《英國交通部：2023從公民視角看未來交通系統中的自動駕駛技術：偉大的自動駕駛探索（英文版）（187頁）.pdf》由會員分享，可在線閱讀，更多相關《英國交通部：2023從公民視角看未來交通系統中的自動駕駛技術：偉大的自動駕駛探索（英文版）（187頁）.pdf（187頁珍藏版）》請在三個皮匠報告上搜索。

1、The Great Self-Driving Exploration A citizen view of self-driving technology in future transport systems June 2023 Department for Transport Great Minster House 33 Horseferry Road London SW1P 4DR Crown copyright 2023 This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 exc

2、ept where otherwise stated.To view this licence,visit https:/www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/or contact,The National Archives at www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/contact-us.Where we have identified any third-party copyright information you will need to obtain permission

3、from the copyright holders concerned.This publication is also available on our website at www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-transport Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-transport Contents 1.Executive su

4、mmary 6 2.Background and objectives 17 2.1 Introduction to this research 17 2.2 Research objectives 18 3.Methodology 19 3.1 Overview 19 3.2 Deliberative research 20 3.3 Quantitative research 23 3.4 SDV trials 25 3.5 EEG analysis 25 4.About this report 27 4.1 Report structure 27 4.2 How to read this

5、report 28 4.3 Behavioural frameworks used in the report 29 5.Local transport landscape 30 5.1 Current transport behaviours and perceptions 30 5.2 Section summary 36 6.Baseline views of SDVs 38 6.1 Views towards technology 38 6.2 Awareness and knowledge of SDVs 40 6.3 Perceptions of SDVs 45 6.4 SDVs

6、in the local transport system 47 6.5 Section summary 51 7.Views towards SDVs and their potential role in local transport systems 52 7.1 Initial views of SDVs 52 7.2 Benefits and opportunities for SDVs 54 7.3 Perceived drawbacks and risks of SDVs 57 7.4 Uncertainties and tensions 63 7.5 Role of SDVs

7、in local transport systems 65 7.6 Section summary 71 8.Impact of information provision on views towards SDVs 74 8.1 Detailed response to information about SDVs 74 8.2 Section summary 88 9.Impact of trial experience on views towards SDVs 90 9.1 Impressions of the trial 90 9.2 Emotional responses to t

8、he trial 96 9.3 Reported comfort with SDVs 98 9.4 Perceived impact of SDVs on local transport systems 103 9.5 Perceived local applications for trial vehicles 105 9.6 Section summary 109 10.Future scenario exploration for SDV deployment 110 10.1 Detailed responses to the scenario exploration 110 10.2

9、 Section summary 115 11.Informed citizen conclusions on the use of SDVs in future local transport systems 116 11.1 Informed views of SDVs 116 11.2 Priorities and user requirements for SDV implementation 128 11.3 Vehicle requirements 130 11.4 Communication needs 132 11.5 Section summary 134 12.Resear

10、ch conclusions and implications 136 12.1 How best to increase knowledge and understanding of SDV technology 136 12.2 How to ensure the acceptable introduction and operation of SDVs 140 13.Location-specific findings 144 13.1 Alnwick(rural location)144 13.2 Manchester(urban)151 13.3 Taunton(town)156 1

11、4.Appendices 163 14.1 Specialist Group 163 14.2 Sample breakdown 163 14.3 Technical appendix 166 14.4 Research design 170 14.5 Resources 187 6 The UK is reaching a transition point in the emergence of self-driving vehicles(SDVs)with early uses approaching commercialisation.These new technologies hav

12、e the potential to introduce a range of economic and societal benefits and it is governments role to understand how these could be realised while ensuring the safety and security of self-driving technology.Public understanding and acceptability of the technology as well as its governance will be vit

13、al for meeting these goals,including enabling the development and implementation of the required policies.Equally,it is necessary to understand what end users need from transport so that SDVs can be developed and deployed in a way that provides for those societal needs.Findings from previous researc

14、h have highlighted that while there is overall excitement among the public about the introduction of SDVs,more needs to be done before the technology and services are fully understood,considered safe enough to use,and are trusted by members of the public.In 2022,the Department for Transport(DfT)comm

15、issioned Thinks Insight&Strategy,in partnership with University College London(UCL)and Aurrigo,to conduct a series of large-scale public engagement events,held in areas of the country where little or no engagement had occurred to date.The aim of this research was to provide an opportunity to increas

16、e exposure to and experience of SDVs among the public,in turn enabling DfT to bring together key elements of the Centre for Connected and Autonomous Vehicles(CCAV)s engagement priorities:understanding public perceptions towards,and requirements from,SDV technologies,and increasing public awareness a

17、nd understanding of the technology.The aims and objectives of this research were as follows:To understand how to communicate safety information about SDVs effectively.To understand how different types of exposure to SDVs can influence awareness and understanding.To understand what role citizens see

18、for SDVs in a future transport system.An overview of the research approach is shown in Figure 1.Thinks Insight&Strategy worked in partnership with Aurrigo,an SDV manufacturer,to set up SDV trials in three locations across England in 2022.Three levels of exposure to SDVs were explored through the res

19、earch,and these were used to define the three key audiences the research engaged with:1.Executive summary 7 High exposure audience:A total of 177 core audience participants across all three locations and a further 64 additional audience participants(young people aged 12-17,lower socio-economic group

20、s(SEG),those with ethnic minority backgrounds,older people aged 65+,those who are digitally disengaged,and those with a disability/long-term health condition(LTHC)took part in a three-week programme of deliberative engagement.During the sessions they learnt about and discussed SDVs and took part in

21、the SDV trial.They also completed pre-and post-deliberative research surveys,pre-and post-ride surveys,and a six-month post-research follow up survey to quantitatively measure changes in views from taking part in the research.Medium exposure audience:Members of the public who took a ride in an SDV a

22、s part of the SDV trial but did not take part in the deliberative engagement.As this was open to anyone who wanted to participate,there was no target number of respondents.This audience was asked to complete pre-and post-ride surveys to measure views and any changes from taking part in the trial.Not

23、 all audience members completed these surveys,but responses were obtained from 450 participants for the pre-ride survey and 352 for the post-ride survey.Low exposure audience:Pre-and post-trial local polling,each with 250 residents living near the SDV trial in each location(750 respondents per wave

24、in total)who did not take part in the deliberative engagement or take a ride in an SDV as part of the trial.These respondents may have been exposed to information about the trials or seen the trial vehicles during set up or the trial itself.A national control survey(n=4027)was also conducted for a b

25、aseline comparison in areas not exposed to the technology through this research.The deliberative approach for this research(used for the high exposure audience)consisted of three consecutive weeks of in-person workshops in each location(NB an online approach replaced one workshop in the final locati

26、on due to external factors).During these workshops,participants engaged in a range of activities to build knowledge of the subject area,took part in an SDV trial in their local area,and discussed their informed views of their needs and expectations from SDVs if they were to be deployed in the local

27、area.8 Figure 1 Overview of research methodology(repeated in each location)1.1 Local transport landscape At the start of the first workshop,the high exposure audience discussed how they currently travel in their local area and their views towards their local transport network.These discussions provi

28、ded the context for later conversations,looking to understand how SDVs could help to address existing transport challenges and risks that need to be considered as part of their introduction in local areas.Across all locations we established that travelling by private vehicle(car)remains the most pop

29、ular option for the vast majority of participants in the deliberative research.It is viewed favourably both practically(e.g.convenient,quick,flexible)and emotionally(e.g.provides individual control and a sense of security and independence).When thinking about their ideal transport system,participant

30、s in all locations primarily sought to address the gaps in their existing networks rather than radically overhauling or revolutionising transport in their local area.Specifically,improving public transport was seen as a top priority across all research locations.In the rural location(Alnwick)we foun

31、d that:Car ownership was considered a necessity for all journey types as destinations tend to be far away from each other and public transport provision is typically limited.Non-drivers in the rural area used public transport because they had limited alternatives,but it was not considered a time eff

32、icient way to travel and was seen as difficult to rely on.Public transport provision was considered to have major gaps and issues,including indirect and poorly linked services,services running at inconvenient times(or not running at all),limited area of coverage,high costs and limited availability o

33、f taxis.9 In the urban location(Manchester),by contrast we heard that:Participants preferred driving for all journeys except commuting,where public transport was preferred.This was due to the large number of public transport options and services,as well as the barriers to driving such as congestion

34、and difficulty parking.Transport provision in the urban area was felt to have some small gaps and inefficiencies including:a lack of joined up services,increasing costs,congestion and difficulty parking,services not running at night,outdated infrastructure,concerns about personal safety on public tr

35、ansport and difficulty taking cycles on public transport services creating barriers to multi-modal journeys.In the town location(Taunton)driving was also preferred:Participants preferred driving for all journeys except commuting,where public transport was preferred.Participants in the town reported

36、similar difficulties with driving in the centre as in urban areas and similar limitations in public transport provision in the rural fringe to those experienced by participants in the rural location.Declining public transport provision was of concern in the town,including reduced service frequency,i

37、ncreased likelihood of service cancellation,services running at inconvenient times(or not running at all),indirect routes,high travel costs,and the removal of whole bus routes leaving some without any public transport links.This could result in increased dependency on use of cars or indeed some jour

38、neys being made less frequently than residents would prefer.1.2 Baseline views of technology and SDVs Quantitatively,the research collected baseline(pre-research)data on participants views towards technology and SDVs.This provided important context to understand the impact that taking part in the re

