IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cdl/itsdav/qt40g1637b.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

User Perceptions of Safety and Security: A Framework for a Transition to Electric-Shared-Automated Vehicles

Author

Listed:
  • Kurani, Kenneth S.

Abstract

The confluence of vehicle electrification, sharing and pooling, and automation alters petroleum-fueled, human-piloted, and privately-owned and operated vehicles for personal mobility in ways that raises such questions as, “Are such systems safe and secure?” and, “Who is being kept safe and secure from what (or whom)?” Answers are implied by filling in the “who” and “whom” of the second question: system, product, producer, road, and user. This white paper focuses on (actual and potential) users of systems of electrically-powered, shared, and automated vehicles (e-SAVs) as well as other road-users, e.g., pedestrians and cyclists. The role of user perceptions of safety and security are reviewed to create an initial framework to evaluate how they may affect who will initially use systems of e-SAVs for personal mobility and how safety and security will have to be addressed to foster sustained transitions. The paper will primarily be a resource for e-SAV user research, but will also inform system development, operation, and governance. This white paper offers an overarching framework grounded in the social theory of “risk society” and thus organizes past work that, typically, focuses on only one of the constituent technologies or on one dimension of safety or security, e.g., collision avoidance as a subset of road safety. View the NCST Project Webpage

Suggested Citation

  • Kurani, Kenneth S., 2019. "User Perceptions of Safety and Security: A Framework for a Transition to Electric-Shared-Automated Vehicles," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt40g1637b, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
    • Handle: RePEc:cdl:itsdav:qt40g1637b
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/40g1637b.pdf;origin=repeccitec
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tian, Danyang & Li, Weixia & Wu, Guoyuan & Barth, Matthew J, 2017. "Examining the Safety, Mobility and Environmental Sustainability Co-Benefits and Tradeoffs of Intelligent Transportation Systems," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt0m49j95r, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
    2. Nilay Yavuz & Eric W. Welch, 2010. "Addressing Fear of Crime in Public Space: Gender Differences in Reaction to Safety Measures in Train Transit," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 47(12), pages 2491-2515, November.
    3. Jan C Zoellick & Adelheid Kuhlmey & Liane Schenk & Daniel Schindel & Stefan Blüher, 2019. "Assessing acceptance of electric automated vehicles after exposure in a realistic traffic environment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(5), pages 1-23, May.
    4. Natasha Merat & Ruth Madigan & Sina Nordhoff, 2017. "Human Factors, User Requirements, and User Acceptance of Ride-Sharing in Automated Vehicles," International Transport Forum Discussion Papers 2017/10, OECD Publishing.
    5. Kalra, Nidhi & Paddock, Susan M., 2016. "Driving to safety: How many miles of driving would it take to demonstrate autonomous vehicle reliability?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 182-193.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sina Nordhoff & Jork Stapel & Xiaolin He & Alexandre Gentner & Riender Happee, 2021. "Perceived safety and trust in SAE Level 2 partially automated cars: Results from an online questionnaire," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(12), pages 1-21, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Allen, W. David, 2013. "Self-protection against crime victimization: Theory and evidence from university campuses," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 21-33.
    2. Andrea Bertolini & Massimo Riccaboni, 2021. "Grounding the case for a European approach to the regulation of automated driving: the technology-selection effect of liability rules," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 51(2), pages 243-284, April.
    3. Khastgir, Siddartha & Brewerton, Simon & Thomas, John & Jennings, Paul, 2021. "Systems Approach to Creating Test Scenarios for Automated Driving Systems," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 215(C).
    4. Nordhoff, Sina & Stapel, Jork & van Arem, Bart & Happee, Riender, 2020. "Passenger opinions of the perceived safety and interaction with automated shuttles: A test ride study with ‘hidden’ safety steward," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 508-524.
    5. Yueqi Mao & Qiang Mei & Peng Jing & Ye Zha & Ying Xue & Jiahui Huang & Danning Shao & Pan Luo, 2022. "Factors Affecting the Parental Intention of Using AVs to Escort Children: An Integrated SEM–Hybrid Choice Model Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-21, September.
    6. Blume, Maximilian & Oberländer, Anna Maria & Röglinger, Maximilian & Rosemann, Michael & Wyrtki, Katrin, 2020. "Ex ante assessment of disruptive threats: Identifying relevant threats before one is disrupted," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    7. Manon Feys & Evy Rombaut & Lieselot Vanhaverbeke, 2020. "Experience and Acceptance of Autonomous Shuttles in the Brussels Capital Region," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-23, October.
    8. Ashmore, David P. & Pojani, Dorina & Thoreau, Roselle & Christie, Nicola & Tyler, Nicholas A., 2019. "Gauging differences in public transport symbolism across national cultures: implications for policy development and transfer," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 26-38.
    9. Peng Liu & Run Yang & Zhigang Xu, 2019. "How Safe Is Safe Enough for Self‐Driving Vehicles?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(2), pages 315-325, February.
    10. Arto O Salonen & Noora Haavisto, 2019. "Towards Autonomous Transportation. Passengers’ Experiences, Perceptions and Feelings in a Driverless Shuttle Bus in Finland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-19, January.
    11. Winston, Clifford & Karpilow, Quentin, 2017. "A New Route to Increasing Economic Growth: Reducing Highway Congestion with Autonomous Vehicles," Working Papers 03323, George Mason University, Mercatus Center.
    12. Zoltan Ferenc Magosi & Christoph Wellershaus & Viktor Roland Tihanyi & Patrick Luley & Arno Eichberger, 2022. "Evaluation Methodology for Physical Radar Perception Sensor Models Based on On-Road Measurements for the Testing and Validation of Automated Driving," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-20, March.
    13. Hudson, John & Orviska, Marta & Hunady, Jan, 2019. "People’s attitudes to autonomous vehicles," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 164-176.
    14. Liu, Peng & Zhang, Yawen & He, Zhen, 2019. "The effect of population age on the acceptable safety of self-driving vehicles," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 185(C), pages 341-347.
    15. Cian Ryan & Finbarr Murphy & Martin Mullins, 2019. "Semiautonomous Vehicle Risk Analysis: A Telematics‐Based Anomaly Detection Approach," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(5), pages 1125-1140, May.
    16. Abenoza, Roberto F. & Cats, Oded & Susilo, Yusak O., 2017. "Travel satisfaction with public transport: Determinants, user classes, regional disparities and their evolution," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 64-84.
    17. Wu, Min & Wang, Nanxi & Yuen, Kum Fai, 2023. "Can autonomy level and anthropomorphic characteristics affect public acceptance and trust towards shared autonomous vehicles?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    18. van Lierop, Dea & El-Geneidy, Ahmed, 2016. "Enjoying loyalty: The relationship between service quality, customer satisfaction, and behavioral intentions in public transit," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 50-59.
    19. Hazel Si Min Lim & Araz Taeihagh, 2019. "Algorithmic Decision-Making in AVs: Understanding Ethical and Technical Concerns for Smart Cities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-28, October.
    20. Jie Min & Yili Hong & Caleb B. King & William Q. Meeker, 2022. "Reliability analysis of artificial intelligence systems using recurrent events data from autonomous vehicles," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 71(4), pages 987-1013, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cdl:itsdav:qt40g1637b. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Lisa Schiff (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/itucdus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.