Automated Vehicles: Driver Knowledge, Attitudes & Practices

Transcription

1 Automated Vehicles: Driver Knowledge, Attitudes & Practices Ward Vanlaar, Ph.D. Chief Operating Officer - TIRF 13 th PRI World Congress Tunis, May 3-7, 2017

2 Overview > Background > Methodology > Knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP)» technology acceptance» trust in automation» behavioural adaption > Conclusions 2

3 Background: Levels of automation Level 0: No automation Level 1: Function-specific automation Level 2: Combined-function automation Level 3: Limited self-driving automation (Source: NHTSA 2013) Level 4: Full self-driving automation 3

4 Background: Automation forecast 4

5 Methodology > Random, representative sample of 2,662 Canadians stratified by region:» valid licence» driven in past 30 days > Demographics:» males (53.0%) & females (47.0%)» age range of 16 to 93 years» 95% CI, ±1.9% (margin of error) > Four focus groups (drivers and non-drivers). 5

6 Questionnaire > Two types of self-driving vehicles explored:» limited self-driving vehicles (LSDVs); and,» fully self-driving vehicles (FSDVs). > Driver knowledge, attitudes, practices/ behaviour (KAP):» technology acceptance in relation to perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness;» trust in automation; and,» behavioural adaptation. 6

7 Driver attitudes > Familiar with automated vehicle technology: 63.4%. > Familiar with SDV technology: 39.6%. > Enjoys driving: 68.5%.» Increased by age, if male, and drove longer distances. > Think SDVs will be very relaxing: 22.0% > Think SDVs will be very stressful: 40.6%. 7

8 Percent Driver attitudes Driver would use LSDVs and FSDVs if available today. 80,0 70,0 60,0 68,6 75,3 Strongly agree 50,0 40,0 30,0 20,0 10,0 22,5 17,1 8,9 7,6 Somewhat to strongly disagree Don't know 0,0 LSDVs FSDVs 8

9 Percent strongly agree Perceived ease of use 45,0 40,0 35,0 30,0 29,7 37,6 40,1 36,1 25,0 20,0 15,0 10,0 5,0 0,0 LSDVs would be easy to use Current knowledge sufficient to operate LSDV FSDVs would be easy to use Current knowledge sufficient to operate FSDV 9

10 Percent strongly agree Perceived usefulness 25,0 23,4 20,0 15,0 15,6 16,9 10,0 5,0 0,0 SDVs will make me a better driver SDVs will reduce travel time Would commute with SDV if could program to return home 10

11 Perceived usefulness: focus groups > Benefits:» run errands;» vehicle would not sit idle;» greater independence/mobility for nondrivers. > Concerns:» increased congestion and pollution;» reduced opportunities for human interactions;» job loss for professional drivers. 11

12 Percent strongly agree Trust in automation 30,0 25,0 23,7 25,5 28,5 20,0 15,0 10,0 5,0 0,0 LSDVs will respond better to VRUs than myself LSDVs will respond better to hazards than myself LSDVs will drive more safely in poor conditions than myself 12

13 Percent very likely to do Behavioural adaptation Activities drivers reported they were very likely to engage in while using LSDVs. 90,0 80,0 70,0 60,0 50,0 40,0 30,0 20,0 10,0 0,0 76,9 Continue to watch road 23,5 Drive tired or fatigued 16,9 Do a nondriving activity 10,3 8,8 8,5 Sleep or nap Set vehicle to drive over speed limit Drink and drive 13

14 Behavioural adaptation What drivers reported currently doing versus what they think they will do using LSDVs. Currently do this Would do this using LSDV Difference Continue to watch road 77% Drive tired or fatigued 5% 24% 19%* Engage in a non-driving activity/ distracted 4% 17% 13%* Sleep or nap 10% Set vehicle to drive over speed limit 8% 9% 1% Drink and drive 3% 9% 6%* *Difference significant p<

15 Percent very likely to do Behavioural adaptation Percent very likely to disengage LSDV in order to drive faster or run a red light. 40,0 35,0 30,0 25,0 20,0 15,0 10,0 5,0 0,0 35,3 30,5 30,5 21,4 13,0 13,0 13,4 14,3 Good road and weather conditions Driver familiar with the roads Late for appointment Poor road and weather conditions Drive faster Run red light 15

16 Key findings > Driver awareness and trust of SDVs is very low. > Expectation to not have to pay attention. > Expectation of lots of warning or that SDV will pull over. > Expectation SDV will continue to protect occupants. 16

17 Key findings > Expectation to use in highest-risk driving situations, but will disengage if not their style. > Drivers will not use vehicles without override feature. > Concerns about negative outcomes: family interaction, city planning, public transportation and environment. 17

18 Good news/bad news > Still time to shape public perceptions and expectations with education. > Early vs late adopters:» Drivers who are male, have greater education and drive longer distances are more likely to use and to trust SDVs.» Drivers who are male and drive longer distances are more likely to negatively adapt their driving behaviour.» Older drivers are less likely to use or trust SDVs; most able to afford and reap benefits. 18

19 Policy implications > Education is essential to prepare drivers!» Misconceptions exist regarding role of driver attention and response time to warnings.» Technology limitations are under-estimated. > Early adopters must know how to properly use technology. > The ability to turn off technology will have important implications for safety. > Expectation that occupants will be protected in an unavoidable collision. 19

20 Conclusions > Some important measures that speak to the behavioural challenges:» 4» 7.2» 68 20

21 > Sponsored by Toyota Canada Foundation > TIRF: Robyn Robertson, Shawna Meister 21

22 Stay informed! Connect with us! traffic-injury-research-foundation-tirf 22