39、search had on participants views of SDV technology(see section 1.8).This summary focuses on the high exposure audience,with more detail on all audiences available in section 6.The deliberative element of the research supported previous studies which have indicated a strong correlation between positi

40、ve attitudes towards science and technology,and positive views towards SDVs.This correlation was found to be strongest for men,younger people,those with higher incomes,those with higher education levels,and those living in urban areas.The high exposure audience had higher baseline levels of technolo

41、gical optimism compared to other audiences,suggesting that participants in the deliberative research might have more positive starting views towards SDV technology than the wider public would have.Baseline awareness of SDVs was high among the high exposure audience,and they tended to be cautiously o

42、ptimistic about the use of SDVs.The majority had previously talked with others about SDVs but very few had seen one being trialled or trialled one themselves.Familiarity with SDVs was,however,low for this audience,with only 11%reporting that they knew a fair amount about SDVs,and no one reporting kn

43、owing a great deal.This audience reported being most likely to consider using a private SDV where the responsibility for driving is shared between the human driver and the vehicle;this was due to the perceived importance of retaining some element of human control.10 At the beginning of the research

44、this audience was broadly unsure about the impact that SDVs could have on their local area,and the majority were unsure of whether SDVs would have more advantages or disadvantages(23%felt there were as many advantages as disadvantages and 26%said they were not sure and needed more information).Howev

45、er,those who did take a view tended to take a more positive one(more advantages than disadvantages to SDVs)and very few felt there were more disadvantages.1.3 Views towards SDVs before the vehicle trial In the first workshop the high exposure audience were provided with information about SDVs and di

46、scussed their views towards the technology in terms of key associations,support or opposition,and perceived benefits and drawbacks.This section summarises those initial discussions(with final considered opinions set out below in section 1.8)Based on early information and discussion,participants in t

47、he deliberative workshops across all locations continued to develop their cautiously optimistic expectations and opinions about the potential for SDVs in their local area.Participants initial reactions to introducing SDVs to their local area were primarily positive to neutral,with less than one in 1

48、0 opposed to the concept in principle across all locations.Key early associations with SDVs were around the themes of safety(both the potential for SDVs to be safer but also a need to see more evidence),technology,convenience and cost(e.g.an assumption that SDV technology would be expensive).However

49、,there was a tension between positivity about the idea and ambition of SDVs in principle and concerns about how different aspects would work in practice.There was also a tension between what participants may,in the abstract,consider a practical and sensible solution to some of the issues in their lo

50、cal transport system,and their emotional attachment to current modes of travel.Early expectations and assumptions about SDVs were that they would be fully self-driving(no-user-in-charge),remotely managed,expensive and sustainable.There was also an assumption that SDVs would be used in public transpo

51、rt first before mainstream adoption for private vehicles.Perceived benefits of SDVs early in the research included better access to travel for non-drivers,better rural connectivity,improved road safety,and more efficient journeys.Being environmentally friendly,despite not being inherent to the techn

52、ology itself,was also seen as a benefit that would come with any transition to SDVs.Perceived drawbacks of SDVs early in the research included concerns about diminished road and personal safety,loss of jobs,dehumanisation(e.g.more automation,fewer staff)and the loss of social interaction on public t

53、ransport,but also relating to more general concerns about automation,the possibility of technological error,failure or impaired functionality in some locations(e.g.rural areas due to poor connectivity),being expensive to implement,concerns about data security and privacy,changes to licencing and con

54、cerns about accessibility.11 1.4 Views on potential role of SDVs in local transport system Building on perceived benefits and drawbacks(see section 1.3),the high exposure audience discussed what they saw as the opportunities and risks of introducing SDVs in their local area,in terms of the impact on

55、 other people,the local transport system and wider environment and society in general.While participants were able to identify distinct opportunities and risks of SDVs,in many cases these perceived opportunities and risks crossed over and were either in tension with one another or were dependent on

56、how the technology would be deployed,i.e.how widespread SDVs would be,how they would be used,and/or how they are run;these include in the areas of employment,safety,congestion,social impact,cost and accessibility.Participants broadly saw opportunities resulting from the introduction of SDVs in terms

57、 of boosting the local economy and employment,improvements for health and wellbeing and improving local transport networks and liveability.Despite being broadly optimistic about the opportunities presented by SDVs,there were several perceived risks that would need to be addressed to ensure SDVs were

58、 deployed in an acceptable way.These included reduced safety,high cost of implementation,unequal access to the technology,increased congestion especially under a private-user model and negative impacts on local employment.Participants in towns and rural areas were optimistic about the use of SDVs as

59、 a potential solution to some of the current gaps and pain points in their local transport system,feeling that SDVs could supplement existing transport options without entirely replacing or overhauling it.In urban areas,where the gaps in existing transport provision were smaller,participants did not

60、 feel that SDVs could offer much beyond what could be achieved with improvements or additions to what is already available(e.g.by extending the timetable for an existing bus service later into the night).Despite seeing potential for SDVs in theory,those in the town and rural areas felt that SDVs wou

61、ld be better suited to urban areas in practice;meanwhile,urban participants felt that SDVs would be better suited to rural areas and towns.This tension indicates the difficulty participants had in imagining the use of SDVs in practice within their local area and the need for concrete examples demons

62、trating how SDVs would manage different environments including participants own.This could range from navigating busy city centres to dealing with windy rural roads.Across all locations,participants expectations for SDV deployment in their local area included a gradual rollout,prioritisation of shar

63、ed and public transport applications of SDVs,public ownership and operation to ensure affordability at the point of use,being able to book SDV services online,a variety of vehicle shapes and sizes being offered to suit specific user needs,and reassurance on the safety and security of vehicles and us

64、ers.There were several factors that participants felt would need to be addressed prior to implementation of SDVs to ensure that their deployment would be designed and implemented in a way that addressed peoples requirements and concerns.These included environmental and social planning such as infras

65、tructure improvements,strong regulation from an early stage(proactive rather than reactive),new legislation regarding liability and safety for both users and non-users,and communication and education to build trust and subsequently encourage up-take of the technology.12 1.5 Impact of information pro

66、vision on views towards SDVs Throughout the deliberative research,a key objective was to understand how information provision impacted views of SDVs,including what had the most impact.Information provision vastly improved participants understanding of the capability and implications of SDV technolog

67、y,making it feel more tangible and real world ready.Information provided in the research broadly met participants expectations by covering what they wanted to know(such as on safety,functionality),as well as building and expanding in new areas that they had not yet fully considered(including legal d

68、efinitions,liability,levels of autonomy,retrofitting SDV technology into existing vehicles).In particular,the information developed participants expectations of SDVs,broadening their views on what they could do and how they could be used to improve road safety and increase connectivity,particularly

69、in rural areas.The most impactful aspect of the information provision was finding out about the high percentage of collisions which have human errors as a contributory factor from the introductory expert video on safety,as this helped participants to understand the scope for potential improvements i

70、n road safety using SDVs.It was also the most succinct way of communicating where exactly SDVs could improve upon human drivers in terms of safety,i.e.reducing collisions and fatalities.The potential for SDVs to improve road safety was broadly accepted as a given for the remainder of the research.Ot

71、her impactful aspects of the information provision included finding out about the sophistication of SDV hazard recognition technology,as this gave a clear explanation of how the technology works and how it exceeds human capabilities to perceive obstacles;mentions of trials,regulations,standards,and

72、certifications which were found to be reassuring;highly engaging visual evidence and statistics;and the concept of summoning,which seemingly opened up what participants imagined SDVs could do and the possibilities for them to change how we travel.While the information provided reassurance at a hypot

73、hetical level,it also prompted a shift to a greater depth of engagement from participants on the finer practicalities of introducing SDVs.This caused some doubts over how easily SDVs could be deployed and the risk of teething issues in the early stages of their use.Practical concerns were counterbal

74、anced to some extent by the concrete examples of use cases from Ocado,Stagecoach and Waymo,which were very persuasive and made SDVs feel more tangible,and technology that participants could more readily imagine being introduced in the near rather than distant future.In addition to the specific infor

75、mation presented,participants found the expert videos particularly reassuring as they communicated that experts in their respective fields were giving their time to this topic and considering the scenarios that might arise if SDVs were introduced.The high calibre of experts included in the research

76、were considered credible,and therefore served to strengthen trust in the information provided.On balance,the shift to focusing on the practicalities of SDV use,as prompted by the information provision,helped to bring participants priorities,needs and expectations for deployment into sharper focus.13

77、 1.6 Impact of trial experience on views towards SDVs Beyond information provision,another key objective of the research was to understand how experiencing SDV technology first-hand impacted views of SDVs,including what had the most impact and any differences in stated versus actual emotional respon

78、ses to trialling the technology.Seeing and experiencing SDVs first-hand was a broadly positive experience that worked to move people towards a greater understanding of the potential application of SDV technology in their local area.Seeing the technology in action demonstrates,at a basic level,that s

79、elf-driving technology exists and works.People accept that it is safe within the limitations of the trial environment(safety operator(s)present,defined routes used),and the experience starts to prompt people to imagine how SDVs could be used in their local area once the technology moves out of a tri

80、al phase(at which point safety is assumed).However,impressions of SDVs can be underwhelming if the journey does not go smoothly,including numerous and/or unexpected emergency stops and software glitches.For a minority of more sceptical participants,the presence of safety operators served as evidence

81、 that the technology was still quite far from being ready for widespread use and they found it quite difficult to look beyond this point.Less streamlined experiences could serve to entrench more negative views.Those in the high exposure audience reported high levels of comfort using and sharing the

