-up areas, which could similarly be viewed as
stressful and congested. The authors explain that this may be due to higher anticipated hazard rates in built
up areas and respondents perceiving themselves as more capable drivers than automated systems in
complex, unpredictable situations. A review of 25,000 online ‘soundbites’ reported by Power (2012) also
showed a positive attitude towards AV sharing initiatives, given the anticipated high costs associated with
the private ownership of AVs.
6.5 Perceived benefits of AVs and use of in-vehicle time
Few studies have examined how people anticipate using in-vehicle time when free from the driving task.
Howard and Dai (2014) found that people viewed the prospect of being able to multi-task and not having to
find parking spaces as amongst the most positive aspects of AVs. By contrast, 41% of respondents to
Schoettle and Sivak’s (2014) survey expected to carry on ‘watching the road’ and this was the most frequently
selected in-vehicle activity (followedby ‘I would not ride in a self-drivingvehicle’ – 22.4% and reading – 8.3%).
Casley’s (2013) study also suggested that the prospect of being able to use travel time productively was not
seen as an important motivation for acquiring an AV. Improved fuel efficiency, shorter journey times and
environmental credentials of AV systems were rated as greater benefits.
Cyganski et al. (2014) note that the potential to use travel time productively is assumed to be a valuable
prospective benefit (e.g. by governments), but that there has been little systematic research in relation to
people’s preference for this. An online survey of 1,000 German participants (a ‘nearly’ representative sample)
was conducted. The survey measures current travel time uses as well as expected travel time uses for four
AV ‘use cases’: 1. Highway pilot, 2. Valet parking, 3. Full automated vehicle, and 4. Vehicle on demand. The
survey revealed that 77% and 69% of public transport users never worked on short and long-distance
journeys respectively. Hence, travel time is only used ‘productively’ by a minority of travellers. Consistent
with this is the finding that only 13% of respondents viewed the ability to use travel time for work as an
advantage of AVs. A probit regression model confirmed that a positive attitude towards productive use of invehicle
time was associated with: being male, not having a rail card, not having a high annual car mileage,
using cars and trains frequently, having a positive perception of public transport and currently using travel
time productively. It was also seen to be more beneficial in scenarios in which AVs were used in urban
contexts.
Malokin et al. (2015) attempted to measure the ‘utility’ associated with the ability to use travel time
productively on public transport and investigated the extent to which this attribute of AVs may trigger a
VENTURER: Introducing driverless cars to UK roads
18
change in commute mode choices (towards AVs). They conducted a revealed preference survey of
commuters in the Sacramento – San Francisco Bay Area transportation corridor (n=2,120). Logit models
indicated that the ability to work on the move in AVs could potentially contribute to a further 0.7 percent of
commuters choosing lift sharing and a further 0.3 per cent of commuters choosing ‘driving’ alone (with
people switching mainly from bus, but also from biking and commuter rail). It is noted that this model shift
would translate to a significant increase in the number of cars on the road, though it is acknowledged that
AV systems may also incorporate alternative models of car access.
6.6 Willingness to pay for full automation
Attempts to measure people’s willingness to pay for full automation have so far revealed a wide range of
valuations (summarised in Table 2) and there is no real consensus currently emerging in the literature.
Schoettle and Sivak (2014) found that over half of respondents (57%) stated that they were not willingto pay
extra for full automation although a quarter of their respondents were willing to pay at least $1,880 (the 75th
percentile). Similarly, Kyriakidis et al (2015) found that about a fifth (22%) of respondents would not pay for
full automation, but a small minority (5%) would pay in excess of $30,000. Payre et al. (2014) found that
willingness to pay ranged between €0 and €10,000, with a mean of €1,624 (or $1,835) amongst the 78% of
respondents (French drivers) that envisaged buying a fully automated vehicle. Adams’ (2015) representative
sample of UK residents generated a mean willingness to pay of £2,117 (or $3,239) to ‘add driverless
technology to their car’. Howard and Dai (2014) observed that ‘over two-thirds of respondents of all nine
demographic groups cite costs as a concern’ and suggest that further econometric analysis is required to
establish more robust measures of ‘willingness to pay’ for full automation.
Table 2: Willingness to pay for driverless technology
Source Measure Currency
Willingness to
pay
USD exchange
rate
USD
equivalent
Schoettle and Sivak
(2014)
75th
percentile USD 1,880.00 1.00 1,880.00
Schoettle and Sivak
(2014)
90th
percentile USD 8,550.00 1.00 8,550.00
Kyriakidis et al.
(2014)
95th
percentile USD 30,000.00 1.00 30,000.00
Payre et al. (2014) Mean Euro 1,624.00 1.13 1,835.12
Adams (2015) Mean Sterling 2,117.00 1.53 3,239.01
Notes: Exchange rates extracted from Google Finance on 24th Sept 2015
6.7 Stated preference mode choice experiments
Krueger et al. (2016) conducted a stated preference experiment to examine people’s mode choices, when
faced with the availability of a shared autonomous vehicle system with or without dynamic ride sharing. The
stated preference survey was conducted online and completed by 435 urban residents in Australia. Prezi
software was used to introduce the concept of SAVs, drawing on Burn’s (2013) vision of future AV systems.
A multinomial logit model is estimated, on the choice between SAV without ride sharing, SAV with ride
sharing or not using SAV for a familiar trip. The likelihood of selecting an SAV option is found to increase if
the respondent is younger, currently a multi-modal (and not a uni-modal car oriented) traveller, or if the
journey is to work (indicating potential for AV commuter systems). The model predicts that up to 36% of trips
could shift to SAVs which, consistent with Malokin et al.’s (2015) findings, is noted as significant and an
indicator of the ‘disruptive potential’ of SAVs.
