MOTORISTS' PREFERENCES FOR DIFFERENT LEVELS OF VEHICLE AUTOMATION

Similar documents
MOTORISTS' PREFERENCES FOR DIFFERENT LEVELS OF VEHICLE AUTOMATION: 2016

CONSUMER KNOWLEDGE AND USAGE

FUEL-ECONOMY DISTRIBUTIONS OF PURCHASED NEW VEHICLES IN THE U.S.: MODEL YEARS 2008 AND 2014

TRANSPORTATION EMISSIONS IN THE CONTEXT

CONSUMER PREFERENCES FOR THE CHARGING OF PLUG-IN ELECTRIC VEHICLES BRANDON SCHOETTLE MICHAEL SIVAK SUSTAINABLE WORLDWIDE TRANSPORTATION

HAS MOTORIZATION IN THE U.S. PEAKED? PART 9: VEHICLE OWNERSHIP AND DISTANCE DRIVEN, 1984 TO 2015

HAS MOTORIZATION IN THE U.S. PEAKED? PART 10: VEHICLE OWNERSHIP AND DISTANCE DRIVEN, 1984 TO 2016

CONSUMER PREFERENCES REGARDING VEHICLE-RELATED SAFETY RECALLS

A SURVEY OF PUBLIC OPINION ABOUT FLYING CARS

CONSUMER PREFERENCES AND MOTIVATIONS

HAS MOTORIZATION IN THE U.S. PEAKED? PART 5: UPDATE THROUGH 2012

ENERGY INTENSITIES OF FLYING AND DRIVING

NEW-VEHICLE MARKET SHARES OF CARS VERSUS LIGHT TRUCKS IN THE U.S.: RECENT TRENDS AND FUTURE OUTLOOK

BENEFITS OF RECENT IMPROVEMENTS IN VEHICLE FUEL ECONOMY

IS THE U.S. ON THE PATH TO THE LOWEST MOTOR VEHICLE FATALITIES IN DECADES?

RESALE VALUES OF ELECTRIC AND CONVENTIONAL VEHICLES: RECENT TRENDS

HAS MOTORIZATION IN THE U.S. PEAKED? PART 2: USE OF LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES

ON-ROAD FUEL ECONOMY OF VEHICLES

RELATIVE COSTS OF DRIVING ELECTRIC AND GASOLINE VEHICLES

ASSUMED VERSUS ACTUAL WEIGHTS OF VEHICLE PASSENGERS

ROAD SAFETY WITH SELF-DRIVING VEHICLES: GENERAL LIMITATIONS AND ROAD SHARING

Who has trouble reporting prior day events?

Transportation Issues Poll New York City Speed Safety Cameras in School Zones

2018 Automotive Fuel Economy Survey Report

KENTUCKY TRANSPORTATION CENTER

LOW-BEAM HEADLAMP ILLUMINATION AT VERY HIGH ANGLES

7. Author(s) Shan Bao, Michael J. Flannagan, James R. Sayer, Mitsuhiro Uchida 9. Performing Organization Name and Address

HOW REAL PEOPLE VIEW THE FUTURE OF MOBILITY

Driving connectivity Global Automotive Consumer Study: Future of Automotive Technologies

2018 AER Social Research Report

Passenger seat belt use in Durham Region

Road safety in China, India, and Brazil: Challenges and opportunities. Michael Sivak The University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute

Where are we heading? Paths to mobility of tomorrow The 2018 Continental Mobility Study

2016 Car Tech Impact Study. January 2016

Non-standard motorcycle helmets in low and middleincome

Heating Comparison of Radial and Bias-Ply Tires on a B-727 Aircraft

2015 AER Survey of Albertans and Stakeholders. Executive Summary

RACQ Mobility Survey - Taxis and Rideshare

A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE UMTRI TIRE/WHEEL UNIFORMITY MACHINE. Luis Balderas Paul Fancher

DOT HS September NHTSA Technical Report

National Center for Statistics and Analysis Research and Development

Remote, Redesigned Air Bag Special Study FOR NHTSA S INTERNAL USE ONLY Dynamic Science, Inc., Case Number ( E) 1998 Buick Century Colorado