82、road with a variety of different applications of SDV technology(e.g.delivery vehicles,public transport,ride sharing,private vehicles),both before and after taking part in their trial experiences.By contrast,the medium exposure audience in the research demonstrated a statistically significant increas

83、e in their overall comfort using and sharing the road with a variety of different SDVs as a result of taking part in the trial.This indicates that first-hand experiences have a positive impact on comfort with SDVs when prior exposure to the technology is limited.Overall,general excitement about usin

84、g SDVs was reinforced by taking part in the trial.However,this remained in tension with some participants pre-existing views on the practical constraints of using the technology,which were not challenged by their experience of the trial.After the trial,some participants in the high exposure audience

85、 still found it hard to imagine how SDVs would interact with human-driven vehicles during a transition phase,and what additional benefits they would bring over and above what could be provided by existing transport options when applied in their local area.The experience of trialling SDVs particularl

86、y increased comfort levels(in relation to using or sharing the road with SDVs)for women in the high exposure audience who,prior to trialling each vehicle,started with a significantly lower level of average comfort than men for both measures.However,in each case womens comfort levels significantly ro

87、se such that post-trial average reported comfort levels across both measures were similar for men and women(within the margin of error).14 1.7 Future scenario exploration for SDV deployment In the final workshop,the high exposure audience took part in a role-playing scenario exploration game.This ap

88、proach prompted participants to consider new perspectives and make tangible decisions about SDVs,in turn allowing the research to stress test the views that participants had expressed in earlier discussions and delve into more depth.The scenario exploration game was a means to challenge the views th

89、at participants had articulated towards SDVs by asking them to put these views into practice;yet ultimately,the game revealed that participants rarely held contradictory views or views that were subsequently changed in the light of considering a future self-driving eco-system.Instead,the scenario ex

90、ploration game resulted in participants taking the principles and ideas they had already started forming in the discussions and further developing these.The role-playing nature of the game gave participants the opportunity to project their own views onto their allocated roles during the game play-op

91、ening up the possibility of potentially less outwardly enthusiastic or positive views coming into play(i.e.if they previously felt-consciously or subconsciously-that they had to be positive about this new technology).When exploring future scenarios for SDVs,participants overwhelmingly chose to take

92、interventions that would promote rather than restrict their use in their local area,further evidencing a general acceptance and positivity towards future use of the technology.Furthermore,consistent with what participants said earlier in the research,scenarios where SDVs are predominantly shared use

93、 and/or public transport continued to be favoured over SDVs primarily being used as private vehicles.These views were consistent across all locations.When presented with potential negative consequences of chosen interventions in the game,as well as challenges likely to have a negative impact on SDVs

94、,participants nonetheless continued to want to promote SDVs and chose subsequent actions to overcome and rectify these developments in the game.Specifically,the most popular interventions chosen by participants relate to physical environmental planning to develop SDV infrastructure in urban and rura

95、l areas and using fiscal measures to further promote and support the use of SDVs particularly in rural public transport.1.8 Informed citizen view of SDVs and their use in future local transport systems Looking at participants informed citizen view by the end of the research gives insight into the im

96、pact of taking part on views towards SDVs,priorities for local deployment,and priorities for communicating with the wider public on the topic.Building on the baseline data(see section 1.2),the post-research data demonstrates this impact for specific measures.Participants in the high exposure audienc

97、e who felt they did not know enough about SDVs at the start of the research had formed their own opinions about SDVs by the end,and these opinions tended to be positive.Meanwhile,those who had already taken a view on SDVs at the outset tended to retain their views by the end of the research,regardle

98、ss of whether these views were positive or negative.15 There was a significant increase in familiarity with SDVs among the high exposure audience,with more than two thirds saying they knew a fair amount by the end of the research(68%,up from 11%pre).However,only a small proportion reported knowing a

99、 great deal(14%,up from 0%pre);participants reported several practical questions that they felt could not be answered until SDVs were closer to deployment(e.g.cost,accessibility,how they would interact with human-driven vehicles).After taking part in the research participants felt they had a better

100、understanding of the rules for using SDVs and were more likely to accurately play back this understanding.However,there were still areas of potential confusion such as what level of autonomy is currently legal on UK roads.Reported comfort levels both for using and sharing the road with SDVs increase

101、d over the course of the research,particularly for the high exposure audience who benefited from additional information provision and time for reflection on the trial experience during the workshop discussions.The trial experience proved more effective than information provision alone in shifting re

102、ported levels of comfort with using and sharing SDVs in the high exposure audience.Participants in the high exposure audience continued to report being most likely to consider using a private SDV with shared responsibility for driving,however the biggest increase in consideration was for using SDVs

103、for public transport.This suggests that the experience of the research(information and trial experience)has demonstrated the potential for SDVs to be deployed effectively in public transport,making public transport more appealing,but reservations remain about how the technology will work in practice

104、.The research prompted the high exposure audience to feel more certain of the potential benefits of SDVs in their local area,with the largest increases among women and older people aged 65+.There was also an increase in positivity among the low exposure audience following the trial.The research resu

105、lted in less uncertainty and more positivity on the advantages and disadvantages of SDVs among the high exposure audience.This was driven primarily by a decline in those saying they were not sure or needed more information.1.9 Conclusions In answer to the key question of how best to communicate and

106、engage with the public and communities about SDV technology the research concluded that the following are key themes and messages to address:Safety:Both the potential for improved road safety alongside reassurance of the safety of SDVs and users.Reliability and security:A key message to communicate

107、balancing the application of advanced AI technology with human backup.Accessibility:It is important for users with additional needs and for the general public to see that SDVs would be fully accessible and would promote accessibility and mobility for all.The benefits of shared and public transport a

108、pplications:Highlighting the potential for improved public transport provision as well as the environmental benefits of fewer private car journeys.Costs:Communicating that SDVs are cheaper or at least the same as existing provision would be a powerful message if this were the case(e.g.in public tran

109、sport).16 Ease of use and user comfort:This included everything from hailing or summoning systems to on-board connectivity in vehicles and the benefits of not being responsible for inconvenient journeys or driving tasks such as parking.Design and aesthetics:There was an expectation that SDVs will no

110、t be limited in their design by current conventions,which could be impactful and also practical(e.g.wheelchair stowage).Environmental impact:The message that SDVs are part of a wider move to sustainable transport.Evidence and statistics:To provide concrete reassurance and proof around SDV technology

111、 and deployment.There is a key role for national government in leading communication across fundamental messaging,with local government,service providers,independent safety experts and manufacturers also key stakeholders in communications.In answer to the key question of how to deploy SDV technology

112、 in local areas in a way which is acceptable to people living and travelling in those areas,the research concluded that the following should be key features and considerations:Safety(demonstrated via extensive testing,including for different audiences with different needs(e.g.disabled users).A gradu

113、al rollout(to allow the general public to get used to the technology,including choice of whether they wish to use it).Public and shared applications of SDVs(these applications were seen as the way of delivering the most benefit to those who need it,as well as offering user choice).Integration with e

114、xisting transport systems(both to enable normalisation of the technology but also to maximise the benefits to the local system and provide choice).Affordability(there was a strong theme around the need for fair deployment of the technology ensuring it was accessible to all,regardless of wealth(e.g.t

115、he same cost or cheaper than existing public transport provision).Accessibility(both in terms of ensuring that vehicles and services are fully accessible but also maximising the potential for SDVs to make transport more accessible for people with disabilities and LTHCs).Education and engagement(to b

116、uild public trust and understanding of the technology,including addressing perceived risks).Consultation with local communities(public engagement to ensure that local deployment meets actual needs of all parts of the community).Sustainability(a key expectation of SDV deployment was that they would b

117、e greener than current vehicles/systems).It was felt that government should play an active role in addressing each of these,primarily through setting requirements and providing funding.17 2.1 Introduction to this research The UK is reaching a transition point in the emergence of self-driving vehicle

118、s(SDVs)with early uses approaching commercialisation.These new technologies have the potential to deliver a wide range of economic and societal benefits and it is governments role to understand how,if at all,these could be realised while also ensuring the safety and security of self-driving technolo

119、gy.The Centre for Connected and Autonomous Vehicles(CCAV)has three aims:ensuring safety and security of self-driving technology;securing the industrial and economic benefits of self-driving technology and delivering the societal benefits of self-driving technology.Public understanding and acceptabil

120、ity of the technology as well as its governance will be vital for meeting these goals,including enabling the development and implementation of the required policies.Equally,it is necessary to understand end users transport needs to ensure SDVs are developed and deployed in ways that retain elements

121、that are working well,as well as addressing any currently unmet needs.Findings from previous research,including the Future of Transport deliberative research carried out by Thinks Insight&Strategy on behalf of the Department for Transport(DfT)in 2021,have highlighted that while there is overall exci

122、tement among the public about the introduction of SDVs,more needs to be done before the technology and services are fully understood,considered safe enough to use,and are trusted by members of the public.In 2022,DfT commissioned Thinks Insight&Strategy,in partnership with University College London(U

123、CL)and Aurrigo,to conduct a large-scale public engagement research programme with events held in areas of the country where little or no engagement had occurred to date.The aim of this research was to provide an opportunity to increase exposure to and experience of SDVs among the public,in turn enab

124、ling DfT to bring together two key elements of CCAVs engagement priorities:understanding public perceptions towards,and requirements for,SDV technologies;and increasing public awareness and understanding of aspects of the technology.2.Background and objectives 18 2.2 Research objectives The aims and