6.8 Summary
In summarising then, surveys of public opinion show awareness of AVs, and positive expectations about the
potential benefits of AVs. However, manually driven private cars are viewed positively, and there is concern
amongst the public over many aspects of AV operation (e.g. the loss of control and whether AVs will actually
be safer than manual cars). The limited number of studies to date on use of in-vehicle time, have shown little
VENTURER: Introducing driverless cars to UK roads
19
indication of a perceived need to ‘free up’ time from the driving task, which is still enjoyed by many. There
may however, be an emerging demand for automation technology in monotonous driving conditions (such
as inter-urban highways) rather than in more challenging urban environments, where automation is not
currently proven nor trusted.
It also appears that a limited range of methodologies have been applied to the study of public perceptions
to date. It was noted in the chapter introduction that the studies reviewed have all employed quantitative
survey instruments. Any quantitative measure of ‘public’ perception is heavily influenced by the composition
of the sample and whether this is representative of particular population groups. This is not always
adequately discussed in reporting of survey results. Quantitative research also limits respondents to the
rating or ranking of closed options. The framing (i.e. provision of use case contexts), and definition of such
closed response questions will always introduce certain response biases e.g. Asking “are you concerned
about safety?”, is likely to prompt someone unfamiliar with a technology to respond positively. An
enhancement is to introduce AV operating scenarios to respondents before asking for their perception of
different aspects of AVs (as was the case in Howard and Dai (2014) who showed footage from a television
documentary before asking people for their perceptions of ‘self-driving’). Carefully designed stated
preference surveys (e.g. Krueger et al. (2016)) have the potential to provide insight into travellers’ potential
mode choices when faced with the option of using an AV. Lastly, given that most respondents are unlikely to
have any real experience of AV technology to date, exploratory qualitative research would seem appropriate
to gain in-depth understanding of people’s levels of awareness of, and to explain their current views on, AVs.
This would help to justify the definition of closed response options used in questionnaire surveys (as applied
in Payre et al. (2014) in which a small number of (five) interviews were conducted to inform survey design).
7 Market analysis and adoption scenarios
In this final chapter, the report draws on these insights from the reviews of theory and of government, expert
and public perspectives, to consider the prospects for the emergence of AVs as a dominant form of
transportation.
7.1 AV market ‘niche accumulation’
It is clear that there remains a great deal of uncertainty over the possible role of AVs in a future transport
system. It has been shown, through applications of the MLP (in Section 3.1), that previous transitions in
transport have been driven by (landscape level) structural changes (e.g. migration to cities and
suburbanisation) and associated transport problems (in an existing regime) which have demanded new
mobility solutions (e.g. private cars) that provide clear benefits to the public at large (e.g. affordable, flexible,
personal transport).
As city populations continue to grow, the problems associated with private car oriented systems (congestion,
air quality, lack of parking supply) will inevitably be exacerbated. This, coupled with a potentially growing
demand for lifestyles built around mobile ICTs and sharing economies, has already provided the conditions
for the emergence of a number of niche transportation markets – for example car clubs and ride / taxi sharing
schemes for which demand is highestin space constrained urban centres. Given understanding of the current
socio-technical context, the availability of current automation technology and existing market niches in
transport, the following are suggested as potential stages in a process of ‘niche accumulation’ in relation to
the possible adoption of AVs:
1. Wealthier groups are already purchasing vehicles with automation technology to alleviate themselves of
aspects of the driving task, with perhaps the greatest potential for use on inter-urban journeys (e.g.
adaptive cruise control). It is likely that further automotive technologies will be incrementally included
in commercially marketed vehicles in response to market demand and safety regulations.
2. AV systems have already been implemented in controlled settings such as airports (e.g. personal rapid
transit at Heathrow Terminal Five) and even in ‘closed’ rapid transit systems (e.g. the Docklands Light
Rail in London, UK). Such systems are likely to become widespread and it is possible that all new light rail
systems, which operate on a dedicated right of way, will be automated as a matter of course.
VENTURER: Introducing driverless cars to UK roads
20
3. Demonstrator, ‘flexible route’ AV systems (e.g. shuttle buses) will be increasingly trialled in less
controlled urban environments (but within dedicated spaces), raisingtheir profile as a novelty technology
/ feature of the city. This has the potential to increase public confidence in the viability of live AV systems.
4. Demonstrator systems may later evolve into city-wide networks operating along dedicated lanes. Given
that mass transport will be increasingly required to meet demand in space constrained urban areas,
public transport and taxi operators may turn to automation technology to reduce labour costs (as is
anticipated by Uber for example (Hern 2015)).
5. Flexible, AV sharing schemes (which may be booked in real time using smart phones) may emerge to
replace existing car clubs, lift sharing and taxi schemes (first as demonstrator projects, but then as
commercial operations).
7.2 AV adoption scenarios
However, for AV systems to move out of niche markets and into the mainstream (replacing private, manually
driven cars) will require enormous changes in the way infrastructure is designed, operated, regulated and
used. Supposing the transition does occur, then depending on how the environment of level four operation
evolves, or indeed is managed, will potentially unlock wider benefits, or indeed create significant disbenefits.
These are illustrated through the following two key rival visions:
 ‘Business-as-usual’ with road transport remaining an essentially private ‘owner-user’ set of practices,
with more cars and traffic resulting from removed constraints on who can use vehicles and when. Few
vehicles are electric as purchasers must still choose a single vehicle for all likelyhousehold journey needs,
including occasional long-range trips. In this context congestion, energy consumption and emissions are
likely to rise due to demand growth outstripping supply efficiency. Greater physical inactivity would be a
potentially growing problem for public health.