SAFETY COMPLIANCE TESTING FOR FMVSS NO. 103 WINDSHIELD DEFROSTING AND DEFOGGING SYSTEMS

Nebraska Teen Driving Experiences Survey Four-Year Trend Report

American Driving Survey,

Results from the North American E-bike Owner Survey

SAFETY COMPLIANCE TESTING FOR FMVSS NO. 103 WINDSHIELD DEFROSTING AND DEFOGGING SYSTEMS

Remote, Redesigned Air Bag Special Study Dynamic Science, Inc., Case Number ( C) 1998 Nissan Altima Texas August/1998

SAFETY COMPLIANCE TESTING FOR FMVSS NO. 103 WINDSHIELD DEFROSTING AND DEFOGGING SYSTEMS

SAFETY COMPLIANCE TESTING FOR FMVSS NO. 103 WINDSHIELD DEFROSTING AND DEFOGGING SYSTEMS

EV Owner Demographics & Diffusion Survey

Electrical & Power Study May Sponsored by:

PR V2. Submitted by. Professor MIDWEST Vine Street (402) Submitted to

Remote, Redesigned Air Bag Special Study FOR NHTSA S INTERNAL USE ONLY Dynamic Science, Inc., Case Number ( J) 1998 Dodge Caravan Indiana

SCOOTER SHARING SURVEY

REPORT NUMBER: 114-CAL SAFETY COMPLIANCE TESTING FOR FMVSS No. 114 THEFT PROTECTION AND ROLLOWAY PREVENTION

Criticism of Romney s Campaign Grows; Six in 10 Rate His Efforts Negatively

Remote Combination Adaptive Driving Equipment Investigation Dynamic Science, Inc. (DSI), Case Number G 1990 Ford Bronco Arizona October

UMTRI An Examination of the Michigan 2010 Motor Vehicle Traffic Crash Fatality Increase

Global Automotive Consumer Study 2017

REPORT NUMBER: 120-MGA

The U.S. Auto Industry, Washington and New Priorities:

AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES: WILLINGNESS TO PAY AND WILLINGNESS TO SHARE BILLY CLAYTON GRAHAM PARKHURST DANIELA PADDEU JOHN PARKIN

Contemporary Attitudes Toward Motorcycle Riding Safety and Riding Risk Factors Part 1

KANSAS Occupant Protection Observational Survey Supplementary Analyses Summer Study

EASTLINK ANNOUNCES RESULTS OF FIRST ANNUAL VICTORIAN SELF- DRIVING VEHICLE SURVEY

REPORT NUMBER: 114-CAL SAFETY COMPLIANCE TESTING FOR FMVSS No. 114 THEFT PROTECTION AND ROLLOWAY PREVENTION

Seat Belt Survey. Q1. When travelling in a car, do you wear your seat belt all of the time, most of the time, some of the time, or never?

Act 229 Evaluation Report

Intercity Travel in Northeastern Rural Regions of the U.S.

REPORT NUMBER: 111SB-MGA SAFETY COMPLIANCE TESTING FOR FMVSS NO. 111SB SCHOOL BUS REARVIEW MIRRORS

REPORT NUMBER: 111SB-MGA SAFETY COMPLIANCE TESTING FOR FMVSS NO. 111SB SCHOOL BUS REARVIEW MIRRORS

SAFETY COMPLIANCE TESTING FOR FMVSS NO. 114 THEFT PROTECTION

SAFETY COMPLIANCE TESTING FOR FMVSS NO. 114 THEFT PROTECTION

ENGINE BUILDER 31

Luxury Through the Eyes of the Affluent January 2015

User perspectives on selfdriving last-mile buses and passenger cars in Finland

IMPACT OF GASOLINE PRICES ON LAS VEGAS VISITATION FROM SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AND LAS VEGAS LOCALS

Public Transit in America:

What's ahead for fully autonomous driving Consumer opinions on advanced vehicle technology. Deloitte Global Automotive Consumer Study