125、 objectives of the research programme were as follows:To understand how to communicate safety information about SDVs effectively.Including to understand the types of information and best channels for educating the public about SDV technologies to have the greatest level of impact,focusing on:The div

126、ersity of technology options,including automated features such as Automated Lane Keeping Systems(ALKS).Their responsibility when in and around SDV technologies,and how these responsibilities differ from human-driven vehicles.The safe behaviours expected when engaging in and around SDVs for a range o

127、f different end users(e.g.demographic groups,transport mode users).To understand how different types of exposure to SDVs can influence awareness and understanding:Enable the public to develop accurate mental models of the technologies.Improve understanding and awareness of SDV technologies by increa

128、sing exposure to and experience of SDVs,both through direct exposure and using innovative techniques to reach a wider audience.Understand what sorts of awareness are required(e.g.awareness of vehicles;awareness of vehicles capabilities;awareness of vehicles limits etc.)Evaluate the effectiveness of

129、the programme to understand the extent to which exposure to the technology can impact overall knowledge,awareness and understanding of SDV technologies.To understand what role citizens see for SDVs in a future transport system:Develop an accurate and in-depth understanding of both perceptions of sel

130、f-driving technologies and what the public want from this technology.Develop evidence to inform future behavioural change interventions that will enable the successful introduction and acceptance of SDVs.Understand the needs and concerns of the public in relation to the deployment of SDVs,particular

131、ly in rural areas,as well as understand the potential for SDVs to address currently unmet transport needs.19 3.1 Overview To address the research objectives,the research approach was designed around a series of 4-day in-person SDV trials with a focus on using deliberative and quantitative methodolog

132、ies to explore views towards SDVs and the impact of different levels of exposure to the technology.Electroencephalography(EEG)analysis was also used to understand physiological responses to the technology and how,if at all,this differed from self-reported sentiment.The research was conducted in thre

133、e locations in England:Alnwick,Northumberland,Manchester,and Taunton,Somerset.These locations ensured representation from places where there had been minimal exposure to SDV trials to date,as well as including a mix of rural(Alnwick),urban(Manchester)and town(Taunton)locations to ensure the research

134、 could explore a range of views and transport needs.In each location,a 4-day SDV trial was undertaken consisting of two public engagement days(open to members of the public)and two days that were for research participants only.This enabled three levels of exposure to SDVs to be explored:High exposur

135、e audience:Participants recruited to take part in a 3-week programme of deliberative engagement during which they learnt about and discussed SDVs and took part in the SDV trial.These participants trialled two SDVs(a 6-passenger shuttle and a 2-passenger pod),as well as interacting with a static self

136、-driving delivery pod display.Medium exposure audience:Members of the public who took part in the SDV trial on the public engagement days but did not participate in the full programme of deliberative engagement.This includes a mix of people who heard about the trial prior to attending or were walkin

137、g past on the day.Passengers rode in the shuttle or pod,or both;they also had the opportunity to interact with the delivery pod.Low exposure audience:Residents living near the trial location who did not take part in the deliberative engagement or take a ride in an SDV as part of the public engagemen

138、t days.This audience(as well as the other audiences)may have been exposed to SDVs by seeing the vehicles operating on local streets during set up or the trial itself,or by hearing about the trials taking place from sources other than the research itself(e.g.word of mouth,local community pages online

139、,local media coverage on TV/radio/online).3.Methodology 20 Figure 2 shows an overview of the approach used for each exposure audience;this approach was repeated in each of the three research locations.Additionally,a national control survey was used to establish a baseline of public attitudes towards

140、 SDVs outside of the selected research locations(not depicted in Figure 2;more detail on the approach to the national control survey can be found in 3.3 Quantitative research).Figure 2 Overview of research methodology(repeated in each location)When combined,the breadth and range of methodologies use

141、d in this research ensured that it could address the research objectives,providing in-depth insights into the views and requirements of participants in relation to SDVs as well as assessing the impact of the different types of exposure on participants perceptions and understanding of these technolog

142、ies.3.2 Deliberative research Deliberative research is an established method of generating in-depth insight to inform decision-making.It is a technique that helps to enable productive conversations on complicated or uncertain subjects.In deliberative approaches,participants learn about a topic that

143、they might know little about or may not typically think about in much depth in their day-to-day lives.Participants engage with information,evidence,and expert opinion(including written descriptions,images,and videos)as well as reflecting on their current habits.This enables them to develop informed

144、views on complex topics that cannot be suitably covered by traditional research approaches alone(such as focus groups or surveys).Deliberative approaches seek to understand the publics values and explore how they make difficult trade-offs,after weighing up different evidence and information.It is al

145、so an opportunity to see why logical solutions might be rejected.21 Approach For this research,the deliberative approach primarily consisted of in-person workshops in each of the three research locations to understand the views of the high exposure audience.The research used a place-based approach t

146、o understand participants views within the context of their local transport systems,with fieldwork taking place across five months in 2022:Alnwick,Northumberland(rural):11th-26th June 2022 Manchester(urban):16th-31st July 2022 Taunton,Somerset(town):17th September-2nd October 2022 In each location,t

147、he deliberative sample was split into a core audience and additional audiences.The former represented the general population while the latter represented specific sub-segments of the general population whose views were particularly important for DfT to understand(more below under Sample).Both the co

148、re and additional audience strands followed a similar process,with participants in each location taking part in three full-day(core audience)or half-day(additional audiences)deliberative workshops over three consecutive weeks(nine full-day core audience workshops and nine half-day additional audienc

149、e workshops in total).Across the full deliberative programme,the approach taken with the additional audiences was adapted to reflect the smaller number of participants and the shorter length of workshops.Participants engaged in a range of live activities such as responding to videos and other stimul

150、us material,taking part in discussions with other participants,and completing creative exercises such as designing information posters or their own SDV.This allowed them to gradually build knowledge of the subject area and provide them with time to reflect and absorb information.In the third researc

151、h location(Taunton),the initial workshop for the core audience was moved online due to external events(the death of HM Queen Elizabeth II);a combination of an online community and virtual discussion groups conducted on Zoom were used instead.A rapid literature review was undertaken prior to designin

152、g the deliberative materials to ensure these were informed by the broader transport literature.A Specialist Group was also established to provide expert views,help shape the information provided to participants and ensure that the discussions were grounded in existing industry and academic knowledge

153、.Structure The workshops consisted of a variety of breakout discussions,Q&As and creative sessions,accompanied by plenary presentations of information across workshops 1 and 2,the SDV trial experience during workshop 2,and culminating with a day-long role-playing game in the final workshop 3.22 Figu

154、re 3 Overview of approach to the deliberative research(repeated in each location)Workshop 1:The research initially explored participants experiences and views of their current local transport system including any issues they currently face.SDVs were then introduced through three expert videos shown

155、in plenary before breakout group discussions to discuss participants initial perceptions and expectations of SDVs,as well as what they saw as the potential risks and opportunities of their deployment and use.These discussions were then elaborated on using three pairs of debate-style expert videos to

156、 provide participants with further information and different perspectives regarding SDVs.Breakout discussions sought to understand how,if at all,this information impacted participants views on the potential risks and opportunities of SDVs as well as what,if any,further questions this information pro

157、mpted.Finally,participants discussed what priorities they had for SDV deployment in their local area;this was grounded in initial discussions of existing unmet local transport needs and the extent to which SDVs could help to address these,if at all.Workshop 2:Participants took part in the shuttle an

158、d pod SDV trials and interacted with the static self-driving delivery pod display.Participants shared their views on the vehicles before boarding as well as after riding,both in qualitative discussions and quantitative pre-and post-ride surveys(for more detail see 3.3 Quantitative research:Approach

159、and sample).Some participants in the core audience wore EEG headsets to track their physiological responses during the trial.Alongside elements of the trial,several breakout discussions took place.Participants were shown videos about and discussed additional applications of SDVs beyond those demonst

160、rated in the trial.Participants also discussed their views of sharing the road with SDVs,and rules and regulations regarding the use of SDVs on UK roads.A range of creative tasks were used to further explore participants views,including developing an advertising or information campaign about SDVs an

161、d designing their own SDV.These tasks aimed to highlight the types of information that were most memorable or important to participants,as well as their requirements for SDV design based on what they believed to be the important benefits or drawbacks of the technology.23 Workshop 3:The final worksho

162、p gave participants the chance to apply the knowledge and experiences they had gathered during the deliberative process in the form of a role-playing scenario exploration game.In the game,participants were presented with a future scenario regarding the use of SDVs,as well as several social or econom

163、ic trends that might impact future transport and how people interact with it.Participants were given roles to adopt as they debated the future deployment of SDVs,choosing from a series of actions that they wanted to take to either promote or restrict the future use of SDVs in their local area.A full

164、 description of the scenario exploration game is included in 14.4 Research design:Your self-driving world scenario exploration game.Sample In each location,64 participants were recruited as part of the core audience(192 participants recruited in total across all locations).These participants were re

165、cruited to provide an inclusive sample reflective of English drivers and transport users,including:A spread of demographics,including gender,age,ethnicity,disability,mobility impairments and socio-economic groups.A range of attitudes and behaviours in relation to travel,modal use and technology.The

166、additional audience strand included groups traditionally under-represented in research,or where previous research has identified that they may have varying requirements.This ensured that the research could fully understand the specific or varying needs of these transport users.Two groups were includ

167、ed in the additional audience strand in each of the three locations(six additional audiences in total),with 12 participants recruited per group(72 participants recruited in total across all locations).The additional audiences were:Alnwick(rural):Young people aged 12-17 years old,and people who are d