This scenario contrasts with:
 ‘Collective efficiency’, with AVs variously owned publicly and used in return for fares like taxibuses, or
collectively, like car club vehicles, or offered by private companies for hire like taxis. Ride-sharing is also
encouraged. The total number of vehicles falls, but they are used more intensively and efficiently,
meaning viable market opportunities for private sector operators. As a result, congestion is reduced due
to fewer vehicles which also use the roads in a way optimised by the network management system. They
are mainly electrically powered, as the integrated charging and use management system works
effectively under collective ownership. Therefore local pollution and noise emissions fall and global
emissions also fall. Significant areas of city centres and residential areas are freed from parking land uses
and pedestrianisation spreads to reduce the operating complexity of AV systems and encourage physical
activity and to balance the reduction of pedestrian freedom in some other streets used by AVs.
7.3 Concluding summary
To conclude then, it is clear that governments, highway authorities and the automotive industry have an
important role to play in shaping how AVs ultimately emerge, in avoiding some of the potentially unintended
consequences illustrated by the ‘business-as-usual’ scenario. At this stage however, there appears to be a
mismatch between the expected societal benefits set out in government policies and the (absence of)
demand for alternatives to manually-driven cars amongst the general public. Government also demonstrates
itself to be reluctant to engage in policymaking in relation to the role of AVs, instead emphasising the wider
economic benefits of ‘high value manufacturing’, seen as best maximised without ‘political interference’ in
the transition process. Nonetheless, as the technology develops, social research will be essential for
examining the nature of the transport and lifestyle related opportunities and problems as perceived by
different groups in the population (and how these might alter in the medium term) and the potential for AVs
to provide desirable solutions.
VENTURER: Introducing driverless cars to UK roads
21
References
Atiyeh, C. (2012) Predicting Traffic Patterns, One Honda at a Time. MSN Auto, June 25.
AA (2013) Driverless cars [online] Available from http://www.theaa.com/newsroom/news-2013/driverless-
cars.html
Accenture Research (2011) Embedded Software Consumer Pulse Survey [online] Available from
https://newsroom.accenture.com/content/1101/files/EmbeddedSoftwareOverall.pdf
Adams, T. (2015) 2020 - The year you become a permanent backseat driver, Observer, 13th September
2015, Tech monthly, p32-3
ADAPTIVE (2015) Objectives [online] Available from https://www.adaptive-ip.eu/index.php/objectives.html
[Accessed 20th November 2015]
Anderson, J., Kalra, N., Stanley, K., Sorensen, P., Samaras, C., Oluwatola, O. (2014) Autonomous Vehicle
Technology A Guide for Policymakers, RAND Corporation [online] Available from
www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR400/RR443-1/RAND_RR443-1.pdf.
Atkins (2015) Connected & autonomous vehicles: Introducing the future of mobility.
Autonomous cars (2013) An in-depth analysis of autonomous cars [online] Available from
http://autonomouscars.com/?p=4 [Accessed 28th
September 2015]
Begg, D (2014) A 2050 vision for London: What are the implications of driverless transport? London:
Transport Times.
Brownell, C. and Kornhauser, A. (2014) A Driverless Alternative Fleet Size and Cost Requirements for a
Statewide Autonomous Taxi Network in New Jersey, Transportation Research Record, 2416, p.73-81
Burns (2013) A vision for our transport future, Nature, 497 (7449) pp 181-182.
Carnegie Mellon University (Unknown) No hands across America [online] Available from
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~tjochem/nhaa/nhaa_home_page.html [Accessed 20th November 2015]
Casley, S. (2013) A study of public acceptance of autonomous cars. Dissertation: Worcester Polytechnic
Institute
Chiafulio, M. (Unknown) The history of autonomous vehicles: How far we’ve come [online] Available from
http://www.mikechiafulio.com/RIDE/history.htm [Accessed 20th November 2015]
Collins (1989) The Collins pocket dictionary, Glasgow: William Collins Sons & Co.
CISCO systems (2013) Cisco Customer Experience Research Automotive Industry Global Data [online]
Available from http://www.cisco.com/web/about/ac79/docs/ccer_report_manufacturing.pdf
CityMobil2 (2014) La Rochelle's large-scale demonstration (December 2014 - April 2015) [online] Available
from http://www.citymobil2.eu/en/City-activities/Large-Scale-Demonstration/La-Rochelle/ (Accessed 20th
November 2015)
Cyganski, R., Fraedrich, E. and Lenz, B., 2015. TRAVEL-TIME VALUATION FOR AUTOMATED DRIVING: A USECASE-DRIVEN
STUDY 2. In Transportation Research Board 94th Annual Meeting (No. 15-4259).
Davis, F., Bagozzi, R., Warshaw, P. (1989) User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two
Theoretical Models, Management Science, 35, 982-1003.
Dennis, K. and Urry, J. (2009) After the Car. 1st ed. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Dizikes, P. (2015) Robotics@MIT: Not so fast [online] Available from https://robotics.mit.edu/not-so-fast
[Accessed 25th November 2015]
DfT (2015a) The pathway to driverless cars: Summary report and action plan. [online] Available from
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/401562/pathwaydriverless-cars-summary.pdf
[Accessed 27th July 2015]
VENTURER: Introducing driverless cars to UK roads
22
DfT (2015b) The Pathway to Driverless Cars: A detailed review of regulations for automated vehicle
technologies [online] Available from
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/401565/pathwaydriverless-cars-main.pdf
[Accessed 27th July 2015]
DfT (2015c) The pathway to driverless cars: A code of practice for testing [online] Available from
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/automated-vehicle-technologies-testing-code-of-practice
[Accessed 27th July 2015]
DfT (2015d) UK to lead the way in testing driverless cars [online] Available from
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-to-lead-the-way-in-testing-driverless-cars [Accessed 27th July
2015]
Economic commission for Europe (1968) Convention on Road Traffic [online] Available from
http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/conventn/crt1968e.pdf [Accessed 20th November 2015]
Fagnant, D. J., and K. M. Kockelman (2015) Preparing a Nation for Autonomous Vehicles: Opportunities,
Barriers and Policy Recommendations. Transportation Research Part A, Vol. 77, pp. 167-181.