Development of Turning Templates for Various Design Vehicles

Consumer views on autonomous and electric powertrain technologies. Asia Pacific insights from Deloitte s Global Automotive Consumer Study

REPORT NUMBER: 114-CAL SAFETY COMPLIANCE TESTING FOR FMVSS No. 114 THEFT PROTECTION AND ROLLOWAY PREVENTION

REPORT NUMBER: 114-CAL SAFETY COMPLIANCE TESTING FOR FMVSS No. 114 THEFT PROTECTION AND ROLLOWAY PREVENTION

Evaluation of Kentucky s Driver License Point System

3/16/2016. How Our Cities Can Plan for Driverless Cars April 2016

Which fuels do you use? 96% 34% 8% 5% 5% 1% 0.5% 2014 EQUIPMENT SURVEY

Available online at ScienceDirect. Transportation Research Procedia 14 (2016 )

Open-Air Vehicle Consumer Opinion Survey Executive Summary

University of Michigan Eco-Driving Index (EDI) Latest data: October 2017

REPORT NUMBER: 301-MGA SAFETY COMPLIANCE TESTING FOR FMVSS 301R FUEL SYSTEM INTEGRITY REAR IMPACT

IMPACT OF THE BUS LOCATION SYSTEM ON BUS USAGE. - Morioka City -

US ARMY POWER OVERVIEW

FINAL RESULTS. Question 1: If a Federal election were to be held today which of the following would receive your first preference vote?

PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS: DRIVERLESS CARS.

REPORT NUMBER: 120-MGA

Table AC5. Average Consumption for Air-Conditioning by Equipment Type, 2005 kwh per Household

ROAD SAFETY MONITOR 2014: KNOWLEDGE OF VEHICLE SAFETY FEATURES IN CANADA. The knowledge source for safe driving

Public Opinion of Air Pollution in Delhi

Near-Term Automation Issues: Use Cases and Standards Needs

Transcription:

UMTRI-2015-22 JULY 2015 MOTORISTS' PREFERENCES FOR DIFFERENT LEVELS OF VEHICLE AUTOMATION BRANDON SCHOETTLE MICHAEL SIVAK

MOTORISTS' PREFERENCES FOR DIFFERENT LEVELS OF VEHICLE AUTOMATION Brandon Schoettle Michael Sivak The University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-2150 U.S.A. Report No. UMTRI-2015-22 July 2015

Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. UMTRI-2015-22 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient s Catalog No. 4. Title and Subtitle Motorists' Preferences for Different Levels of Vehicle Automation 7. Author(s) Brandon Schoettle and Michael Sivak 9. Performing Organization Name and Address The University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute 2901 Baxter Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-2150 U.S.A. 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address The University of Michigan Sustainable Worldwide Transportation 5. Report Date July 2015 6. Performing Organization Code 383818 8. Performing Organization Report No. UMTRI-2015-22 10. Work Unit no. (TRAIS) 11. Contract or Grant No. 13. Type of Report and Period Covered 14. Sponsoring Agency Code 15. Supplementary Notes Information about Sustainable Worldwide Transportation is available at http://www.umich.edu/~umtriswt. 16. Abstract This report builds on a recent series of reports addressing public opinion, human factors, and safety-related issues with self-driving vehicles (Schoettle and Sivak, 2014, 2015; Sivak and Schoettle, 2015a, 2015b). A survey was developed for this study to examine motorists preferences among levels of vehicle automation, including preferences for interacting with and overall concern about riding in self-driving vehicles. The survey yielded completed responses from 505 licensed drivers in the U.S. The main findings are as follows: The most frequent preference for vehicle automation was for no self-driving capability, followed by partially self-driving vehicles, with completely self-driving vehicles being the least preferred choice. Concern for riding in self-driving vehicles was higher for completely self-driving vehicles than for partially self-driving vehicles. Respondents overwhelmingly want to be able to manually control completely self-driving vehicles when desired. Preferences were generally divided between touchscreens or voice commands to input route or destination information for completely self-driving vehicles. Most respondents prefer to be notified of the need to take control of a partially self-driving vehicle with a combination of sound, vibration, and visual warnings. The levels of concern for riding in completely self-driving vehicles found in this study are similar to those found in our previous survey that was administered in June 2014. Currently, as in the previous study, concern about riding in completely self-driving vehicles remains high. 17. Key Words Autonomous vehicles, self-driving vehicles, driverless vehicles, survey, U.S., public opinion, driver preferences 19. Security Classification (of this report) None 20. Security Classification (of this page) None 21. No. of Pages 18 18. Distribution Statement Unlimited 22. Price i