168、igitally disengaged(i.e.those who prefer to use traditional methods over technology when able to).Manchester(urban):Low socio-economic grade(DE),and those of ethnic minority background.Taunton(town):Older people aged 65+,and those living with LTHCs or disabilities that impact their mobility.In total

169、,264 participants were recruited to the high exposure strand of this research across both the core and additional audiences,with 241 completing the full research programme.Full details of the achieved core and additional audience samples are set out in 14.2 Sample breakdown.3.3 Quantitative research

170、 Quantitative surveys are structured methods conducted with larger samples of participants.In this research,they were used to supplement the deliberative engagement and provide statistical robustness,comparative data,and detailed sub-sample analysis.Quantitative surveys allow for analysis to identif

171、y statistical significance in results,for example between different demographic groups or geographical locations.However,they have relatively limited provision for education and information around a subject,as well as 24 limited ability to explore the views underpinning respondents answers(the quest

172、ion of why they hold a particular view),compared with qualitative methods such as deliberative.Approach and sample A key focus for the quantitative surveys was to understand and compare the impact of different levels of exposure to SDVs on awareness and understanding of them.To achieve this,five qua

173、ntitative approaches were used:Pre-and post-trial local polling:This approach was used to capture the views of the low exposure audience.250 residents living near the SDV trial in each of the three locations(750 in total)took part in a telephone survey before and after the trial took place to unders

174、tand if their views had changed after a low level of exposure to(but not taking part in)the trial.Pre-and post-ride surveys:This approach was used to capture the views of the medium and high exposure audiences.Those taking part in the SDV trial during the public engagement days or as part of the del

175、iberative research were asked to complete a pre-and post-ride survey for each journey completed.Surveys were self-completed by respondents through a QR code for the online version or on paper if preferred.While there was no target number of respondents on the public engagement day as this was open t

176、o anyone wanting to take part,a total of 450 people completed a pre-ride survey and 352 completed a post-ride survey across all three locations to comprise the medium exposure audience.All in the high exposure audience were asked to take part(241 participants across all three locations).Pre-and post

177、-deliberative research surveys:This approach was used to capture the views of the high exposure audience.These surveys were completed before and after taking part in the deliberative engagement(i.e.before attending workshop 1 and at the end of workshop 3)by all participants who completed the researc

178、h except those aged under 18(230 participants across all three locations).Six-month post-research follow up survey:This was used to understand whether taking part in the deliberative research had a sustained impact on the views of the high exposure audience.This survey was hosted online,with all par

179、ticipants aged 18+who took part being sent a link approximately six months after the deliberative research took place(link sent to 230 participants across all three locations with responses received from 140 participants;see 14.3 Technical appendix,note 1).National control survey:Used to establish a

180、 baseline of public attitudes towards SDVs against which other audiences in the research could be compared.The national control sample consisted of 4,027 respondents(representative of the UK by age,gender,region and socio-economic group)who took part in an online omnibus survey.Full details of the a

181、chieved quantitative samples across all audiences and quantitative approaches are set out in 14.2 Sample breakdown.Quantitative data in this report is predominately grouped by fieldwork location or respondents level of exposure.Surveys used in this research were designed to allow for comparison betw

182、een groups,including with the national control survey.25 3.4 SDV trials The project ran a series of in-person SDV trials in partnership with Aurrigo,an SDV manufacturer.Priorities when choosing the sites and routes for each of the trial locations were:To demonstrate realistic potential use cases of

183、SDVs,to aid the public in imagining how the technology could be deployed in their local area.To maximise public exposure to SDV technology while ensuring the safety of all road users,both those taking part in the research and those interacting with the vehicles more broadly.Safety cases were produce

184、d by Aurrigo prior to each trial;these were reviewed by Aurrigos insurance provider and a third party independent reviewer in line with DfTs code of practice for trialling SDVs.Three Aurrigo vehicles were used for the trials:the AUTO-SHUTTLE(six-passenger capacity),AUTO-POD(two-passenger capacity),a

185、nd the AUTO-DELIVER(static display only-not operational for the trial).More detail about the trial vehicles and routes used can be found in 14.4 Research design:SDV trials.Figure 4 Aurrigo vehicles used for the SDV trials 3.5 EEG analysis Electroencephalography(EEG)is an electrophysical process used

186、 to record electrical activity from the brain.The analysis of these electric signals can then be used to study cognitive process and provides real-time insights into how people experience an environment.In this study,EEG was used to provide real-time insights into how participants experienced a jour

187、ney on an SDV including how these experiences changed or are influenced by events throughout a journey.This method provided physiological responses in contrast to the other approaches used in the research which relied on self-reported attitudes,feelings and experiences which can be prone to biases.F

188、or this research six emotional states(referred to as Performance Metrics)were measured:Engagement,Excitement,Focus,Interest,Stress and Relaxation.EEG data was collected for participants in the core strand of the deliberative research(high exposure audience)only.EEG data during the SDV trials was ana

189、lysed alongside baseline EEG readings(taken prior to boarding),video footage from inside and outside the trial vehicles,as well as 26 participants self-completed pre-and post-ride surveys.The use of multiple data sources enabled the research to triangulate participants reported responses with object

190、ive observed data,giving a more holistic understanding of participants experiences.More detail on the methodology,findings and implications of the EEG strand can be found in the supplementary report:The Great Self-Driving Exploration:EEG strand.27 4.1 Report structure The report is structured as fol

191、lows:Section 5 explores the high exposure audiences views of their local transport landscape,including current travel habits and modal choices,what people want and need from their local transport system,and identifies current challenges and gaps.Section 6 examines broader attitudes to new technology

192、 and views of SDVs at the outset of the research,including the extent to which people were aware of SDVs,what kind of knowledge and attitudes people had about SDVs,their openness to the use of SDVs in the future,and their comfort with SDVs.Section 7 further explores the high exposure audiences initi

193、al reactions,questions,and assumptions around the use of SDVs in their local transport system.This section identifies the perceived benefits and opportunities as well as the drawbacks and risks of SDVs.It also includes a closer look at participants views and priorities on a potential rollout of SDVs

194、 within their local transport system including local applications and use cases,and considerations for local deployment.Section 8 examines the impact of information provision on the high exposure audiences views towards SDVs.Specifically,this section looks at what participants want to know about SDV

195、s,the impact of information on participants views,and key questions and gaps in current information provision.Section 9 explores the impact of the trial experience on participants views towards SDVs,including a summary of how different elements of the trial experience impacted self-reported views,an

196、d reported versus actual reactions(EEG data)to the trial experience.This section focuses on the views of high and medium exposure audiences.Section 10 looks at the future scenario game exploration for SDV deployment.Specifically,how role play impacted the high exposure audiences views towards the de

197、ployment of SDVs and potential local use cases.Section 11 examines how taking part in the research has impacted views towards SDVs,building on the baseline data established in section 6 and with a focus on the high and low exposure audiences.It also explores participants final informed conclusions r

198、esulting from the deliberative process(high exposure audience)including their priorities for SDV deployment,vehicle design and communicating with the wider public.4.About this report 28 Section 12 is the conclusions section which draws together the key insights from all audiences and strands of the

199、research along with implications for communication and the local acceptability of deployment of SDVs in the future,framed in terms of the COM-B model.Section 13 is divided into three sections for each of the locations to discuss key differences and location-specific findings.4.2 How to read this rep

200、ort Audience definitions Throughout the report,we indicate findings from the qualitative strands by referring to participants and from the survey by referring to respondents.Whenever we refer to deliberative research participants or the high exposure audience,this includes participants from both the

201、 core and additional audience strands.The reason for this combination is because the base size of the additional audience groups is too small(two groups of 12 for each location)to be considered statistically significant alone.Quotes Verbatim quotes are taken from live sessions and excerpts from the

202、online community with the high exposure audience.Quote attributions include the audience strand(core or additional audience)and the participants location.Quotes are participants own views and are not always factually correct.Charted data In this report,we have colour coded charts according to audien

203、ce and whether data was collected before(pre)or after(post)a research activity.Statistically significant differences are noted using superscript lettering in the charts;the superscript letter next to a score or percentage denotes the initial of the sample that it is statistically more significant th

204、an.For example,a score which is significantly greater than the corresponding score from the low exposure audience will be marked with a superscript L.Where multiple waves of data are shown for the same audience over time a superscript pre indicates where the post-read data is significantly greater t

205、han the pre-read data and vice versa.Cross-references Cross-references are included throughout this report where additional information can be found elsewhere in the document.Cross-references are underlined and hyperlinked to the relevant place in the document for ease of navigation.29 4.3 Behaviour

206、al frameworks used in the report To help understand what role citizens see for SDVs in a future transport system,this research has drawn upon the Capability Opportunity Motivation Behaviour model(COM-B model),a key behavioural change theory(Figure 5).According to The Behaviour Change Wheel:A Guide t

207、o Designing Interventions(Susan Michie,Lou Atkins&Robert West,2014,p.59-60),the COM-B model dictates that for any behaviour to occur:1.There must be capability;this can be either physical(e.g.physical skills,strength or stamina)or psychological(having the cognitive skills,strength or stamina,as well

208、 as knowledge)to perform the behaviour.2.There must be opportunity;this can be physical(e.g.physically accessible)or social(including cultural norms,interpersonal influences and social cues).3.There must be sufficient motivation;this can be reflective(involving self-conscious planning and beliefs ab

