Deliverable 1.6. Guidelines on mitigation strategies and interventions to effectively stimulate people towards a higher acceptance of CAV, in general, and ALFRED specifically

Research output: Book/ReportReportProfessional

11 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

In this final deliverable of WP1 we formulate the possible mitigation strategies and interventions to stimulate the public acceptance of CAV, in general, and of ALFRED in specific. To define these strategies we draw upon all the acceptance research conducted within the SUaaVE project. First, we provide an overview of the studies and experiments that have been conducted and where the full reports can be found. Then we report our recent study in which we compared CAV and ALFRED.
In our new study we described the “human-like” ALFRED and the “technology-inspired” CAV to participants using text, videos, and storyboards. Participants rated the vehicles from both the perspective of a potential user and of a pedestrian. We found that although ALFRED was not rated higher on acceptability than CAV for potential users, most participants preferred ALFRED when having to choose between the vehicles. Moreover, we found that specifically for pedestrians ALFRED was rated as more acceptable than CAV, and participants had greater trust in ALFRED’s technology than in CAV’s technology. This highlights the importance of an eHMI to support other road users.
We replicated our psychological model for both CAV and ALFRED, and found that the most important attributes for acceptability were perceived convenience, pleasure, and safety / trust in the vehicle’s technology. We also found that if the expected adoption norm was low, perceived status-enhancement became more important for acceptability. In other words, when few close others are expected to adopt the vehicle, the vehicle is only acceptable when it is seen as a status product.
The results of the new CAV & ALFRED study and the second loop driving simulator experiments are used to confirm the KPIs related to WP1. We show that our acceptance model can explain a high percentage (over 80% in the CAV & ALFRED study) of the variance in acceptability of CAV and ALFRED. We also show that ALFRED is rated at least slightly positively on acceptability by more than 60% of participants, and that many participants prefer ALFRED over CAV.
Based on the results of the second loop driving simulator experiments and the ALFRED & CAV study, we extend the preliminary list of suggestions to improve the acceptance of CAV and ALFRED. We include suggestions for both potential users and other road users, so the vehicles can be acceptable for different user groups. We conclude that the acceptance research of WP1 has been a success, and that we were able to provide several options to stimulate people towards a higher public acceptance of CAV and ALFRED.
Original languageEnglish
Number of pages31
Publication statusPublished - 31-Aug-2022

Keywords

  • guidelines
  • mitigation strategies
  • acceptance
  • acceptability
  • connected automated vehicles
  • CAV

Cite this