Contents Introduction... 1 Method... 2 Survey instrument... 2 Respondents... 2 Results... 4 Preferred level of vehicle automation... 4 Concern about riding in self-driving vehicles... 5 Preferences for controlling completely self-driving vehicles... 7 Preferred driver intervention notification for partially self-driving vehicles... 10 Key Findings... 12 References... 14 Appendix: Questionnaire... 15 ii

Introduction Self-driving vehicles are often discussed in regard to their potential safety, energyconsumption, and environmental benefits, or the existing technical challenges that must be overcome for their successful implementation. However, less attention has been paid to considering the actual level of automation (if any) that drivers desire in their vehicle. This report builds on a recent series of reports addressing public opinion, human factors, and safety-related issues with self-driving vehicles (Schoettle and Sivak, 2014, 2015; Sivak and Schoettle, 2015a, 2015b). A survey was developed for this study to examine motorists preferences for having different levels of vehicle automation, including preferences for interacting with and overall concern about riding in self-driving vehicles. 1

Method Survey instrument An online survey was conducted using SurveyMonkey (www.surveymonkey.com), a web-based survey company. A questionnaire was developed to examine several questions related to motorists preferences regarding control of both partially and completely selfdriving vehicles, as well as overall preferences for having self-driving versus conventional (non-self-driving) vehicles. The text of the questionnaire is included in the appendix. The survey was performed in June 2015. Respondents SurveyMonkey s Audience tool was used to target and recruit licensed drivers 18 years and older from SurveyMonkey s respondent database in the U.S. Fully completed surveys were received for 505 respondents. The margin of error at the 95% confidence level for the overall results is +/- 4.4%. Demographic breakdowns for the respondents are presented in Table 1. 2

Table 1 Demographic breakdown for the 505 respondents. Age group Gender Income U.S. region Demographic aspect Percent 18 to 29 20.8 30 to 44 23.8 45 to 59 28.5 60 or older 26.9 Female 52.9 Male 47.1 $0 to $24,999 14.3 $25,000 to $49,999 19.4 $50,000 to $74,999 14.5 $75,000 to $99,999 12.7 $100,000 to $124,999 8.7 $125,000 to $149,999 4.8 $150,000 to $174,999 3.2 $175,000 to $199,999 1.8 $200,000 or more 3.6 Prefer not to answer 17.2 New England 5.2 Middle Atlantic 12.6 North Central 20.0 South Atlantic 20.2 South Central 13.2 Mountain 9.2 Pacific 19.4 3

Results Preferred level of vehicle automation When respondents were asked about which level of vehicle automation they preferred (see the appendix for the definitions of each level of automation that were provided to respondents), the most frequent preference was for no self-driving (43.8%), followed by partially self-driving (40.6%), with completely self-driving being the least preferred (15.6%). Figure 1 summarizes the results for all respondents, while Table 2 presents a complete summary of responses by gender and age. Females most frequently preferred no self-driving (47.6%), while males preferred partially self-driving (41.2%). Preference for having vehicle automation generally decreased as respondent age increased. 50.0 45.0 40.0 35.0 30.0 Percent 25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 No self-driving Partially self-driving Completely self-driving Figure 1. Summary of responses to Q1: Vehicle manufacturers are considering using one of three levels of automation in future vehicles. Which level would you prefer to have in your personal vehicle? 4