209、out what is good or bad),or automatic(processes involving wants and needs,desire,impulses and reflex responses).Figure 5 COM-B behaviour change model Source:The Behaviour Change Wheel:A Guide to Designing Interventions(Susan Michie,Lou Atkins&Robert West,2014,p.62)The COM-B model provides us with a

210、framework to understand and identify the drivers and/or barriers that need to be addressed and therefore explore what can be done to create meaningful behavioural change.We refer to COM-B throughout the report,using it as a model to focus on how to best influence behaviour,now and in the future,by f

211、illing in the gaps in peoples capability,opportunity,and motivation.30 At the start of the first workshop,the high exposure audience discussed how they currently travel in their local area and their views towards their local transport network.These discussions provided the context for later conversa

212、tions,looking to understand how SDVs could help to address existing transport challenges,and risks that need to be considered as part of their introduction in local areas.5.1 Current transport behaviours and perceptions Driving a private vehicle such as a car is the preferred way to travel in the UK

213、 for those able to do so(Department for Transport,2020).Consistent with this,driving a car,van or lorry was the mode of transport selected by the highest number of participants in the high exposure audience across all journey types asked in this research-that is,for shopping(58%),leisure(53%),commut

214、ing(52%)and business travel(55%)(see 14.3 Technical appendix,note 2).Findings across the wider transport literature indicate several practical factors that are valued when travelling by car,including speed,comfort,personal safety,reliability,and its door-to-door nature.There is a preference for driv

215、ing when travelling to multiple stops on a single trip or when travelling with children,equipment,or luggage(which is difficult to load on and off public transport)due to the perceived ease(Department for Transport,2020).This is in line with the views expressed by the high exposure audience in this

216、research.However,more so than just being considered the most practical option,people also have strong emotional ties to their cars and this can impact their propensity to travel in this way.This is consistent with findings from across the wider transport literature where the most valued emotional as

217、pects of travelling by car include independence,flexibility,and control in choosing how and when to travel(Department for Transport,2020).Broadly speaking,participants found public transport options less appealing than driving.However,views were strongly influenced by both the level of public transp

218、ort provision in the local area as well as the specific characteristics of local roads.This resulted in vastly different views of current local transport networks depending on whether participants lived in a rural,town or urban area.5.Local transport landscape 31 Rural Car ownership was considered a

219、 necessity for all journey types-from routine,local trips through to longer journeys in the wider area.This was because destinations in these areas tend to be further away from each other and public transport provision is typically limited.Participants,especially those without a car,stated that ther

220、e were limited reliable alternatives to driving,such as public transport or safe walking or cycling routes,resulting in them often having to rely on lifts from relatives or friends.Walking and cycling were not seen as safe options due to poor infrastructure,such as lack of pavements and narrow count

221、ry lanes.This was felt to be a particular issue at night,as country roads are poorly lit.While both walking and cycling for leisure are enjoyed,they are rarely seen as viable alternatives to driving.This is supported in the quantitative data.Driving a car,van or lorry was not only the most commonly

222、used mode of transport across all journey types for rural participants in the high exposure audience,but was also significantly more likely to be used by those in the rural location than those in the town or urban areas(67%of rural participants compared to an average of 57%across all locations).Qual

223、itatively,a minority of rural participants did report using public transport options-including bus services for local journeys into the nearby village(s)or train for travel into nearby cities(primarily to avoid having to find and pay for parking).Public transport was primarily used by non-drivers be

224、cause they had limited alternatives,but it was broadly not considered a time efficient way to travel and was perceived as difficult to rely on.Walking was also occasionally used as an alternative to driving,but was only really feasible for short journeys in villages.Taxis were relied on heavily by s

225、chool children where they were unable to access school bus services,making taxis particularly difficult to access for the broader population at school pick up and drop off times,as well as when trains arrive from nearby cities.Rural transport systems were rated well in terms of safety and pollution.

226、However,quantitatively,when asked about improvements to the local transport system,close to two thirds(63%)of rural participants wanted better public transport to be prioritised.Participants felt that there were major gaps and issues in the current public transport provision that needed to be addres

227、sed not only to help non-drivers travel more easily,but also to make public transport a more attractive proposition as an alternative to driving.These gaps and issues included:Indirect and poorly linked services,resulting in vastly prolonged travel times even across short distances.This is seen to m

228、ake public transport a particularly untenable option for commuting.Services running at inconvenient times during weekdays and not running at all in evenings,at night,or on weekends.This makes travel more difficult for shift work and leisure,limits options for return journeys if plans change,and is s

229、een to increase the risk of people drink driving.Limited area of coverage of public transport services often means that bus stops,train stations or park and ride services are far away from home,requiring users to travel by car to access public transport.This often undermined the argument to travel b

230、y public transport at all.High travel costs,especially when seen to be paying to travel in a vastly less convenient or reliable way than driving.32 High reliance on a small fleet of taxis to make up for poor public transport provision places strain on taxi services,making them difficult to secure wi

231、thout a pre-arranged booking and driving up costs.As a result,taxis are considered inaccessible both in terms of affordability and access,preventing them from being considered a reliable or consistent alternative to driving.“Without a car its not very easy.Other than the slight congestion you get at

232、 peak tourist times,its not an issue compared to other places in the country.”(Deliberative participant,core audience,rural)“Basically,I walk if its local,and drive elsewhere because public transport is lacking.The car gives me more flexibility.”(Deliberative participant,digitally disengaged,rural)“

233、Its easy because I have a car and I can afford to run it,but anyone without access to this would find it very difficult.”(Deliberative participant,core audience,rural)“Getting to Newcastle is really tricky because the service ends so early,you cant go to watch a late film or a play,you have to stay

234、overnight for that.”(Deliberative participant,core audience,rural)“My transport options are limited to walking and public transport.The cost of taxis is unaffordable unless in an emergency situation.”(Deliberative participant,core audience,rural)When asked to think about their ideal transport system

235、,rural participants sought to address the major gaps and issues they identified.Suggestions for doing this included:Using smaller buses to provide more frequent,direct services-including to nearby urban centres.A shuttle bus service between the nearest train station and village centre to provide an

236、alternative to taxis when they are unavailable.Options for evening,night,and weekend services-particularly for links to nearby urban centres and transport links(e.g.train station).The creation of park-and-ride services to improve access to nearby cities and towns via train and coordinated bus servic

237、es.It was also considered important to make these improvements without impacting the beauty and rural feel of the local area.“If anything was possible,Id put a train near me that would go into Alnwick then it would be way easier.”(Deliberative participant,young person,rural)“Public transport needs t

238、o be faster;it needs to be more efficient,more regular,and more accessible.It would be nice if there was a shuttle bus to Alnmouth station.”(Deliberative participant,core audience,rural)“If there was a cheaper and more convenient public transport option I could use to commute to Newcastle,I would ta

239、ke it.”(Deliberative participant,core audience,rural)33 Urban Driving was the preferred option for all journey types except commuting,but particularly for longer journeys such as traveling outside of the city centre for work or leisure activities.However,when travelling into the city centre from a n

240、earby town or suburban area,there is a preference for taking public transport.This is due to the good public transport links in and out of the city centre,as well as broader barriers to driving such as congestion and the cost or capacity of car parks.Walking was also a favoured option in city centre

241、s.Journeys between suburban areas around the city were often harder and less direct making driving the preferred mode for these trips instead of travelling into the city centre and back out again on public transport.Taxis are rarely relied upon,but when they are used it is typically for leisure,incl

242、uding travelling home from the city centre at night.This is supported in the quantitative data,with broadly equal proportions of urban participants in the high exposure audience reporting driving compared to using non-driving alternatives(i.e.public transport or active travel)for most journeys.The o

243、nly exception to this was for commuting,for which non-driving options were preferred(61%compared to 40%who reported driving).Qualitatively,urban participants were broadly satisfied with public transport provision in their area.They have a variety of different modes to choose from,good service covera

244、ge,and a high frequency of service times.Especially for those who also drive,this allows them to pick and choose their preferred mode of transport for the journey they are making.When asked to think about improvements to their local transport system,almost two thirds of urban participants felt that

245、better public transport should be prioritised(65%),while three in five wanted to see reductions in the level of traffic and congestion prioritised(60%).Qualitatively,there were some gaps and inefficiencies in both the public transport provision and road networks in urban areas,with participants feel

246、ing that some adjustments could strengthen the overall local transport offer.These included:Lack of joined-up services,including different operators with unaligned service times and ticketing systems across the public transport network,and the lack of a card system for payment(such as an Oyster card

247、 in London).The high cost of public transport,particularly for longer journeys by train or tram,can prompt participants to consider cheaper alternatives even when public transport is their preference.Congestion,difficulty accessing parking,and high parking costs-especially when driving into the city

248、 centre.Services being more limited in the evenings and at night,making travel more difficult for both late shift work and leisure travel(e.g.for nightlife).Older and outdated infrastructure that could use improvements to make it more comfortable and accessible for a range of users,as well as to imp

249、rove reliability and overcrowding(e.g.improving the quality and cleanliness of vehicles for a more pleasurable experience,adding Wi-Fi,or building better lit,covered bus stops).Concerns about personal safety when travelling on public transport,including instances of harassment and antisocial behavio

250、ur.Cycles being prohibited on public transport services,creating barriers to using bikes as part of multi-modal journeys.34“The only thing that bothers me is the traffic,sometimes it takes 20 minutes to reach the city centre,rather than five minutes.”(Deliberative participant,core audience,urban)“I