Fagant, D., Kockelman, K., Bansal, P. (2015) Operations of Shared Autonomous Vehicle Fleet for Austin, Texas,
Market, Transportation Research Record, 2536, 98-106.
Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975) Belief, attitude, intention and behaviour. An introduction to theory and
research. Reading, MA: Addison-Welsley.
Forsyth, J. (Unknown) History of autonomous cars [online] Available from
http://people.bath.ac.uk/jmf38/history.html [Accessed 20th November 2015]
Geels (2002) Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective
and a case-study., Research Policy , 31 (8-9), 1257-1274
Geels, F. (2005) The Dynamics of Transitions in Socio-technical Systems: A Multi-level Analysis of the
Transition Pathway from Horse-drawn Carriages to Automobiles (1860–1930), Technology Analysis and
Strategic Management, 17(4), 445-476.
Geels, F (2012) A socio-technical analysis of low-carbon transitions: Introducing the multi-level perspective
into transport studies, Journal of Transport Geography, 24, 471-482.
Google (Unknown) Google self-driving car project: Where we’ve been [online] Available from
http://www.google.com/selfdrivingcar/where/ [Accessed 20th
November 2015]
HAVE-it (2015) About HAVE-it [online] Available from http://www.haveiteu.org/displayITM1.asp?ITMID=6&LANG=EN
[Accessed 20th
November 2015]
Hayes, Brian, 2011. Leave the driving to it. Am. Sci. 99, 362–366.
Hern (2015) Are driverless cars the future of Uber? [online] Available from
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/feb/03/are-driverless-cars-the-future-of-uber [Accessed
25th November 2015]
Howard, D., & Dai, D. (2014). Public Perceptions of Self-driving Cars: The Case of Berkeley, California. In
93rd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board. Washington, D.C.
Insurance.com (2014) Autonomous cars: Bring ‘em on, drivers say in Insurance.com survey [online]
Available from http://www.insurance.com/about-us/news-and-events/2014/07/autonomous-cars-bring-
em-on-drivers-say-in-insurance.com-
survey.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+insurance_info+(Ins
urance.com+RSS+Article+Feed)
KPMG (2012) Self-Driving Cars: The Next Revolution, KPMG and the Center for Automotive Research; at
www.kpmg.com/Ca/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/Documents/self-driving-cars-nextrevolution.pdf
[Accessed 25th
November 2015]
VENTURER: Introducing driverless cars to UK roads
23
KPMG (2015a) Connected and autonomous vehicles – The UK economic opportunity. March 2015 [online]
Available from: http://www.smmt.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/CRT036586F-Connected-andAutonomous-Vehicles-%E2%80%93-The-UK-Economic-Opportu...1.pdf
[Accessed 18th
December 2015]
KPMG (2015b) Automobile insurance in the era of autonomous vehicles [online] Available from
https://www.kpmg.com/US/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/Documents/automobile-insurancein-the-era-of-autonomous-vehicles-survey-results-june-2015.pdf
[Accessed 25th November 2015]
Krueger, R., Rashidi, T.H. and Rose, J.M. (2016) Adoption of Shared Autonomous Vehicles – A Hybrid Choice
Modeling Approach based on a Stated Choice Survey, Proceedings of the 95th Annual Meeting of the
Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C., United States, 10th-14th January.
Kyriakidis, M., Happee, R., & De Winter, J. C. F. (2015). Public opinion on automated driving: Results of an
international questionnaire among 5,000 respondents. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology
and Behaviour, 32, 127-140. doi:10.1016/j.trf.2015.04.014
Lang, N., Mei-Pochtler, A., Rüßmann, M., Mohr, J. (2015) Revolution Versus Regulation: The Make-or-Break
Questions About Autonomous Vehicles, Boston Consulting Group [online] Available from
https://www.bcgperspectives.com/content/articles/automotive-revolution-versus-regulation-make-break-
questions-autonomous-vehicles/
Lavasani, M., Jin, X. and Du, Y., 2016. Market Penetration Model for Autonomous Vehicles Based on Previous
Technology Adoption Experiences. In Transportation Research Board 95th Annual Meeting (No. 16-2284).
Legris, P., Ingham, J. and Collerette, P., 2003. Why do people use information technology? A critical review
of the technology acceptance model. Information & management, 40(3), pp.191-204.
Litman, T. (2015) Autonomous vehicle implementation predictions: Implications for transport planning. In
Transportation Research Board 94th Annual Meeting (No. 15-3326).
Malokin, A., Circella, G. and Mokhtarian, P.L., 2015. How Do Activities Conducted while Commuting
Influence Mode Choice? Testing Public Transportation Advantage and Autonomous Vehicle Scenarios. In
Transportation Research Board 94th Annual Meeting (No. 15-1179).
Mindell, D. (2015) Our Robots, Ourselves. New York: Viking.
Missel, J. (2014). Ipsos MORI Loyalty automotive survey. <http://www.ipsosmori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3427/Only-18-per-cent-of-
Britons-believe-driverless-cars-
to-be-an-important-development-for-the-car-industry-to-focus-
on.aspx?utm_campaign=cmp_325684&utm_source=getanewsletter>.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (2013) Preliminary Statement of Policy Concerning
Automated Vehicles [online] Available from
http://www.nhtsa.gov/About+NHTSA/Press+Releases/U.S.+Department+of+Transportation+Releases+Polic
y+on+Automated+Vehicle+Development [Accessed 3rd
December 2015]
New Scientist (2007) A programmable robot from 60 AD [online] Available from
https://www.newscientist.com/blog/technology/2007/07/programmable-robot-from-60ad.html [Accessed
28th September 2015]
Partcatalog.com (unknown date) Autonomous Vehicle Predictions: Auto Experts Offer Insights on the
Future of Self-Driving Cars [online] Available from http://www.partcatalog.com/blog/autonomous-vehiclepredictions
[Accessed 25th November 2015]
Payre, W., Cestac, J., & Delhomme, P. (2014). Intention to use a fully automated car: Attitudes and a priori
acceptability. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 27, 252–263.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2014.04.009.