Table 2 Percentage of responses, by gender and age, to Q1: Vehicle manufacturers are considering using one of three levels of automation in future vehicles. Which level would you prefer to have in your personal vehicle? Response Gender Age Female Male 18-29 30-44 45-59 60+ Total No self-driving 47.6 39.5 35.2 37.5 49.3 50.0 43.8 Partially self-driving 40.1 41.2 47.6 41.7 36.1 39.0 40.6 Completely self-driving 12.4 19.3 17.1 20.8 14.6 11.0 15.6 Concern about riding in self-driving vehicles In two different questions, respondents were asked how concerned they would be about riding in a completely self-driving vehicle (Q2) and a partially self-driving vehicle (Q5). The respondents were more concerned about riding in a completely self-driving vehicle than in a partially self-driving vehicle. For example 35.6% were very concerned about riding in a completely self-driving vehicle (and 68.3% were very or moderately concerned), as opposed to 14.1% for a partially self-driving vehicle (with 48.8% being very or moderately concerned). Conversely, 10.6% were not at all concerned with riding in a completely self-driving vehicle, as opposed to 16.2% for a partially self-driving vehicle. Figure 2 summarizes the results for all respondents, while Tables 3 and 4 present complete summaries of responses by gender and age. Females expressed greater concern than males for riding in completely self-driving vehicles (very concerned: 40.1% versus 30.7%), but the difference was smaller for partially self-driving vehicles (very concerned: 15.7% versus 12.2%). Older respondents tended to have greater concern than younger respondents for riding in self-driving vehicles. This was the case for completely self-driving vehicles (very concerned: 21.0% for 18-29 year olds versus 41.2% for those 60 and older), and partially self-driving vehicles (very concerned: 10.5% for 18-29 year olds versus 17.6% for those 60 and older). 5

40.0 Completely self-driving Partially self-driving 35.0 30.0 25.0 Percent 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 Very concerned Moderately concerned Slightly concerned Not at all concerned Figure 2. Combined summary of responses to Q2 and Q5: If the only vehicles available were completely self-driving (Q2) or partially self-driving (Q5), how concerned would you be about riding in such vehicles? 6

Table 3 Percentage of responses, by gender and age, to Q2: If the only vehicles available were completely self-driving, how concerned would you be about riding in such vehicles? Response Gender Age Female Male 18-29 30-44 45-59 60+ Total Very concerned 40.1 30.7 21.0 36.7 40.3 41.2 35.6 Moderately concerned 34.5 30.7 41.9 25.8 29.2 35.3 32.7 Slightly concerned 18.7 23.1 21.9 21.7 21.5 18.4 20.8 Not at all concerned 6.7 15.5 15.2 15.8 9.0 5.1 10.9 Table 4 Percentage of responses, by gender and age, to Q5: If the only vehicles available were partially self-driving, how concerned would you be about riding in such vehicles? Response Gender Age Female Male 18-29 30-44 45-59 60+ Total Very concerned 15.7 12.2 10.5 11.7 15.3 17.6 14.1 Moderately concerned 37.8 31.1 23.8 35.8 39.6 36.8 34.7 Slightly concerned 35.2 34.9 43.8 34.2 30.6 33.8 35.0 Not at all concerned 11.2 21.8 21.9 18.3 14.6 11.8 16.2 Preferences for controlling completely self-driving vehicles Availability of vehicle controls. Nearly all respondents (96.2%) would want to have a steering wheel plus gas and brake pedals (or some other controls) available in completely self-driving vehicles. Figure 3 summarizes the results for all respondents, while Table 5 presents a complete summary of responses by gender and age. No notable gender differences were observed, with similar percentages of females and males preferring to have controls on self-driving vehicles (97.4% and 95.0%, respectively). Likewise, no meaningful age differences were observed, with each age group expressing a high degree of preference for having controls on self-driving vehicles (ranging from 94.4% to 98.1%). 7