251、used to get the metro to high school every day,it would be 7am there and back at 4pm and youd be pressed against the window.”(Deliberative participant,core audience,urban)“If theres a game at the Etihad,theres going to be delays and the trams will be packed.They give you a few days notice to say itl

252、l be busy and to allow for delays or whatever.”(Deliberative participant,low SEG,urban)“The rail service is appalling,the trains coming in from the west are 50-60 years old and you have two carriages,and they can be packed.”(Deliberative participant,core audience,urban)“You have different companies

253、running on the same route,and they might not take your ticket.”(Deliberative participant,core audience,urban)When asked to think about their ideal transport system,urban participants had a small number of suggestions for tweaks to further strengthen the current transport offer.These included:Introdu

254、cing an integrated ticketing system,with one ticket or card that works for all public transport options irrespective of the transport operator-to make travel easier and cheaper for users.Increasing late-night public transport services.Improving safety by adding more cameras,lights,and conductors on

255、buses,and ensuring bus stops have dedicated waiting areas that are well lit and under cover,making waiting safer and more comfortable.Reducing pollution in the city centre(e.g.introducing a low emission zone).Ensuring improvements to infrastructure and public transport are based on the needs of the

256、users,not the owners.“Manchester has all the networks,but theyre not connected well.Its not a system that is designed to work together.Its a patchwork.”(Deliberative participant,core audience,urban)“You have to pay for one and the other,whereas in London you dont have to pay when you swap.My bus pas

257、s has gone up in the past one and a half years,so I have to think about that now,how many buses Im going to get.”(Deliberative participant,low SEG,urban)“When its running right and on time,its great.Its when youre waiting an hour for a bus thats meant to show up every 10 minutes,and its chucking it

258、down and youre just stood there.”(Deliberative participant,low SEG,urban)“Air pollution is bad.Where kids need to cross the roads,they are being exposed to pollution.That is probably the biggest issue they could solve.”(Deliberative participant,core audience,urban)35 Town Driving was the preferred o

259、ption across all journey types other than commuting,for which public transport was still preferred;this was despite reports of declining public transport services.While transport was felt to be better in the centre of town,congestion and the lack of availability of parking put strain on drivers-cons

260、istent with pressures felt by drivers in urban centres.Participants were more reliant on driving the further from the town centre they lived,noting that public transport becomes logistically more difficult and expensive the further out you go-with those living in satellite villages and remote areas

261、reporting similar experiences to the rural participants in this research.In this sense,transport in towns represents a hybrid of experiences in urban and rural locations.This is supported in the quantitative data,with driving the most used mode of transport for participants in the town location acro

262、ss all journey types.Participants reported public transport services(primarily bus services)as being in decline in towns and likened access to public transport services as being like a lottery,with provision being different depending on where you live.Broadly speaking,this increases reliance on driv

263、ing and limits options for non-drivers,particularly those living in satellite villages.When asked what improvements to the local transport system should be prioritised,there was one clear priority with four in five participants in towns requesting better public transport(81%).Qualitatively,participa

264、nts wanted to see investment in public transport provision to avoid further,or even reverse,the reduction in services and to address gaps including:Decreasing service frequency and increasing likelihood of service cancellation or services simply not showing up,reportedly due to low availability of d

265、rivers.Services running at inconvenient times during the day and extremely limited services at night and on weekends.Indirect routes and poor connectivity between different services and modes of transport,including long wait times for connections.There is a desire for more joined up travel.High trav

266、el costs,especially in the context of decreasing frequency of services,making public transport less accessible and convenient.Whole bus routes being cancelled,leaving some villages without any public transport links to other nearby villages or town centres.“Sometimes if shopping in the town centre,d

267、ue to limited car parks,when I dont want to feel crammed Ill take the park and ride from the outskirts.”(Deliberative participant,core audience,town)“The thing is if you go by bus it goes to every little village in the area,so it takes forever to get where youre going so you have to be really patien

268、t.”(Deliberative participant,digitally disengaged,town)“The bus which takes me closest to home only arrives once at 8:10am and leaves my college at 4:45pm which means Im often doing nothing for hours on end waiting to go home.”(Deliberative participant,core audience,town)36 When asked to think about

269、 their ideal transport system,participants in towns had a clear focus on public transport improvements and decreasing the reliance on cars(particularly for travelling into the town centre).Suggestions included:Increasing the quantity,range,and reliability of public bus services,including using small

270、er buses.Provide evening,night,and weekend bus services.Reducing the cost of public transport.Reintroducing bus services that have recently been lost,to ensure all villages are connected into the town centre.Continuing to expand park-and-ride options to reduce traffic in the town centre.Pedestrianis

271、ing the town centre.“Public transport should be more affordable and reliable to encourage people to use the services.It should be less expensive than driving.”(Deliberative participant,core audience,town)“I would like to have cheaper,more reliable buses which connect better across the town and count

272、y.”(Deliberative participant,core audience,town)“For me,buses are the first place to start,because the skeleton of a bus service we have in Taunton,you wouldnt lose anything,its so unreliable and scant.”(Deliberative participant,disability,town)“I would like to see smaller buses so they can access s

273、ome of the smaller villages and get rid of the double-deckers that are always half empty.”(Deliberative participant,core audience,town)5.2 Section summary All locations Consistent with previous research,driving remains the most popular transport option for most,for both practical and emotional reaso

274、ns.When thinking about their ideal transport system,participants primarily sought to address existing gaps rather than wanting to radically overhaul transport in their local area.Improving public transport was seen as a top priority across all locations.Rural Car ownership was a necessity in the rur

275、al location as destinations tend to be far away from each other and public transport provision is limited.Non-drivers in the rural location used public transport because they had limited alternatives,but it was considered inefficient and difficult to rely on.Public transport in the rural area was co

276、nsidered to have major gaps and issues,including indirect and poorly linked services,services running(or not running)at inconvenient times,limited area of coverage,high costs,and limited availability of taxis.37 Urban Driving was preferred for all journeys except commuting,with public transport inst

277、ead preferred for travelling into the city centre at peak times.This was because of the large number of public transport options and services available,as well as the barriers to driving such as congestion,difficulty parking,and high cost of parking.Participants were broadly satisfied with the trans

278、port network in the urban area;however it was felt to have some small gaps and inefficiencies including a lack of joined up services,increasing costs,congestion and difficulty parking,services not running at night,outdated infrastructure,concerns about personal safety on public transport,and difficu

279、lty using bikes as part of multi-modal journeys.Town There was again a preference for driving for all journeys except commuting,for which public transport was preferred.Participants in the town location reported similar difficulties with driving in the town centre as those in larger urban areas.Howe

280、ver,in line with what was heard from those in the rural location,they also faced similar limitations in public transport provision in the rural fringe.Declining public transport provision was of concern in the town location,including reduced service frequency,increased likelihood of service cancella

281、tion,services running(or not running)at inconvenient times,indirect routes,high travel costs,and the removal of whole bus routes leaving some without any public transport links at all.38 Data from the national control survey,in combination with what is known from the wider transport literature,is us

282、ed as a baseline representing views of the UK public towards SDVs.This section of the report outlines these baseline views and compares them to the starting views of the low,medium,and high exposure audiences that took part in this research.This provides context for the views underpinning each audie

283、nces interactions with the research.It also allows us to understand the impact of taking part in the research on participants views by providing a baseline for comparison with data obtained at the end of the research(covered in Section 12 of this report).More detail on the quantitative approaches us

284、ed in this research can be found in section 14.3 Technical appendix.The full data tables are also provided as a supplement to this report.6.1 Views towards technology There is a strong correlation between positive attitudes towards science and technology,and positive attitudes towards SDVs(Tennant,S

285、tares,&Howard,2019).It is therefore important to understand baseline views towards science and technology to contextualise views towards SDVs in this research.When considering the innovation adoption curve,those identified as early adopters tend to be most open to new technology and feel comfortable

286、 trying it before it becomes normalised,while those identified as traditionalists are most resistant to new technology and prefer more traditional methods.Mainstream consumers sit in the middle,tending to adopt new technology once it has become regarded as normal or conventional.Early adopters are m

287、ost likely to hold positive attitudes towards science and technology,and therefore positive attitudes towards SDVs.However,in the national control sample,they make up only 16%of respondents.The majority(59%)were identified as mainstream consumers of technology,while a quarter(25%)were traditionalist

288、s.This moderate view of science and technology is also reflected in the technological optimism of the national control sample.Respondents were most likely to be positive about science and technology making our lives healthier,easier and more comfortable(57%agree),and relying on technology when their

289、 safety is involved(42%).However,almost three in five(58%)agreed that machines are taking over some of the roles that 6.Baseline views of SDVs 39 humans should have,demonstrating concern among the public about the role of automation in the future.Figure 6 Technological optimism among the national co

290、ntrol sample P7:For each of the following statements about science and technology please state whether you agree,disagree or neither agree nor disagree?Base:National control n=4027.Sub-group analysis Sub-group analysis of the national control sample indicates that those most likely to be technologic

291、ally optimistic also tend to be early adopters of technology.The typical profile includes men,younger people,those with higher incomes,those with higher education levels,and those living in urban areas.This is broadly consistent with previous research(Becker&Axhausen,2017)(Madigan,Louw,Wilbrink,Schi

292、eben,&Merat,2017).In the national control sample,these sub-groups were significantly more likely to hold positive views towards SDVs across most measures.Views by exposure audience Low exposure audience This audience had lower positivity towards technology than the national control sample,indicating