Power, J.D (2012). Vehicle owners show willingness to spend on automotive infotainment features.
Available at:http://www.jdpower.com/sites/default/files/2012049-uset.pdf
SAE International (2014). Automated driving levelsof driving automation are defined in new sae international
standard J3016. http://www.sae.org/misc/pdfs/automated_driving.pdf.
VENTURER: Introducing driverless cars to UK roads
24
Shladover, S., Su, D., Lu, X. (2012) Impacts of cooperative adaptive cruise control on freeway traffic flow. In:
Proceedings of the 91st
Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.
Schoettle, B. and Sivak, M. (2014) A survey of public opinion about autonomous and self-driving vehicles in
the US, the UK and Australia. Michigan: University of Michigan.
TE Connectivity. (2013). TE Connectivity survey finds safety the top consumer priority in adopting
autonomous vehicle technology. Available at:
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20130625005933/en/TE-Connectivity-Survey-Finds-Safety-Top-
Consumer#.Vbo9R_lVhBc
The list café (unknown) 10 visionary inventions by Leonardo Da Vinci [online] Available from
http://www.thelistcafe.com/10-visionary-inventions-by-leonardo-da-vinci/2 [Accessed 28th September
2015]
Thomopoulos, N. and Givoni, M., 2015. The autonomous car—a blessing or a curse for the future of low
carbon mobility? An exploration of likely vs. desirable outcomes. European Journal of Futures Research,
3(1), pp.1-14.
University of Parma (Unknown) The ARGO project [online] Available from
http://www.argo.ce.unipr.it/argo/english/flyer_en.pdf [Accessed 20th November 2015].
Urry, J. (2004) The 'System' of Automobility. Theory, Culture & Society. 21 (4/5), pp.25-39.
Vanderbilt (2012) Autonomous cars through the ages [online] Available from
http://www.wired.com/2012/02/autonomous-vehicle-history/ [Accessed 20th
November 2015]
V-CHARGE (2015) V-Charge automated valet parking and charging collaborative project [online] Available
from http://www.v-charge.eu/ [ Accessed 20th
November 2015].
Wikipedia (2014) Leonardo’s self propelled cart [online] Available from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonardo%27s_self-propelled_cart [Accessed 24th
November 2015]
Weber, M. (2013) Where to? A history of autonomous vehicles [online] Available from
http://www.computerhistory.org/atchm/where-to-a-history-of-autonomous-vehicles/ [Accessed 15th
November 205]
Wetmore, J. (2003) Driving the dream: The history and motivations behind 60 years of automated highway
systems in America [online] Available from http://archive.cspo.org/documents/article_WetmoreDrivingTheDream.pdf
[Accessed 20th November 2015]
Wired (2007) The original Futurama [online] Available from http://www.wired.com/2007/11/ff-futuramaoriginal/
[Accessed 20th
November 2015]
VENTURER: Introducing driverless cars to UK roads
25
APPENDIX A - SUMMARY OF STUDIES OF PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS OF AVS
Source Survey, sample and population Analysis Findings
AA (2013) A (likely online) survey of AA members’
views of driverless cars (n=23,450). The
survey was conducted by Populus in June
2013.
Descriptive Revealed generally negative perceptions of driverless cars
amongst AA members e.g.:
Only 38% of respondents felt driverless cars would be as safe as
human drivers, 57% felt driverless cars would have to be
segregated from other traffic, 56% would not trust manufacturers
/ government assurances on safety, 65% said they enjoyed driving
too much to ever want a driverless car.
Accenture Research
(2011)
An online, population representative
survey of UK and USA residents’ views on
whether they would use driverless cars
(n=2006). Conducted in Nov and Dec
2010.
Descriptive Revealed feelings of concern about driverless cars across
approximately half the survey sample e.g.
51% of respondents reported that they would not be comfortable
using a driverless car. The most important factors to encourage
use of driverless cars amongst this group included ‘ability to take
back control’, ‘100% reliability’, and the prospect of ‘reductions in
accidents’.
Adams, T (2015) An interview survey of 1,099 UK adults
(18+) conducted in August 2015 by
Opinium Research. Weightings applied so
that results are representative of UK
population.
Descriptive The survey reveals general wariness about AV technology e.g.:
61% of respondents said they would probably or definitely not
consider buying a driverless car. 75% of respondents felt that they
would be a better driver than a computer. 70% of respondents
were opposed to the idea of banning driven cars to make room for
driverless cars.
By contrast, 82% of respondents were in favour of monitoring
software that would reward safe drivers through reduced
insurance premiums. 65% of respondents were also in favour of
road pricing (in place of VED and fuel duty)
On the other hand 69% of respondents noted that the passing on
of vehicle logging data to vehicle manufacturers would decrease
the appeal of AVs.
VENTURER: Introducing driverless cars to UK roads
26
Source Survey, sample and population Analysis Findings
Respondents were most concerned about AV sensors not
detecting hazards, followed by computers crashing and hackers
gaining control.
Casley (2013) An online and postal survey of students of
Worcester Polytechnic Institute (USA) and
students at a nearby high school (n=450).
The sample is not representative of a welldefined
population (but implicitly focusses
on younger groups).
The survey examines factors associated
with propensity to buy a driverless car and
level of concern about using a driverless
car.
The survey was conducted in Feb and Mar
2013.
Mainly descriptive.