100.0 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 Percent 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 Yes Figure 3. Summary of responses to Q3: Would you prefer that a completely self-driving vehicle still have a steering wheel plus gas and brake pedals (or some other controls) to enable a driver to take control if desired? No Table 5 Percentage of responses, by gender and age, to Q3: Would you prefer that a completely self-driving vehicle still have a steering wheel plus gas and brake pedals (or some other controls) to enable a driver to take control if desired? Response Gender Age Female Male 18-29 30-44 45-59 60+ Total Yes 97.4 95.0 98.1 95.8 94.4 97.1 96.2 No 2.6 5.0 1.9 4.2 5.6 2.9 3.8 8

Route or destination input. The most preferred method for inputting a route or destination was nearly equally divided between touchscreens (37.8%) and voice commands (36.2%). Figure 4 summarizes the results for all respondents, while Table 6 presents a complete summary of responses by gender and age. The method most preferred by females was voice commands (41.2%), while the most preferred method for males was touchscreen (37.4%). Younger respondents tended to prefer touchscreens, with preferences shifting to voice commands for older respondents. 40.0 35.0 30.0 25.0 Percent 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 Touchscreen Voice commands Traditional dashmounted display Personal portable device Keyboard and mouse Figure 4. Summary of responses to Q4: In a completely self-driving vehicle, how would you prefer to tell the vehicle your route or destination? Other 9

Table 6 Percentage of responses, by gender and age, to Q4: In a completely self-driving vehicle, how would you prefer to tell the vehicle your route or destination? Response Gender Age Female Male 18-29 30-44 45-59 60+ Total Touchscreen 38.2 37.4 42.9 37.5 38.2 33.8 37.8 Voice commands 41.2 30.7 21.9 36.7 43.8 39.0 36.2 Traditional dash-mounted display 12.7 10.5 12.4 11.7 6.9 16.2 11.7 Personal portable device 4.1 13.0 19.0 8.3 4.9 3.7 8.3 Keyboard and mouse 1.9 4.2 1.0 2.5 4.2 3.7 3.0 Other method 1.9 4.2 2.9 3.3 2.1 3.7 3.0 Preferred driver intervention notification for partially self-driving vehicles When respondents were asked about how they preferred to be notified when a partially self-driving vehicle requires the driver to take control of the vehicle, the majority (59.4%) preferred a combination of three warning modes (sound, visual, and vibration). Figure 5 summarizes the results for all respondents, while Table 7 presents a complete summary of responses by gender and age. Similar percentages of females and males prefer to be notified with a combination of all three modes (57.3% and 61.8%, respectively). A majority of each age group indicated they prefer to be notified with a combination of all three modes (ranging from 55.6% to 63.8%). 10

70.0 60.0 50.0 Percent 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 All three modes (sound + vibration + visual) Sound + visual Sound + vibration Sound Visual Vibration + visual Vibration Figure 5. Summary of responses to Q6: When a partially self-driving vehicle requires the driver to take control of the vehicle, how would you prefer to be notified? Table 7 Percentage of responses, by gender and age, to Q6: When a partially self-driving vehicle requires the driver to take control of the vehicle, how would you prefer to be notified? Response Gender Age Female Male 18-29 30-44 45-59 60+ Total All three modes (sound + vibration + visual) 57.3 61.8 63.8 60.8 55.6 58.8 59.4 Sound + visual 22.8 15.5 16.2 19.2 20.1 21.3 19.4 Sound + vibration 8.2 11.3 10.5 10.8 10.4 7.4 9.7 Sound 7.5 8.4 6.7 6.7 7.6 10.3 7.9 Visual 1.9 1.7 1.9 0.8 4.2 0.0 1.8 Vibration + visual 1.9 0.8 0.0 1.7 1.4 2.2 1.4 Vibration 0.4 0.4 1.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.4 11