293、 that they would likely be less positive towards SDVs than the baseline.There was a higher proportion of traditionalists(43%compared to 25%of the national control);accordingly,this audience demonstrated lower proportions of mainstream consumers(49%compared to 59%of the national control)and early ado

294、pters(8%compared to 16%of the national control)(see 14.3 Technical appendix,note 3).Despite this,the average number of statements where respondents in the low exposure audience selected a view that was positive towards technology was similar to respondents to the national control survey(2.00 out of

295、6 compared to 2.04 out of 6 for the national control).While they were significantly more likely to agree that new technologies are 40 bringing people together(46%compared to 37%of the national control),they were also more likely to agree that new technologies are all about making profits rather than

296、 making peoples lives better(40%compared to 31%of the national control),that they are worried about where all this technology is leading(44%compared to 37%of the national control),and that machines are taking over some of the roles that humans should have(66%compared to 58%of the national control).H

297、igh exposure audience Attitudes towards technology were used as a screening question for recruitment into the deliberative research to ensure a spread of views were represented in the sample(see 14.3 Technical appendix,note 4).Despite this,the high exposure audience displayed comparatively higher le

298、vels of technological optimism than the national control sample,selecting a view that was positive towards technology on an average of 2.70 statements out of 6(compared to 2.04 out of 6 for the national control).They were significantly more likely than the national control sample to agree with posit

299、ive statements about technology,including that new technologies are bringing people together(55%compared to 37%of the national control)and that science and technology are making our lives healthier,easier and more comfortable overall(71%compared to 57%of the national control).Correspondingly,they we

300、re significantly less likely to agree with negative statements about technology-although almost half still agree that machines are taking over some of the roles that humans should have(49%),indicating that this is still a key concern for this audience despite being more technologically optimistic ov

301、erall.6.2 Awareness and knowledge of SDVs The wider transport literature suggests that awareness and understanding of SDV technology is mixed among the UK public.For example,recent research indicates that while awareness of SDVs is high,self-reported knowledge of them is low compared to other transp

302、ort technologies(Department for Transport,2023).Previous research has found that there are two distinct barriers to the public feeling that they understand SDV technology.First,limited understanding of how the technology works,making it challenging to conceptualise or engage with the topic;and secon

303、d,limited familiarity with the technology makes it challenging to conceptualise using SDVs in real life(Department for Transport,2021).Consistent with the literature,we found that while nearly all of the high exposure audience(99%)had heard of SDVs,more than half(51%)reported that they knew nothing

304、about them while around a third(36%)knew just a little.41 Figure 7 Self-reported knowledge of SDVs among the high exposure audience,pre-deliberative research A1:How much would you say you know about self-driving vehicles?Base:High exposure audience(all locations):pre-deliberative research n=226.Furt

305、hermore,our national control sample showed that while almost two thirds of respondents reported having talked with other people about SDVs in the past(64%),few had seen an SDV as part of a trial in the UK(13%)or trialled one themselves(6%).In line with the barriers stated above,this indicates that a

306、 lack of first-hand experience with SDVs could be contributing to low reported understanding of the technology.Figure 8 Engagement with SDVs among the national control sample B2:Before today,how often have you done the following?Talked with other people about self-driving vehicles,Seen a self-drivin

307、g vehicle as part of a trial in the UK,Used a self-driving vehicle as part of a trial in the UK Base:National control n=4027.42 Despite the high proportions of the national control sample who reported discussing SDVs with others,there were similarly high proportions who incorrectly identified the re

308、sponsibilities of users of SDVs and what SDVs can currently legally do in the UK.This demonstrates a low understanding of the technology in line with the literature.Just 29%of the national control sample correctly identified that they are not responsible for how an SDV drives as a public transport p

309、assenger(Figure 9,Option 1).Fewer still(16%)correctly identified that users of private SDVs are not responsible for the behaviour of the vehicle when the self-driving mode is on and that during this time they are allowed to perform some other activities,but cannot use a mobile phone and must be fit

310、to drive throughout the journey if needed(Figure 9,Option 3).This is in contrast to almost half the sample(48%)who incorrectly thought that users of private SDVs are always responsible and are not allowed to perform other activities or use their mobile phone and must be fit to drive(Figure 9,Option

311、5).Figure 9 Understanding of the responsibilities of an SDVs user among the national control sample A2:For each of the following paragraphs which do you think accurately describe the responsibility that a driver would have in a self-driving vehicle?Please tell me as many as you think apply.Base:Nati

312、onal control n=4027.In relation to what vehicles can currently legally do in the UK,slightly more than half(54%)of the national control sample correctly identified that vehicles can support a human driver but they remain in full control of the driving task,while slightly less than half(48%)correctly

313、 identified that vehicles cannot legally drive themselves without any input from a human driver.There was low incidence of participants having inaccurate understanding in relation to each of these statements,with most of the remaining participants instead being unsure.By contrast,half of respondents

314、 in the national control sample(50%)were unsure whether a vehicle can currently legally drive itself within a limited and pre-determined area with oversight from a human driver in the UK.The remaining half were almost evenly split between thinking this is currently legal(26%)and illegal(24%),indicat

315、ing that this is an area in which further clarification is required for the public.43 Interestingly,early adopters were more likely than average to incorrectly state that vehicles can legally drive themselves without any input from or the need for a human driver(12%compared to 5%on average)and were

316、more likely than average to incorrectly state that vehicles can currently legally drive themselves within a limited and pre-determined area with oversight from a human driver(36%compared to 26%on average).This demonstrates that higher levels of positivity towards technology do not necessarily lead t

317、o higher levels of accurate understanding of SDVs.Figure 10 Perceptions of what a vehicle can legally do in the UK at the moment among the national control sample A3:For each of the following statements,please tell me whether you think a vehicle can legally do this in the UK at the moment.Please jus

318、t answer to the best of your knowledge.Drive itself without any input from a human driver or the need for a human driver,Drive itself within a limited and pre-determined area(e.g.on the motorway up to a certain speed)with oversight from a human driver,Support a driver by providing steering,braking o

319、r acceleration assistance but the human driver remains in full control of the driving task,(e.g.cruise control,automated emergency braking)(AEB).Base:National control n=4027.Views by exposure audience Low exposure audience When identifying the responsibilities that a person would have if using an SD

320、V today,the low exposure audience gave mixed responses,indicating a lack of accurate understanding(see 14.3 Technical appendix,note 5).They were highly likely to select multiple options as being correct and were unlikely to indicate that none of the options were correct(5%answering Im not sure if an

321、y do compared to 24%of the national control).Therefore,while they were more likely to identify the correct responsibilities,they were also more likely to identify incorrect responsibilities.44 Figure 11 Understanding of the responsibilities of an SDVs user among the low exposure audience(pre-trial l

322、ocal polling)and national control sample A2:For each of the following paragraphs which do you think accurately describe the responsibility that a driver would have in a self-driving vehicle?Please tell me as many as you think apply.Base:Low exposure audience(all locations)pre-trial local polling n=7

323、50;National control n=4027.The low exposure audience were also less likely than the national control sample to report that they were not sure about what vehicles can currently legally do in the UK(see 14.3 Technical appendix,note 5).This meant that while there was a large proportion who correctly in

324、dicated that vehicles can support a human driver but they remain in full control of the driving task(74%compared to 54%of the national control)and vehicles cannot legally drive themselves without any input from a human driver(68%compared to 48%of the national control),there was also a high proportio

325、n of respondents selecting the incorrect answer.Like the national control sample,responses were mixed concerning the legality of a vehicle driving itself within a limited and pre-determined area with oversight from a human driver.High exposure audience This audience were more likely to have talked w

326、ith other people about SDVs prior to the research(71%compared to 64%of the national control),demonstrating potentially higher levels of engagement with SDVs than average for the UK public.However,they were very unlikely to have seen an SDV trial in the UK(4%compared to 13%of the national control)or

327、have trialled an SDV(1%compared to 6%of the national control).While the high exposure audience had higher levels of accurate knowledge of SDVs compared to the national control sample,their accuracy was still relatively low.Only 39%correctly identified that they are not responsible for how an SDV dri

328、ves as a public transport passenger(compared to 29%of the national control),while 29%correctly identified that users of private SDVs are not responsible for the behaviour of the vehicle when self-driving mode is on and that during this time they are allowed to perform other activities,but cannot use

329、 a mobile phone and must be fit to drive throughout the journey if 45 needed(compared to 16%of the national control).In comparison,53%(incorrectly)indicated that users of private SDVs are always responsible for the vehicles behaviour(compared to 48%of the national control).Figure 12 Understanding of

330、 the responsibilities of an SDVs user among the high exposure audience(pre-deliberative research)and the national control sample A2:For each of the following paragraphs which do you think accurately describe the responsibility that a driver would have in a self-driving vehicle?Please tell me as many

331、 as you think apply.Base:High exposure audience(all locations)pre-deliberative research n=226;National control n=4027.The high exposure audience were significantly more likely than the national control sample to correctly identify that vehicles can support a human driver but they remain in full cont

332、rol of the driving task(73%compared to 54%of the national control),and that vehicles cannot legally drive themselves without any input from a human driver(59%compared to 48%of the national control).However,like the national control sample,responses were mixed concerning the legality of a vehicle dri

333、ving itself within a limited and pre-determined area with oversight from a human driver.6.3 Perceptions of SDVs Levels of comfort with the idea of using an SDV are relatively low in the literature,with two thirds(66%)of people feeling uncomfortable with the idea of travelling in an SDV(Institution of Mechanical Engineers,2019)and more than half(55%)of people stating they would not feel comfortable