Some factor analysis
and use of ‘estimated
marginal means’ to
compare responses
across groups (age,
education, gender,
income)
The survey examines which of safety, cost and acceptability of
legal structure are most important to AV adoption amongst survey
respondents. Safety is ranked as the most important
consideration, followed by legal structure and cost.
Fuel and time efficiency and environmental credentials were
ranked as important positive attributes of AVs, but potential of
increased productivity (whilst in transit) was not.
Males were shown to be more likely to be early adopters of AVs
than females. Those with higher education levels reported greater
concern about safety. Those with higher incomes reported lower
concern regarding legal frameworks for AVs and lower concern
about costs of AVs.
CISCO systems
(2013)
A (likely online) survey of 1514
respondents in three age groups (18-
29,30-49 and 50+) across 10 countries.
The sample population (and whether the
sample is representative) is not defined.
The date of the survey is not defined
(likely 2013)
Descriptive This survey indicated a slightly more positive attitude towards
driverless vehicles, though the question wording is rather
simplistic: 57% of respondents reported that they would ride
driverless cars, with higher proportions reported in emerging
markets (e.g. 95% in Brazil, 86% in India vs 45% in UK, 28% in
Japan).
Cyganski et al (2014) An online survey of 1,000 participants in
Germany. The sample was nearly
representative of the German population.
The survey examined responses to four
use cases: 1. Highway pilot, 2. Valet
parking, 3. Full automated vehicle, 4.
Vehicle on demand.
The focus of the analysis was on whether
ability to use travel time productively was
Descriptive analysis of
attitudes towards
different use cases
and likely travel time
use.
Probit model to
identify factors
associated with
preference for
working in AVs
Attitudes towards AVs:
57% of respondents declared an interest in automated driving.
62% said “they would not want to hand over the complete vehicle
operation”
Insights into travel time use:
Current travel time use:
Public transport: Enjoying the landscape and talking to
companions were noted as the most frequent current uses of
travel time on buses and trains. Working is only undertaken by a
VENTURER: Introducing driverless cars to UK roads
27
Source Survey, sample and population Analysis Findings
viewed as a valuable attribute of AVs in
different scenarios
minority - 77% and 69% of respondents never work on short and
long distance journeys respectively.
In car travel time: “Focussing on the ride and the route” is the
main activity. 80% of drivers listen to music. 7% of drivers
reported working.
Potential travel time use in AVs was found to vary according to the
use case presented:
In line with current travel time use, enjoying the landscape and
travelling companions were seen as the most positive use of travel
time. Only 13% of respondents felt that being able to work on the
move was an advantage.
A positive attitude to the potential to work in AVs was associated
with: Being male, not having a rail card, not having a high annual
car mileage, using cars and trains frequently, having a positive
perception of PT, currently using travel time productively.
It was also seen to be more beneficial in use cases 3 and 4 i.e.
scenarios in which AVs are being used in urban contexts.
Howard and Dai
(2014)
An exploratory self-completion paper
survey of 107 likely early adopters
(Science Museum visitors) in Berkeley
California. The sample is not intended to
be representative. The survey was
conducted in Spring 2013.
Mainly descriptive.
Logit models used to
identify factors
associated with
opinions of different
aspects of AVs
Respondents rated: “increased safety, amenities like multitasking,
and convenience of not having to find parking to be the most
attractive features of self-driving cars.” (of the closed options
specified)
Respondents were most concerned about liability, cost and lack of
ability to control the vehicle (of the closed options specified)
The most popular mode of operation was rated as ‘AV integrated
with general traffic’ (chosen by 46% of the sample, against closed
options of separate lanes – 38% and no opinion – 11%)
The logit models revealed a number of demographic associations
with perceptions of different aspects of AVs:
“Men are more likely to be concerned with liability, and less likely
to be concerned with control than women. Individuals with higher
income are most concerned with liability, and those with lower
VENTURER: Introducing driverless cars to UK roads
28
Source Survey, sample and population Analysis Findings
income appear to be more concerned with safety and control.
Single-occupancy vehicle commuters and cyclists were most
concerned with giving up control. All groups were concerned with
costs.”
Insurance.com
(2014)
An online survey of 2,000 American
drivers (50% male) conducted in June
2014. It is not known whether the sample
is representative of a particular
population.
Descriptive This survey indicated a general resistance to the prospects of
buying and using driverless cars amongst current American
drivers. E.g. 22.4% stated they would be very likely to buy a selfdriving
car. This increased to 37.6% of respondents given
hypothetical 80% reductions in insurance costs.
24.5% stated they would never buy a self-driving car.
76.2% stated the would not trust a self-driving car to take their
child to school.
Krueger, Rashidi and
Rose (2016)
Online stated preference survey of 435
urban residents in Australia. The stated
preference test examined potential for
users to switch to a shared autonomous
vehicle (SAVs) for a familiar trip.
Prezi software was used to introduce the
concept of SAVs
Multinomial logit
model of choice
between SAV without
ride sharing, SAV with
ride sharing or not
using SAV.
The likelihood of selecting an SAV option for a familiar trip reduces
with waiting time.
Young travellers are relatively more likely to choose one of the SAV
options.
The likelihood of selecting an SAV option increases if the journey is
a work trip.
SAV with ridesharing is less attractive if the journey is a leisure trip.
People with multi-modal travel patterns are more likely to select
SAV. It is suggested that uni-modal, car oriented travellers are likely
to be hesitant to adopt SAVs
The stated preference survey indicated that up to 36% of trips could
shift to SAVs. The authors note that this indicates the ‘disruptive
potential’ of SAVs.
Kyriakidis, Happee
and Winter (2015)
A 63-question online survey (n=4886) of
respondents from 109 countries
conducted in July 2014. No information is
given on how the sample was recruited.
Descriptive and
bivariate correlations.