Key Findings Preferred level of vehicle automation - The most frequent preference was for no self-driving (43.8%), followed by partially self-driving (40.6%), with completely self-driving being the least preferred (15.6%). Concern about riding in self-driving vehicles - The respondents were more concerned about riding in a completely self-driving vehicle than in a partially self-driving vehicle. For example, 35.6% were very concerned about riding in a completely self-driving vehicle, as opposed to 14.1% for a partially selfdriving vehicle. - The levels of concern for riding in completely self-driving vehicles in this survey are similar to those found in a previous survey that asked the same question of U.S. drivers in June 2014 (Schoettle and Sivak, 2014). Table 8 presents both sets of results for comparison. Currently, as in the previous study, concern remains high, with about two thirds of respondents feeling either very or moderately concerned about riding in completely self-driving vehicles. Table 8 Concern for riding in a completely self-driving vehicle, Schoettle and Sivak (2014) versus the current study. (Entries in the table are percentages.) Response Schoettle and Sivak (2014) Current study Very concerned 35.9 35.6 Moderately concerned 30.9 32.7 Slightly concerned 21.8 20.8 Not at all concerned 11.4 11.5 12

Preferences for controlling completely self-driving vehicles - Respondents overwhelmingly (96.2%) want to have a steering wheel plus gas and brake pedals (or some other controls) available to control completely self-driving vehicles when desired. - The most preferred method for inputting a route or destination was touchscreens (37.8%), followed closely by voice commands (36.2%). Preferred driver intervention notification for partially self-driving vehicles - Most respondents (59.4%) prefer to be notified of the need to take control of a partially self-driving vehicle with a combination of sound, vibration, and visual warnings. 13

References Schoettle, B. and Sivak, M. (2014). Public opinion about self-driving vehicles in China, India, Japan, the U.S., the U.K., and Australia (Technical Report No. UMTRI- 2014-30). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute. Available at: http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/109433/103139.pdf Schoettle, B. and Sivak, M. (2015). Potential impact of self-driving vehicles on household vehicle demand and usage (Technical Report No. UMTRI-2015-3). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute. Available at: http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/110789/103157.pdf?sequen ce=1&isallowed=y Sivak, M. and Schoettle, B. (2015a). Road safety with self-driving vehicles: General limitations and road sharing with conventional vehicles (Technical Report No. UMTRI-2015-2). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute. Available at: http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/111735/103187.pdf?sequen ce=1&isallowed=y Sivak, M. and Schoettle, B. (2015b). Motion sickness in self-driving vehicles (Technical Report No. UMTRI-2015-12). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute. Available at: http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/111747/103189.pdf?sequen ce=1&isallowed=y 14

Appendix: Questionnaire Driver preferences for controlling and interacting with automated vehicles We are conducting a survey of opinions about vehicle automation and self-driving vehicles. 1) Vehicle manufacturers are considering using one of three levels of automation in future vehicles. Which level would you prefer to have in your personal vehicle? Completely self-driving. The vehicle will control all safety-critical functions, even allowing the vehicle to travel without a passenger if required. Partially self-driving. The driver will be able to hand over control of all safetycritical functions to the vehicle; only occasional control by the driver will be required. No self-driving. The driver will always be in complete control of all safety functions, but the driver will be assisted with various advanced technologies. The next 3 questions are about completely self-driving vehicles. 2) If the only vehicles available were completely self-driving, how concerned would you be about riding in such vehicles? Very concerned Moderately concerned Slightly concerned Not at all concerned 3) Would you prefer that a completely self-driving vehicle still have a steering wheel plus gas and brake pedals (or some other controls) to enable a driver to take control if desired? Yes No (next page) 15

4) In a completely self-driving vehicle, how would you prefer to tell the vehicle your route or destination? Keyboard and mouse Personal portable device (smart phone, tablet, etc.) Touchscreen Traditional dash-mounted display with physical buttons Voice commands Other (please describe): The next 2 questions are about partially self-driving vehicles. 5) If the only vehicles available were partially self-driving, how concerned would you be about riding in such vehicles? Very concerned Moderately concerned Slightly concerned Not at all concerned 6) When a partially self-driving vehicle requires the driver to take control of the vehicle, how would you prefer to be notified? Sound (such as a chime, alarm, or voice warning) Vibration (usually in the seat and/or steering wheel) Visual indicator (such as a light or symbol on the dash or information display) Sound + vibration Sound + visual Vibration + visual All three notifications (sound + vibration + visual) Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey! 16