The paper has a focus
on the relationship
between the ‘Big Five’
personality traits
Manual driving was reported as the most enjoyable and full
automation the least enjoyable mode of driving
Respondents were not in favour of vehicles with no steering wheel
(M=2.94 on a scale of 1 to 5 with 5 being agreement)
Respondents were in agreement with sharing data with
surrounding vehicles, vehicle developers and roadway
VENTURER: Introducing driverless cars to UK roads
29
Source Survey, sample and population Analysis Findings
(openness,
conscientiousness,
extraversion,
agreeableness and
neuroticism) and
perception of AVs.
organisations, but were less positive about sharing data with
insurance companies and tax authorities.
Respondents reported most concern about misuse and hacking,
followed by legal issues and safety. Data privacy was their smallest
concern.
Respondents were willing to pay more for full automation than for
partial automation.
The higher the level of automation, the more secondary tasks
respondents would be willing to engage in especially rest, watch
movies, or read.
Most people expect AVs to be on the road by 2030. 51% of
respondents expected automated driving to be so advanced in 30
years’ time that manual driving would no longer be allowed.
There were few correlations with demographic characteristics:
Men were found to be more willing to pay for automation than
women. People with higher income / those that drive more / those
that currently use adaptive cruise control were willing to pay more
for automation.
Personality factors were not strongly correlated with public opinion
– Neurotic people were more concerned about data transmission
from AVs.
People in higher income countries were more concerned about
data transmission from AVs.
Malokin et al (2015) Survey of commuters in the Sacramento –
San Francisco Bay Area transportation
corridor (n=2120).
Multi-nomial mode
choice model is
estimated. Propensity
to use travel time
productively is
included as a predictor
variable.
Ability to use time productively is shown to add to the utility of train
travel and detract from the utility of bus (lack of space) and car (lack
of ability to use time) commuting.
The logit model is then used to predict mode shares for scenarios
in which AVs become available, and hence open up the potential
for using in car time productively. The models indicate that lift
sharing would attract 0.7 percentage points more commuters and
driving alone 0.3 percentage points more commuters (with people
VENTURER: Introducing driverless cars to UK roads
30
Source Survey, sample and population Analysis Findings
switching mainly from bus, but also biking and commuter rail). The
switch is triggered given that driving now has the added utility of
productive time use, which is no longer unique to rail / PT. It is
noted that the model shift would translate to a significant increase
in the number of cars on the road, though it is acknowledged that
alternative models of car access may also be required in the
transition to AVs.
Missel (2014) Ipsos conducted 1,001 interviews with a
nationally representative sample of the
British public aged between 16 and 75
years old. The fieldwork was conducted
between 26th June and 3rd July 2014
Descriptive The survey revealed a general wariness towards AV technology
amongst the British public and demonstrated a number of
demographic differences:
Only 18% of respondents felt it important “for car manufacturers to
focus on driverless technology”.
There was greater interest in AVs amongst men, those living in
urban areas / London, younger people, those reporting that they
are ‘just not interested in cars’.
The safety benefits of vehicle development were shown to be far
more important than new technology per se. 50% of those surveyed
reported “that new technologies such as forward-collision
avoidance systems and lane departure warning systems to make
cars safer are the most important for manufacturers to focus on.”
Payre, Cestac and
Delhomme (2014)
An online survey of 421 French drivers is
conducted to identify predictors of
intention to use a fully automated car. The
sample is not representative of any
defined population and the sampling
frame is not adequately discussed.
Respondents are recruited through email
distribution lists relating to ergonomics,
psychology, engineering (this is not really
explained).
Descriptive statistics
Bivariate correlations.
Linear regression
estimated on
‘intention to use a
fully automated car’
(7-point Likert scale)
The questionnaire tested six hypotheses:
1. Fully automated driving (FAD) would be considered more useful
than manual driving. This was confirmed – 68.1% of
respondents scored above 4 on a 7 point scale.
2. Positive attitudes towards FAD (whether it is pleasant, safe,
useful) predicts intention to us a FAD. This was confirmed (but
seems a rather obvious correlation given the hypothetical
nature of the scenario).
3. High sensation seekers intend to use FAD more than low
sensation seekers; This was confirmed. Drivers with ‘external
locus of control’ intend to use FADs more than drivers with
‘internal locus of control’. This was rejected: ‘Locus of control’
VENTURER: Introducing driverless cars to UK roads
31
Source Survey, sample and population Analysis Findings
(“a personality trait that echoes the extent to which a person
believes he or she can control events that affect him/her”) was
not found to be correlated with intention to use FAD.
4. Drivers expected to be more interested in FAD on highways, in
traffic congestion and when driving is monotonous, than in
built-up areas. This was confirmed.
5. Drivers would be interested in FAD when impaired (after
drinking). This was confirmed. 71% of participants reported
interest in using FAD while impaired.
6. Men would be more interested in FAD than women. This was
confirmed at a bivariate level. Statistical significance was lost
when contextual acceptability (relating to the extent to which
people felt that driving is boring, FAD is safer, preference for
manual control, use of FAD when driving with passengers) and
interest in driving when impaired were included in the
regression model i.e. there are underlying preferences grouped
within genders.
Schoettle and Sivak
(2014)
An online survey of public perceptions of
autonomous and self-driving vehicles in
the US, UK and Australia (n=1533 adults
across the three countries. There is no
discussion of whether the sample is
population representative). The survey
was performed in July 2014.
Descriptive statistics
ANOVA to identify
bivariate associations
between perceptions
of different aspects of
AVs and demographic
attributes.
This survey reveals a number of conflicting perceptions:
The majority of respondents had heard of AVs (70.9% USA, 66% UK,
61% Australia), held a general positive opinion of AVs (56% US, 52%
UK, 62% Australia), and held positive expectations about the
potential benefits of AVs (e.g. fewer crashes, reduced crash
severity, lower emissions)
By contrast, at the same time respondents also reported high levels
of concern regarding not having driver controls, riding in AVs,
security issues,AV operation being less safe than manual operation,
self-driving vehicles moving when unoccupied, and self-driven
commercial vehicles (including buses and taxis) - Concern was
higher amongst females compared to males.
Notwithstanding these concerns, a majority expressed interest in
owning self-driving technology (68% Australia, 66% USA, 63% UK).
VENTURER: Introducing driverless cars to UK roads
32
Source Survey, sample and population Analysis Findings
With respect to use of travel time use, the most frequently cited
response was “Watch the road even though I would not be driving”
(41%).
TE Connectivity
(2013)
A telephone (landline and mobile phone)
survey of US adults. 1000 calls were
completed in May 2013. No information is
given on the nature of the sample or
sample frame.
Descriptive statistics This survey reveals a generally negative view of AVs:
Nearly 70% of respondents reported that they would not be
comfortable in an AV (males reported lower levels of concern
compared to females).
55% of respondents ranked safety as the most important aspect of
AVs that would need to be improved before AV technology became
acceptable.
60% of respondents noted that they would be reluctant to give up
driving control.
Younger groups were more likely to report being comfortable in a
car with driverless technology than older groups (18-34: 38%, 55-
64: 20%, 65+: 18%).
J.D. Power (2012) Summarises results from the 2012 US
Automotive Emerging Technology study.
17,400 vehicle owners were surveyed. The
survey included a broad range of topics,
including perceptions of AV technology.
Descriptive (detail on
method is lacking)
20% of respondents specified that they would definitelyor probably
purchase autonomous vehicle technology.
Compared to the sample average, higher interest in AV technology
was shown amongst males (25%), those aged 18-37 (30%), those
living in urban areas (30%) and those with an interest in automatic
parallel parking features (41%).
The study also reviewed 25,000 online soundbites from social
media. The authors note that ‘online sentiment is generally
positive’. E.g.
Vehicle owners recognise safety benefits and the ability to make
use of free ‘in-vehicle’ time. Car enthusiasts are unenthusiastic
about loss of status / losing the pleasure of driving.
Automated driving is seen as most beneficial in ‘boring’ driving
contexts, but would people wish to retain the ability to drive in
pleasurable environments.
VENTURER: Introducing driverless cars to UK roads
33
Source Survey, sample and population Analysis Findings
Vehicle sharing programmes are seen as positive initiatives given
the expected costs associated with private ownership of AVs.
Van der Waerden et
al (2015)
Stated preference survey of 673
respondents in the Netherlands.
Respondents are
asked to select
compare different
driving scenarios and
select their preferred
option
16 choice alternatives are presented (combined randomly in 8
choice tasks, consisting of 2 driving situations and 1 ‘none of these’
option). The driving situations are defined in terms of: level of
driving automation, road type, length of trip, traffic density,
familiarity with the road, ability to perform secondary task.
This is an early paper, and the results are somewhat underdeveloped.
However, the modelling shows that drivers prefer
systems with partial rather than full automation.
VENTURER: Introducing driverless cars to UK roads
34
APPENDIX B - SUMMARY OF SIMULATION MODELS OF AV SYSTEMS
Source Method Findings
Brownell et al
(2014)
A comparison of the potential efficiency of
personal rapid transit (PRT)oriented
autonomous taxis (individuals are picked
up and dropped off at taxi ranks) vs a
smart paratransit (SPT)autonomous taxi
system (a demand responsive system).
Fleet sizes, costs, and vehicle occupancies
are estimated for simulated trips in New
Jersey, USA.
Five criteria a transit system must satisfy to challenge private vehicle ownership: “(a) the
system must reduce congestion and decrease commuting times, (b) it must be safer than the
conventional automobile, (c) it must have fewer negative environmental impacts than the
conventional automobile, (d) it must be economically feasible, and (e) it must offer its
passengers comfort and convenience to rival the automobile.”
Potentially met by an autonomous taxi network.
Paper compares the personal rapid transit (PRT) model (individuals are picked up and
dropped off at taxi ranks) and the smart paratransit (SPT) model (a demand responsive
system. Trips are booked and vehicles allocated to collect and drop off people).
A modelling exercise is performed to estimate and compare the efficiency (in terms of travel
times, fleet size and costs) of PRT and SPT autonomous taxi systems as replacements for
private cars. SPT is shown to be more efficient in terms of fleet size and cost, but will have
higher vehicle occupancies (more ride sharing).
It is suggested that SPT could be competitive with private car ownership, given that the fleet
size is reduced and is able to use road space more efficiently (hence reducing congestion).
However, it is acknowledged that the analysis has not considered transit criteria 5 (comfort
and convenience) which will be a major barrier to the replacement of privately owned cars
with sharedautonomous taxis (especiallygiven the observation that SPT requires ride sharing
which may not be preferred).
Fagnant et al (2015) A simulation model of potential uptake of
automated taxis in Austin, Texas.
Mode choices based on assumptions
rather than a stated preference survey.
It is noted that automated vehicles will ‘merge the paradigms of short term car rentals (car
clubs) and taxi services’.
The simulation model assumes that all travellers living within a 12mi by 24mi area of Austin
choose to travel by automated taxi. This somewhat limits the validity of claims made on the
basis of the simulation as the modal transfer to automated taxi is not based on evidence
from stated preference surveys.
On the basis of this assumption, it is estimated that every automated taxis could be
expected to replace the private ownership of around 9.34 conventional vehicles. Hence
under this scenario, land that is currently used for the storage of private vehicles could be
turned over to amenity. On the other hand, automated taxis were shown to generate an
VENTURER: Introducing driverless cars to UK roads
35
Source Method Findings
additional 8% of ‘empty-vehicle’ travel that would not exist if travellers drove their own
vehicles.